User talk:Ghmyrtle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nationalism in the UK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Article title mistake[edit]

I recently created an article called Euphorics Id; however, it needs to be called Euphoria's Id. I'm limited by my use of an iPhone so I do not have the ability to move the article. If you have spare time, could you switch it for me? Help us greatly appreciated as always.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No prob. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ancestors and likelihood[edit]

Hi. For what it's worth, "ancestor" is actually a fairly standard term in this context. For example, Proto-Germanic is the ancestor of English, Dutch, Swedish, German etc., and they are its descendants. Similarly, Welsh is a descendant of Brythonic dialects. The term "predecessor" is OK, but more ambiguous. Brythonic is also a predecessor of English in Britain, for example, though obviously not its ancestor. I take your point about "likely". In practice, we actually don't know for sure that they were spoken well before Caesar's arrival, but it is so likely that stating it as bald fact is hardly misleading. Garik (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I take your point about the clear difference in meaning between "ancestor" and "predecessor". I still find "ancestor" an odd word to use in the context - unless it is the term used in academic sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
It is: [1], [2], [3], . In fact I'm surprised to learn you find it odd. Garik (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've changed it back. Just put it down to ignorance on my part. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I salute your readiness to admit ignorance — I'm frequently surprised by what I discover I don't know. Have a nice day! Garik (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle and Garik, you've both overlooked the fact that the nomenclature is "ancestor language", not a living entity passing on its DNA. I've fixed the relevant passage to reflect this. Mind you, dependent on the situation, precursor language may be more apt. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, I'm afraid I disagree with your point. It's entirely normal and standard to refer to an "ancestor" of Welsh (or any other language). "Ancestor language" is fine, but it's simply not the case that that's somehow more correct in this context than "ancestor" alone; nor (as the foregoing implies) is it the case that "ancestor" alone necessarily implies a biological entity with DNA. Garik (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
See, for example: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and so on. (Several of the examples concern ancestors of specific linguistic constructions, rather than of the language as a whole, but that's really more grist to the mill.) Garik (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for the tardy response, Garik. Agreed. Once you'd reverted it to the simpler 'ancestor' version it hit me (as in Facepalm3.svg Facepalm) that further elaboration was unnecessarily convoluted. 'Precursor' language seems to be a valid alternative but, as 'ancestor' is being used for other articles, I'd prefer parity of usage across the board. A pleasure to meet you both, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"One Monkey Don't Stop No Show"[edit]

Now I ain't monkeying around here, but there seems to be some confusion over authorship of this song. I am assuming it is the same song !? For example, Stick McGhee in one source, Joe Tex in another, General Johnson and Greg Perry have dibs on it in another, A. Johnson, R. Cobb making a claim here. Big Maybelle's version has songwriting credits given to Singleton/Stapleton, McCoy ? I am half tempted to say I wrote the damn thing ! Any thoughts ?

Also can you verify from your venerable book, or otherwise, the R&B chart position claims for the various versions given in the article ?

No rush - I am travelling down to The Oval tomorrow on the train. I will be away until... when I get back home again.


Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting.... I shall investigate. Whitburn has the Joe Tex and Honey Cone songs as different songs, for a start, but further research is clearly required.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
PS: I've made a modest attempt at improvement, but finding good sources is a problem. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. I bet it sent you ape. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hereford page[edit]

Why do you keep changing the Media info on the hereford page. Do you live in Hereford, and know anything about hereford. please leave the info about the admag in as we are a big part of Hereford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobydog12345 (talkcontribs) 18:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


While you say, i Quote "You are removing relevant information about an established newspaper, and replacing it with information about a commercial advertising venture of no apparent notability" I do believe you have never seen an admag, we have free editorial and news have been established since 1978, promote a lot of charities and donate to a lot of good causes in Hereford. We have over 300 local Business's who do use our paper, and for them to hear you say "We have No apparent notability" is quite frankly insulting. Sunshine radio and free radio only survive by advertising. (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that none of that is relevant. We only publish material that is notable and independently verifiable. We are an encyclopedia. No insult was intended, but we have clear guidance on what content is sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned, and local commercial advertising journals are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

big jay[edit]

hello - why is this poorly sourced? everybody knows the collaboration of big jay and detroit gary wiggins and the source ist the venue where this concert happens - if you google both names you finde videos and tours, flyers and posters about their collaboration - even on the website of "the blues hall of fame" there is their video where they play together - on big jays OWN WEBSITE is the videos - so the "poor" source is the article that is mentioned now, as THIS article fortgot to mention this collaboration. so the archiv of quasimodo is a PROOF they played that night!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaniekoenig (talkcontribs) 12:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:RS. The tag relates to the entire article, not only the part that you changed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge[edit]

I presume you have heard about The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 16:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Additions to Regions section in G.R.[edit]

I made some additions to the Regional scenes section in the Garage rock article. I superimposed all of the new text from California on down--due to the complexity of the edits, it was the best way--I'm sure you'll understand. You can see my Sandbox #1 for edit history. I made improvements in the pre-existing sections. In some cases I moved acts who had previously been in certain paragraphs to new places. For instance, I moved the Spiders from the California section down to where the Southwest bands are now located. So, everything is still there that was there before, but in some cases has been moved. I changed the names of some of the sub-sections to cohere with the new text. I hope that you will like the additions. I think that finally, at last, the article reflects the broad geographical spectrum and diversity. We now have a lot of mentions from the South and other regions that were previously lacking. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I just converted the book citations into Harvard Style (I left the McFarland citations in the Australian section the same as they were, because of they have helpful web. links). I've attempted to get all of the book sources into the Bibliography--hopefully they're all there now. I was thinking that we could add a few biographical details about some of the Freakbeat groups. I meant to do that last year, but I have to admit that by the time I got to the British section, I was out of gas and beginning to rush a bit--the whole thing seemed so overwhelming then. But, now that there is some time, we could go back add a few tidbits about some of the Freakbeat songs and band biographies. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Victor Talking Machine Company edits and reversions[edit]

Do you really not see that the little-known names of the conductors of the small orchestras accompanying Caruso, or the matrix number of an early puzzle record and other such minutiae, although they might be perfectly appropriate and valuable information in a book-length history of Victor, are a grossly disproportionate level of detail in a six-paragraph summary of the company's first twenty-five years? The average reader of this article is likely to be only dimly aware of who Caruso was, let alone interested in the names of Victor's faceless house musicians. Such tangential details will only succeed in providing "WTF?" moments for all but the most phono-geeky readers. They stop the narrative dead in its tracks. IIRC, you reverted a similar attempt to excise some of this disruptive detail a few years ago, and IMO you are therefore effectively obstructing the improvement of the article. All sorts of things can be called "encyclopedic", but that does not mean they should be shoehorned into every article to which they have some connection. I suppose at some point this will have to be hashed out on the article's talk page; I have little doubt what the consensus will be. (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss it on the article talk page, not here. But I don't see why your opinion on what is encyclopedic content should outweigh mine, or anyone else's. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have copied my comments above to the article's talk page and invited discussion. A resolution of this impasse is long overdue. Regarding your last comment, it is a two-way street: why should my opinion carry any less weight than yours, or anyone else's? As noted somewhere in the pages of the Corpus Juris Wikipedium, just because something can be included in Wikipedia ("encyclopedic content") does not mean that it should be included. (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

The PENISS Prize[edit]

Our motto: "It's only hard if you make it hard"

The PENISS Prize
On behalf of the People Encouraging Niceness (and/or Eschewing Nastiness) In Society Society, I hereby award you the PENISS Prize.

The prize is the highest (and sole) honour in the gift of the Society and is awarded irregularly, on merit. It entitles the awardee to the postnominal letters P.E.N.I.S.S. (in appropriate contexts, of course).

It confers automatic membership of the Society, and it thus bestows the power to award the prize to others*, and they to others, in perpetuity.

Remember, the more PENISSes in the world, the better for all of us. What a nice thought. Please continue your good work!

* To present this award to others, simply type {{subst:User:JackofOz/PENISS}} on their talk page, and then sign and date your post.

Well deserved, boyo. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Blow me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (On second thoughts......)

Allan Barnes[edit]

His Wiki article gives his age at death as 66, but the obituary reference you posted on the Deaths in 2016 page stated 67. Apart from the obvious that both can not be correct, have you any thoughts ? Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I know. My guess is that the website saw his birth year as 1949 and worked out his age as 67 on that basis, but I'm AGFing on the September birth date. I was hoping that no-one would notice the discrepancy until it resolved itself, but someone already has - as well as you. Drat. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

Wrecking Crew[edit]

I added some new sub-sections on the various groupings of musicians in the Wrecking Crew article. I changed the name of the Post 60s section to Post Wrecking Crew (because their story really doesn't end until about 1975/1976) and took some text about stuff in the 70s, which had earlier been up in the Musicians section, and moved it down into Post Wrecking Crew where it is now in more logical sequence. I'm sure that you will like the new changes. But, there might be a couple of little things to tidy up, so you may like to take a look. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


Category:American DJs is a subcategory of Category:American musicians by instrument, not Category:American radio personalities, and the parent category Category:DJs is a subcategory of Category:DJing (which, in turn, is a subcategory of Category:Electronic musicians) and Category:Dance musicians, not of Category:Radio personalities. There doesn't have to have been a discussion to decide on the scope of a category that's already defined itself as having a particular scope. Bearcat (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, but there is now clearly a need to create a new Category:American radio DJs for the ones you are removing. Are you going to do that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This need "exists" because, what, Category:American radio personalities isn't adequate? Bearcat (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought so. "Radio personalities" surely covers a much wider variety of roles than people who simply played records - news journalists, sports commentators, etc. etc.. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I've now recategorised all those affected by Bearcat's changes as Category:American radio DJs, as a subset of Category:American radio personalities. Hopefully without too much collateral damage. .... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

The sound of silence[edit]

No, not the Simon and Garfunkel song, but it has gone quiet. No arguments over Jonathan King's article for over a week. Maybe, just maybe, we are doing something right.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I continue to be astounded at the amount of interest that article generates - not only from those "closely associated" with him, but others as well. I'd still like to get rid of at least one of the almost identical and redundant 1969 photos of him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
PS: You may have spoken too soon..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)