Talk:Living Next Door to Alice

The Plot section is typical Wikipedia cringeworthy.

The current (5th March, 2008) version of the article gives the impression that the "nineties revival" of the song began with Gompie's 1995 version. This contradicts information given at Discogs: Smokie - "Who The F**k Is Alice?" - CD/maxi single - catalog# CD WAG 243 - released 1993. The Discogs info is backed up by sleeve and disk scans.

http://www.discogs.com/release/853442

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=853442

The song seems to have a complicated history that requires thorough research to avoid spreading misconceptions. – Jippe (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong Jippe!! They recorded it in '95 with Chubby Brown and without him --Bad News Live 1982-87 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Do you think the "® 1993 WAG RECORDS" text on the CD sleeve is simply a misprint, then? (As a side note, using the "®" registered trademark symbol instead of the "℗" sound recording copyright symbol seems misplaced anyway.) – Jippe (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

At the end of that section ("Lyrical content") it says that the songwriters named "Sylvia's Mother" by Dr Hook as an inspiration for the song. That's dead right; the song is so influenced by Dr Hook (not leasr Smokie's vocal arrangement, the lyrics and the heartbreak parody element) that I used to think it was actually written by Shel Silverstein. :) 188.150.64.57 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Unless you can find independent reliable sources that include such information (e.g. minor details about the Gompie version), then it should not be added in the article, as it's original research otherwise. Also there is no need for so much intricate detail to be added, it just looks like fancruft. Rapido (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find it is sourced. If you obtain copies of the said CDs, the track listing can be found there. I also find it interesting to see how you actually made a slight edit to the track listing, by replacing the swear word in the title with "f**k". How did you know that's how it was? Maybe you've seen it too, thus proving my point entirely. --Cexycy (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about the IP editor, they changed it without any sourcing, and also did so on another article. Rapido (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, it said that you had done it. Anyway as I was saying, I added the tracklisting of a CD that was released. Anyone can check it. Therefore it IS sourced. --Cexycy (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you to stop reverting, as your edit contains editorialising, opinion, uncited information, and even contains a lot of fancruft that isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. For the tracklisting, please provide a source. Rapido (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you to stop being to nasty and condecending, you feel the need to mess with anything I have ever done and it's very distaseful. There are many articles of this nature with track listings. Are you going to hound them as well? As for Funcruft, I don't actually like this song, I am only providing information. The Wikipedia article on Funcruft actually states that accusing people of it can be seen as quite demeaning, which is what you are doing. And just for the record, I am not letting my facination cloud things, I'm just being truthful. --Cexycy (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please desist from assuming bad faith, I am not being nasty and condescending. And I have no idea why you think I am picking on you, however many of your edits have either needed reverting or improving. Someone might say you are taking offence at my edits, just because they are my edits; after all, you haven't taken offence at the removal of your uncited content at Special information tones, and your comment to the reverting editor was much more positive in tone [1]. Rapido (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me see, where do I begin? Why do I think you are picking on me? Well you must have AFD'd at least 7 articles which I created and made yourself look a little silly in the process. Sure you got some deleted but most of them stayed. It has come to a point now where I'm scared to try and create an article because you will just come along and slap an AFD nomination on it! I'm not saying my information is the best and it must stay, but why is it whenever I get involved in an article you are always there trying to undo it? Very few of my edits need reverting, that's just your opinion. As for the SIT article, I am going to discuss the Special information tones with the editor as soon as I get the chance to, which I'm sure you will eagerly wait for. I'm not too offended with their revert as this is the first time they have done it, not the millionth like you. Why are you looking at everything I do anyway? And if you were paying attention you would see it is not a full revert as some of it is still there. As for the track listing in question, Wikipedia promotes GOOD faith, also it is possible to verify the track listing anyway, so anyone can verify what I have put in. Your use of the word Funcruft does not do you any favours either. How do my edits contain editorialising and opinion?

Read your edits, and if you cannot see the original research and opinion, then you should really go over the relevant policies and guidelines. Any articles I nominated for AFD were because I thought the subjects of each article were clearly not notable. Including a pirate radio station where I could not find any reference to the station online - anywhere. And "go to Birmingham and turn your radio on" is not a reliable source. I nominated other articles, not just ones you created, and I certainly didn't make myself look silly! But thanks for your concern. Rapido (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read them thanks. I done them. I don't think the track listings are as such, I KNOW! I used to own it, just like everyone else who bought it, and I've heard it too. I have not expressed such opinions in the article. I added references to my articles on pirate radio stations, which is why one of them was kept. If I found them, why couldn't you? I know you nominated articles that other people created and you got a few upset messages from them too! And as for nominating articles on EAV albums, where do you want me to start? The band is clearly notable, having been in the business for over 30 years and making several albums. The articles have links to support the information contained and you're saying you did not look silly? Some of my articles maybe should have been deleted, but not all of them! And as for the track listing in question, if it can be verified (ie by someone looking at the single), how is it not referenced? As I said before, you seem to keep looking at my work and trying to undo it and mostly for unjust (or should I say unsourced) reasons and this is why people don't agree with you in your arguements. People like you take the fun out of helping on Wikipedia. --Cexycy (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay boys, you need to stop disruption by edit warring. I've read the comments, and essentially I think rapido is more likely to be correct in that we would like to see a source from an reliable third party source to confirm the track listing and details. Essentially, even with such a source (which I couldn't find by doing a brief google search), the information is slightly trivial for inclusion anyhow. I say come up with suitable wording without the detailed track listing and move on. We can't have anymore revert wars, and I don't wish to see anyone blocked. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm not unreasonable and I believe if I make a bad addition to Wikipedia, people should be allowed to change it. However, I have asked a simple question which has yet to be answered, if a CD can be obtained and the track listing read, how is this not verification? Don't forget some websites can contain incorrect information anyway. You also claim the information is trivial for inclusion, I disagree. There are many articles of this nature with such information contained and it certainly is not doing any harm. Another thing I'd like you to bear in mind is that user Rapido appears to be looking at EVERYTHING I do and trying to undo EVERY part of it. He (or she) has AFD'd a few articles which I have started and does not appear to have looked into them property (regardless of what he or she might say), this is why very few of them were successful. If Rapido does not like my articles, he or she is free to ignore them, or at least message me explaining what is displeasing about them. By looking at Rapido's own talk page, it would appear that I am not the only one to receive such treatment. Rapido then tried to turn this round to me saying that I could be seen as victimising him (or her) as I am not like this with other people's edits! Well no-one else has undone or AFD'd as much of my own work as him or her. How would you feel about someone always on your case like that? As I mentioned in my own personal page (one which Rapido has not even been bothered to try and do) I am a married man with a child. I also work full time so I do not have much time to add things to Wikipedia. Therefore having someone like Rapido constatntly undoing all my work, is even more annoying. --Cexycy (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, Cexycy seems to be taking issue that I nominated various articles he started for deletion, all of which I believe were on non-notable subjects. Indeed many were kept as they were judged by people in the AFD discussion to be notable, or sources were found, however the rest were deleted. However these AFDs are not relevant to this article or his edits of this article. Contrary to his assertions, I do not follow his edits and undo them! Also, what's Rapido has not even been bothered to try and do [a personal page] about? What, is Wikipedia now a social networking site? Who cares that I don't feel it necessary to show off userboxes or whatever. Can someone point out the rule that says I must have a personal page? I come here for improving an encyclopaedia, not proving myself. Rapido (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How can you believe EAV albums were non-notable, if you read the material on the band and the albums? If you do not follow my edits and undo them, why are you always there when I do them? You always seem to know everything I have done recently. You AFD'd two EAV album articles shortly after I last edited them, even they had been there for some time before. Why has it even taken you so long to argue against what I said about following my work and undoing it? I feel it helps to have a little info on a user page so people know a little about you. It does not have to be well detailed or anything, just basic info like if you are a man or a woman so people can address you correctly for a start. If you want to improve Wikipedia, it may be a good idea to allow others to add information because if you treat them like you treat me (and I know I'm not the only one) people will feel more inclined to give their help. Anyway, the AFD's may not be relevant to this discussion, but then again, neither is the Special Information Tones article, but you mentioned that! I have asked you a simple question regarding referencing and you have yet to answer. I'm getting sick of asking again so I won't. I do not wish to sound arguementative but you must see how this all looks from my side. --Cexycy (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have noted your recent edits. Firstly, see WP:ENGVAR regarding changing 'neighbor' to 'neighbour'. Secondly, most of what you have reinstated is still unreferenced. E.g. what is the reference to this, apart from what I understand is your own analysis from listening to the record:

The "Radio Laugh Version" is basically a gap where the swearing was with a laugh placed to fill into the gap. The idea being to make it sound like the swearing cannot be heard because of the laughter, however it is not a very convincing effect. The "Original XXX Version" is basically the track uncensored with no bleeps or laughing, however it does not contain any special additional adult content as the title may suggest.

Please let me know what changes you have made since the previous edits several weeks ago, apart from adding the record catalogue numbers. Rapido (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I added the catalogue nubmers and I also added a couple of weblinks to support what I have added. I could not find the catalogue number for the white cover Gompie single edition so I did not reinstate the track listing there, but everything I did reinstate contains valid references. You should have seen all this before you reverted the edit, or were you not paying attention? --Cexycy (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have come here in response to a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. I had never before even heard of "Living Next Door To Alice", so I had no preconceptions about it. I have now not only heard of the song, but also heard the song, and I am quite grateful: I liked it. Naturally I do not intend my liking the song to affect my comments on the editing dispute.

In an edit summary on 31 December 2009, Cexycy wrote "Please use the discussion part of this article if you have any issues with the information I've added and see what others think". Unfortunately only one other user (NJA) has so far expressed an opinion on this page, so Cexycy's reasonable request to "see what others think" has not, so far, produced much effect. However, I shall try to help carry out Cexycy's wishes in this respect. Firstly, the trivial issue of spelling neighbours/neighbors. My main feeling here is "why does anyone care enough to fight over this?" and I suggest that both editors concerned may like to step back, and think "Have I got this out of proportion? If so have I also got the rest of this dispute out of proportion too? Would it help for me to consider whether I am too much emotionally involved in this dispute?" Having said that I think the issue is too trivial to get worked up about, I shall say that to me, both on the basis of my own thoughts and on the basis of reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, it seems that, since the song and band are of mixed British/Australian origin, the most natural thing to do is to use the spelling usual in Britain and Australia, and that insisting on the American spelling is inappropriate. In fact the only part of the guideline that I can see could possibly construed as supporting "neighbor" is the subsection Retaining the existing variety. However, even this subsection says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic". Of course we could discuss what is a "strong" national tie, but to me the spelling which fits the background of the song seems most appropriate. However, as I have already said, this is a trivial issue, and I shall move on.

On other issues I have to say that I think Rapido's criticisms of Cexycy's edits are largely justified. Incorporating every minor detail in an encyclopedia article is not particularly helpful, quite apart from the question of sources and verifiability. It is important to remember that, even if information is supported by perfectly reliable and verifiable sources, we need to consider notability, and trivial details are often non-notable. The fact that a fact is mentioned somewhere (eg on a CD track listing) does not automatically confer notability. The accusations of bad faith and stalking are not really relevant to this discussion, but since they have been raised I shall deal with them briefly. If I find an editor who, in my opinion, is making unhelpful edits, then very often I will check that editor's edit history to see whether there are further problems. Very often I do indeed find further problems. This seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. Stalking or hounding is a different matter: this happens when an editor pursues another editor out of malice, very probably as revenge for some perceived wrong. It is not always possible to tell whether a particular editor's intentions are good or bad, but it is usually possible to get an impression by looking at their edit history. I have spent a considerable time looking at edit histories and old AfD discussions, and I can see no reason not to accept Rapido's good faith. It is also worth mentioning that I have rarely seen one editor who has created so many articles which have been proposed for deletion (by whichever deletion method) by so many different editors. Even if it is true that Rapido has made more deletion proposals than any other individual (I have not counted) Cexycy might like to consider why it is that so many of their creations look to at least some other editors as worthy of deletion.

Cexycy asked to see on this page what others thought, as I have already mentioned. When NJA gave an opinion, however, Cexycy simply politely dismissed it. Likewise when Cexycy was blocked he/she objected by claiming unfair treatment and malicious persecution, rather than trying to address the issues raised by others. EdJohnston has posted a message to Cexycy's talk page saying "You've been repeatedly restoring a long section containing many items that look like WP:Original research. You continue to reinsert this even though no editors support it". NJA very politely suggested that Cexycy was mistaken. So did EdJohnston. So do I. Cexycy asked to see what others thought, and has now done so. I hope that he/she can accept consensus and move on. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Alas, despite asking to see what others thought, Cexycy has again decided to ignore consensus, and has again reverted to a version which has no support from anyone else. Is this a case of "can I please see what others think, so that if they agree with me then I can use it in support of my position, but if not I can ignore it"? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is no such thing. All I was saying was that the information I provided was referenced and Rapido ignored it and complained it was not. I honestly believed that if information was relevant to the article and it could be supported, it could be included. IF it is unsuitable I guess it would have to go, but I really can not see how this could be in this case. Many articles on music releases feature a track listing. There is nothing wrong with that, it is additional information. As for your question as to why one user would keep nominating articles for deletion, it certainly could not have been for their own merits (or lack of them) as a few people supported them in the discussion. --Cexycy (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

References

I have enclosed catalogue numbers for the CDs released, so this should serve as valid referencing. --Cexycy (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see your edits. Most of the material is still uncited and original research. Rapido (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It bewilders me how anyone who has read the above discussion can possibly think that giving CD catalogue numbers constitutes providing adequate sources. A CD listing is not an independent source, and it is not evidence of notability. Has Cexycy actually read the guidelines on notability? Besides, the material added goes way beyond what the source will contain. For example, "This track contains very strong language, even moreso than tracks 2 and 3 and it can be confusing as there is nothing on the sleeve notes to distinguish it from track 2". Are we to believe that that is contained in the catalogue entry, or in the CD itself? Of course not: it is original research, and an expression of the editor's judgement. To claim that all of the material is sourced by giving CD catalogue numbers is absurd. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not true. By consulting the appropriate libraries, it is possible to obtain a copy and hear the contents. The material that I have tried to put into this article can be listened to and therefore support what I have been trying to add. Besides which I did actually add a couple of websites which verified the track listing on two editions of the single, yet again it appears to have been disregarded. --Cexycy (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the melody is "The song's melody is close to that in the Polynesian (Maori) song Whakarongo Ake Au"? It doesnt't sound even remotely similar to me!

I have now removed it, no idea where someone got that idea from 0o0o0ok (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Translations

There are at least two German versions by Guildo Horn and the Orthopedic Socks. One has the lyrics in German but the shout ("Who the **** is Alice?") in English. Another is entirely in German with the shout softened to "Wer verdammt ist Alice?" ("Who in hell is Alice?").76.247.165.173 (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I found another related version by Die Stoakogler called "Bier um Bier bis Hell is". The melody is the same but the lyrics are completely different. (See http://www.golyr.de/die-stoakogler/songtext-bier-um-bier-bis-hell-is-611880.html) Several Youtube videos of live performances of this song are readily available but since I don't know your editing / original research rules, I have not included any links here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.80.191 (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've translated this page into the german language? How the song titel is correct written? Living Next Door To Alice?--Glühbirne26394 (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)