User talk:JG66/Talk archive/2018

Track elements from "Love"

Hi. I saw you undo my work on track elements in "Love". Yes, the elements I added have no solid source. However, many others, like "The Fool on the Hill" and "Girl", don't have a solid source either. These elements I added are carefully checked and compare with original multitrack stems. There is no way it can be wrong.

I'm sorry but it's wrong in every way, per WP:OR and WP:RS. I've commented at Talk:Love (Beatles album). Let's keep the discussion there, so that it's on the record for other editors to see. JG66 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Back to the Egg

I half expected this revert. That 'fansite' includes allurable quotes from other books on McCartney some of which I have. No offense taken. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar award

		The Music Barnstar
		Just a token Barnstar in appreciation of your tireless, continuous efforts on music-related articles upon Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Kez. Kieronoldham (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Kieronoldham, that's mighty kind of you. It's always nice to be working away and get a surprise compliment like this – thank you so much! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

JG66. You're welcome.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting a couple of my little typos (I forgot to click on the little red spellchecker) in the Beatles article. What gave me the idea for adding the material about the Beatles' position on segregation was watching the DVD documentary Eight Days a Week, directed by Ron Howard. If you haven't seen it yet, it's a must-see. I had never realized that the Beatles took such bold stand, and am now surprised that so little was said about it for so long. But, what struck me about the film was the way it makes their civil rights stand its core emphasis. So, I'm glad that the film has not only made more people aware of this, but has highlighted it as a central part of their legacy, and I think that there is a growing awareness about that enough to now justify a section in the article. I want to go in there at some point and add mention of a few things in the film such as how the Gator Bowl never again had a segregated audience (the Beatles' stand effectively de-segregated the stadium) and that their position on integration resonated throughout their whole US tour in 1964, not just there. I'd like to see what printed sources and web articles are out there confirm this. I'd imagine that since this is the Beatles article, people would want to see textual sources, not something off of a DVD, but I could be wrong. By the way, I like the way you re-instated some of the Gould info about Dylan and the Beatles—I can't believe that someone took it out—the statements on Dylan and the Beatles once again make sense. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Garagepunk66, you're welcome. And you're dead right that the Beatles' stand against audience (if not US societal) segregation was a big deal, so I was pleased to see you introduce the point. I know Howard's Eight Days very well. Here on Wikipedia, I don't think the absence of decent coverage is reflective of the segregation issue being little known, just that editors haven't given it the attention it deserves. The same goes for articles such as Haight-Ashbury and Summer of Love: the Beatles' presence there is limited or nonexistent, when in fact, as many sources have it, the the band's arrival in 1964 triggered the whole process that initiated the US counterculture and especially, in the case of records like Rubber Soul, the mass congregation in Haight-Ashbury from late '65 onwards. By "many sources", I'm talking about books on the Haight and 1967 generally, as much as I am Beatles biographies. Always mean to add something at the two articles. (Oh, and that past removal of the second half of Gould's point about Dylan and the Beatles: yeah … it was made by a user who excels in such behaviour here, I've found, unless the point's to the benefit of the Beach Boys.)

Regarding the US South de-segregation issue, I've got an article in one of the Beatles Mojo Specials that might be useful. It quotes Smokey Robinson on how grateful black contemporary musicians were for the Beatles' stand, and for their championing of black r'n'b and Motown artists, etc. Might I suggest that, while you're right that more could and should be said on this, it probably belongs in Cultural impact of the Beatles? That article's missing so much anyway (and I've had a battle there also regarding Beach Boys syndrome), such as the Beatles' impact regarding postwar sociological developments in the UK, bringing to the mainstream and representing their generation's exploration of Indian music and philosophical concepts, leading the elevation of pop music to its recognition as an art form worthy of serious analysis and critique … the list goes on. JG66 (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: Guess what influence the Beatles had on Opie (Ron Howard) all those years ago.[1] I've heard that this may have also been his actual band in real life outside of the Andy Griffith Show! Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't they at least have given one of the guys a bass?! It's kinda loud and clear there in the music! JG66 (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's so true! I'm also in total agreement that the Beatles' socio-cultural impact happened the moment they arrived on these shores (and probably even sooner in the UK). The way the lead section was a few years ago made it look as if they only came to be associated with the cultural changes later on. Sure, the Beatles and everyone else became more radical as the '60s progressed, but it was that first impact that knocked the whole door open for the counterculture, which was already beginning to bubble under the surface. I kindly brought the idea up a few years ago on the talk page and got absolutely nowhere (but humiliated),[2] even though I went through the trouble to mention a whole bunch of sources. One of the editors that responded was actually condescending and rude (the arrogance of certain Wikipedia editors who think they are better than everyone else just never seems to amaze me). So, I'm thankful that you came along to make those changes in the lead section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Beatles' 1966 tour of Germany, Japan and the Philippines

The article The Beatles' 1966 tour of Germany, Japan and the Philippines you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Beatles' 1966 tour of Germany, Japan and the Philippines for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hard Day's Night

Thanks for all of your great edits in the Beatles' article and I'm in so much agreement on practically everything you've put there (!). One thing... In the Hard Days Night section, when I added mention of the UK Hard Day's Night LP, I did so in such a way as to clarify not only its difference from the US soundtrack album, but also to showcase the UK release (as the group's third bona-fide album). Though I'm from the States, I've always subscribed to the "primacy of the Beatles' UK albums theory", because I feel, like many others, that those albums best represent the band's musical oeuvre and development (in the most definitive way possible as they conceived it). So, in my mind, the UK Hard Day's Night LP should be emphasized above the US United Artists soundtrack album, and it should be placed high enough in the section to appear at least as equal in prominence to the movie itself (after all the Beatles were musical artists first and foremost). The Beatles' UK Hard Days Night LP has been extolled as a not only a masterpiece, but also a milestone as their first album to contain all-original songs (all Lennon McCartney to boot)—a point we maybe need to add mention of in the section. So, I was wondering if we could maybe tweak things a bit there to better showcase the UK LP. Right now it looks like an afterthought. I know that's splittn' hairs. Once, again my deepest thanks.Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

GP66, let's discuss on the article's talk page, OK? It is an FA, after all, and I think everyone should be included, and may well have different thoughts on this. I'm writing something there right now. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for all of your fine contributions to Wikipedia, particularly in those articles about the Beatles and so many other great musicians. Ringo agrees with my assessment and sends you his peace sign to say "Job well done, JG66". Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Garagepunk66, thank you, that's very kind. And praise from the best Beatle, too (well, apart from the other best Beatle, of course!) JG66 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd been meaning to send a memento for quite awhile, so this was the perfect occasion. And, that other Beatle is lookin' down from rock & roll heaven right now. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Labelling a ref

Can u pls label reference number 18 on this page [3]. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.232.20 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Track elements on The Beatles LOVE

Hey, I was wondering if you'd be able to answer my question here. Since you've made a lot of edits on that page previously, I was hoping you perhaps owned or listened to the album at some point in the past. And if you have, I was wondering if you happened to know the answers to my questions. I wondered if you happened to know of any sites that contained bits of information that may answer the questions that I've been waiting to receive a response from for three years now. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi C.Syde65. I've just replied on the article talk page. Sorry I can't be of more help. JG66 (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ringo's Knighthood

After sending his regards to you in that message above couple of weeks ago, it turns out (I'm sure you're well aware), that Ringo now has a medal of his own, a KBE. I made a mention that in Ringo's article, but you can go in there and correct me if I'm wrong (being from America, I'm not much of an expert on heraldry). But, I was wondering: should we only mention "KBE" or both "KBE" and "MBE" at the top of Ringo's article? By the way, I think he mentioned your name to Prince William when the blade was laying on his shoulder. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

GP, I'm nowhere on matters K/M/O-BE, I'm afraid – and I'm English! But when it comes to our Ring', I say shower that man with bling. I remember reading that, during the Beatles' first tour of the US, fans there held up placards demanding "Ringo for President". I wonder whether Prince William could swing that one, perhaps ... JG66 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be a great idea—I'd love if Prince William could pull that one off! Ringo would be a drastic improvement over the sad embarrassment we have now. I'd much rather have Prince William pick our US president than Putin any day of the week! Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: (and JG66 of course) Not commenting on the US president stuff, but what I will say is that a KBE is higher than an MBE ("Knight Commander" vs "member"), so it would probably supersede the MBE. I know I am a little late to the party, but thought I may as well comment anyways. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Savoy Truffle - " 'You know it's 'Good News?' "

A lot of GA articles have this section in alphabetical order. I won't lose sleep either way. Keep on truckin'. Regards. --Kieronoldham (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Kieronoldham – thanks! I don't mean to dig my heels in, but I can't help thinking it's a matter of common sense. And yes, I'm sure a lot of GAs, and FAs, do present categories in alpha order, but I think they just confuse the reader.

Further to what I said in the edit comment, we can end up with some pretty ridiculous situations. Say, when one author deems a song "acid jazz" whereas most others call it psychedelia; but that subjective (as all genre labelling is) and minority opinion is the first category in the list, simply because it appears at the start of the alphabet – and in most cases, before even the artist's songs category. Or, a relatively trivial category, which is again applied subjectively perhaps, e.g. "Songs about …", appears before one that's related to official credits and can't be disputed: "Songs written by …", "Song recordings produced by …" In album articles, especially, placing in alphabetical order means a whole load of categories regarding production and studio locations ("Albums arranged by …", "Albums produced by …", "Albums recorded at … Studios") get listed before the artist's albums category, when maybe there's just one song where the arranged-by/produced-by/recorded-at categories actually apply.

Working on articles from top to bottom, as I do, it's this sort of blanket approach that can seem incongruous or contradictory with what appears in the article body. (For example, when the text clearly states that the album was almost all recorded at a certain studio with a certain producer, or the song was entirely written by one writer with just a minor contribution from a second credited writer – but the order of the categories can suggest otherwise.) I appreciate, though, that if one's focused on ensuring consistency across all music articles, or even across the whole encyclopaedia, it's probably not going to register. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

JG66. It's okay. I don't take offence - you have been civil with me, and I know how much time you devote to Wiki. articles about music-related topics. It is personal opinion on these matters of course. Maybe the degree of deserving credit should be considered in arrangements, but it does not register as neat in my opinion. Most people, I imagine, access these articles to read the text, and the categories latterly (if they read the article in full). That's why it seems orderly to have them alphabetical, in my opinion. Suppose we all have idiosyncrasies. Keep up the good work. --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Olivia Harrison

Dear JG66,

do you have any sources about Olivia's birthplace?

In Wikipedia you can read "Los Angeles" without any source.

I found two sources saying "Mexico-City" (Harry, Encyclopedia p. 223 and Tillery, Mystic p.115; Shapiro (London 2002, p. 123) says "Mexican-born".

I'm about to complete the German Wikipedia article; now I want to write "Mexico-City".

Thank you for your help.

--Taxtman (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Taxtman. My apologies, I've only just seen this message.

Strangely enough, I made some additions to the Olivia Harrison article quite recently and ended up reversing my position on her place of birth. (I think it was partly encouraged by another editor's input there.) In other words, those sources you mention, and which I was readily following too (Harry, Tillery), are wrong on this point: as a couple of newspaper sources state, and she does too, she was born in Los Angeles, after her grandparents had arrived there from Mexico City. I think it's a case of one Beatles biographer getting it wrong (probably Shapiro), and then the mistake snowballing as other writers use that biography as their source. Quite a common situation, I find. Regards, JG66 (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

George Harrison

Calm down! Nice edit summary for newbies. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Er, and how about the lesson in stupidity you provide for newbies …? It clearly says in the original source: {{harvnb|Harry|2003|pp=138–139}}: Eric Idle performed Python's "[[The Lumberjack Song|Lumberjack Song]]". D'oh, Homer! JG66 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You are rude and not very nice. Goodbye, have a great life. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Jangle pop

Okay, fair enough. So we need an actual reputable source explicitly saying it (If I Needed Someone) is jangle pop? I mean sound-wise it's surely one of the jangliest songs ever, and Harrison admitted the whole point of it was to emulate the Rickenbacker 12 string sound of the Byrds. I see plenty of "unofficial" references to this song in that category, on playlists, and lists made by fans, and many sources describe it as "jangly". The issue is whether or not jangle pop proper as a genre is more of an 80s thing that sought to evoke some of the sounds of these mid 60s bands. What about this reference, is it close enough? https://books.google.com/books?id=KDn_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT108&lpg=PT108&dq=if+i+needed+someone+jangle+pop&source=bl&ots=aXL3BbqNU2&sig=1LVcXUabLD6AMbACUz_Q51z3D8c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqubvyhqDbAhWQmlkKHVJ6Dq8Q6AEIcjAI#v=onepage&q=if%20i%20needed%20someone%20jangle%20pop&f=false Word dewd544 (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, hang on a minute – McGuinn admitted he built that sound around the Beatles/Harrison's use of the Rickenbacker 12 string! (So, there's some mutual emulation going on here(!)) But yes, I get your point.

I'd say that mention of "a jangly pop song" isn't enough to call the song "jangle pop", just as saying a "bluesy rock" track wouldn't make it blues rock. Besides, I'm very wary of using Graeme Thomson's book on Harrison – he quite blatantly rips off Wikipedia's articles. Just checking Thomson's sources for his chapters covering the 1970–75 period, for instance, it's obvious. I noticed it the moment the book came out in late 2013, because I'd been writing the articles and adding the sources since early 2012.

I'll keep a look out for any sources that give "jangle pop" for "If I Needed Someone". From memory, though, all I've ever seen is what currently appears in the infobox there: folk rock, pop rock, and power pop. JG66 (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Songs by year

Hello JG, FYI only: WP:SONG#Categories includes "Song articles should be placed into the following categories whenever applicable ... 2. a subcategory of Category:Songs by year, using only the earliest year identified by a reliable source as being written, performed, published, recorded, or released". There seems to be a lot of busywork by IPs lately:

• {{IPuser|89.242.19.86}
• {{IPuser|177.130.2.218}
• {{IPuser|84.92.171.129}
• {{IPuser|2A00:23C5:7F0D:DD01:ADE2:A6EA:8969:4EE7}
• {{IPuser|84.93.37.117}
• {{IPuser|2A00:23C5:7F0D:DD01:A540:1534:D4CD:251E}

etc., etc. (Add last "}" to see info) —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ojorojo. Yeah, I've just started a discussion at WP Songs. It's a weird one, because the text does leave it open to interpretation. See you there, perhaps … JG66 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Baby You're a Rich Man US pic sleeve.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Baby You're a Rich Man US pic sleeve.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Track listings in song infoboxes (not again!)

Hello JG, I remembered that an editor objected to collapsed content in infoboxes, when I saw this in a link in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Applicability of MOS:DONTHIDE to bonus tracks tables: "Collapse boxing is frequently used in infoboxes and navboxes, however; they already have accessibility limits, and are not part of the core content of the article anyway, so doing it there isn't a big deal. None of this has changed in years, so the consensus is clear."[4] There hasn't been any reaction to the removal of the partial album track listings, so I thought I'd be bold and update Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples with this in mind. Anyway, look it over if you have some time and see if there are problems, room for improvement, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ojorojo. If you mean we should go ahead and remove/deprecate the collapsible full listings also, that's probably a good idea. When we were all talking about this issue, together with the partial listings, a year or two back, you were very tolerant of my view (which was very considerate of you), but I think it's safe to say that most editors who commented then were not in favour of keeping the full track listings at all. That was the impression I got. My support for the full listings was mostly about avoiding the meaningless partial versions, anyway.

You know, speaking of song infobox "(not again!)"s, I wonder if it might worth trying to nail down a standard approach to handling songs that were issued as a single – and a notable single release – some time after their initial release as an album track. I remember you and I having a different view about one of the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper tracks. It could have been "A Day in the Life" or the title song, I'm not sure, but you'll see there are currently two different approaches to how the 1978 single is handled in the song articles. Personally, I favour the "Day in the Life" approach, because it's the same recording each time, and I don't imagine the inclusion of a later single release in the infobox's chronology field (same goes for an image of the subsequent single release, for that matter) is really going to throw readers. I appreciate it requires a lot of energy to take on these project-wide issues, so I don't know how interested you are in this one. I'm not even sure I'm too interested in confronting it, actually! One for the back-burner, perhaps – just thought I'd flag it with you now. JG66 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The collapsed full track listing is the most tolerable option for listings in the infobox. But I support doing away with them all together (and audio samples, extra music videos, and extra covers that should be included in the relevant sections). While the track listing issue is still somewhat fresh, maybe open a RfC to remove the rest of them (there are ~100 track listing templates & another ~50 infoboxes that use {{hidden}}[5]). Do you think it would be too much to present the option of removing each of the other templates in the RfC? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ojorojo, wow, I had no idea the track listing templates were that numerous. That makes for an awful lot of song articles that are affected.

By "each of the other templates", do you mean the audio samples, extra music videos and extra covers? I think that might be too ambitious; it certainly would require plenty of discussion. For instance, I can see a good reason for including an extra cover image if a single had a different picture sleeve in a major market. But then the area I work in is so narrow (mid '60s to early '70s, by and large), where things are pretty straightforward. JG66 (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There are also ~100 with fully displayed track listings[6] (I didn't realize there were so many). I agree that expanding the discussion to the other sub-templates might be too much, so the RfC should focus on track listings.

Chronologies: It makes sense for "A Day in the Life" (although I think the chronology header should be blue or |type=song to match the rest of the box) – multiple infoboxes for the same recording are definitely wrong. I hesitate to adopt this as a standard though. Some will try to use it for the umpteenth remix, regardless if it's really notable. Maybe after the track listings issue is resolved, the (mis)use of extra chronologies can be addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

SFF

So the view of long time a well respected rock journalist is not to be entertained by you. It's a pity you take such a negative view. ww2censor (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I don't know if it needs saying again, but my decision to remove the point is based on how it constitutes "out-and-out praise with nothing informative" but a personal opinion; and that second rationale I gave: "it's not as if, given the sheer length of the article, we're short of commentary and critiques where something informative, ie some reasoning behind a personal opinion, *is* given." So, it's not a case of me taking a negative view of Fanning at all. (I have no personal opinion on Dave Fanning whatsoever. I have plenty of opinions and reservations about Ian MacDonald, though – but his admiration of Strawberry Fields is accompanied by a rationale and some insight and context.)

If you feel the mention of Fanning should be included, if you think it really adds something to the song article, then reinstate it if you must. I just think we can do better than that, and we can certainly afford to be choosy. (For instance, as yet there's nothing there from a music critic like Tim Riley. He's the author of a highly regarded book, Tell Me Why, that discusses each and every Beatles track, at some length, and he has written a biography of Lennon.) Fanning's love of SFF appears in his article, of course, as one would expect. JG66 (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. I added the quote to Fanning's own article because you seem so set against including it in SFF. ww2censor (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Handle with Care (song), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hyde Park and Malibu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Instant Karma!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Vanity

Greetings, JG66. "Vanity" is certainly not the issue, here. The veracity and biased Pinch source most assuredly is. "Analog Days," for many of us who were interviewed during their "research," is neither accurate nor unbiased in terms of what was addressed, chosen or depicted in the final narrative. If it were accurate, than Pinch et al would have included the long interview they did with me about Harrison's expropriation of my work for "Electronic Music." They did not. As with the rest of their depiction, the quote you've selected is both inaccurate and decontextualized from a grander discussion. It's just not how I would have expressed what happened. B. Krause/Biophony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophony (talk • contribs) 18:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You might also want to see User:Biophony/sandbox, JG. (They are referring to Bernie Krause here and there) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor: you mean that, in other words, the two are one and the same? ... Oh yes. It's been blatantly obvious from article edits and comments going back years, actually. Biophony seems to have taken my term "vanity project" as applying to this one change. My point was/is that he's long been treating Wikipedia in general as some sort of personal vanity project – at least, in any article that concerns Bernie Krause. JG66 (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The Beatles (album: That 1968 iTunes thing

Don't worry I was also dumbfounded by the source date it gave, pretty odd the citation used the original album release date. ToQ100gou! ToQ100gou! Shupatsu Shinkou! (the chitter-chatter) 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

George Harrison's song list lead

Hi JG66! Hope everything is going well. I wanted to let you know that I've been thinking about what we discussed a while back on George Harrison's song list talk page and I decided that you're right, the article's lead currently focuses too much on critical and commercial success rather than the songs and albums themselves. After redoing some of my other featured song lists to focus more on songs and less on success, I decided I should do the same here. I'm currently creating a draft over at my sandbox and would like your help with referencing and making sure everything looks good. I basically focus on his album's songs and sounds in general (such as ATMP's Wall of Sound, LITMW's spiritual nature, and Extra Texture's downbeat mood). I'm currently a little stuck what to talk about for Thirty Three & 1/3 (I mainly just discuss "This Song", "Crackerbox Palace", and "Pure Smokey") and have his self-titled album, SiE, and Gone Troppo where they are now. I also removed the info about his discography because that can be left for his discography page and isn't needed here. If you have the time, I'd really appreciate your help based on your knowledge of Harrison and our previous discussions. Again, it's over at my sandbox. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi BeatlesLedTV, nice to hear from you. I apologise that, having made so much "noise" about the lead, I never followed up by adding sources for my suggested version, etc. (Thanks for the reminder, in other words.)

I'll try to give this some thought and help work the lead into something more representative of what this type of list should have. It's still confusing to me – exactly what the scope should be – but I think it's great that you (as someone who does so much work on these "Songs recorded by ..." lists) is now focusing on the lead sections. On one hand, I wonder whether it's a bit ambitious to try to cover an artist's career in this way, ie by adopting a chronological approach, when that's more suited to their discography. Looking at what you've come up with in your sandbox, I definitely think we should avoid statements on the artist's career progression, particularly something as POV as "the acclaimed triple album All Things Must Pass", Dark Horse being "a low point for his career", Extra Texture's songs "are noticeably downbeat", the "warmly received" George Harrison.

I'll get back to you. But first I might work on my own sandbox version, taking in some of the changes you've made in yours and following, to some extent, the approach you're taken. JG66 (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I've seen other FL song lists I've not written follow the pattern of just describing each album's sound or just talk about what the artist's sound is in general. I mentioned acclaimed for ATMP and "low point" for Dark Horse just because that's how they are received. When I was creating my new FLC List of songs recorded by Talking Heads, I mentioned critical status a couple times but not much & felt I should do the same here.

I also don't know about you but I really think "Blow Away" should be mentioned in the lead, since it's one of his most well known songs. I think his album after SiE are fine where they are now (except for Cloud Nine). Let me know what you think! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV, we clearly don't see things the same on much of this. Imo, you're still overly focused on making the lead an overview of the artist's career, more in line with a discography than a list of songs recorded by ... Aside from those examples I mentioned above that aren't songs-oriented, you've got mention of The Beatles Anthology, which is totally irrelevant, and you discuss the Concert for Bangladesh and its live album & film but without any mention of the songs (eg the "Bangla Desh" single, the well-known versions of his Beatles songs). If you want to approach it in that way, then fine, but I'd best just stay out of it. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually like your sandbox version better than what I have at my own. I definitely don't like where the lead is in its current state and would like to see it improved. If you were to change the lead to what you have at your sandbox, I'd be just fine with that. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Update – I really liked the way you re-wrote it at your sandbox so I scrapped the one I wrote and built upon yours (adding a couple links and refs to it) and published it on the page. I think it could still use a couple refs in some spots but I think overall it's much better than the previous. I'm sorry if I have been annoying about it but after our initial discussion you made me realize how wrong it was. I thank you for helping me make it better. It's come a long way since this and I think it's much better off now. Once again, thank you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV: Ah look, I'm sorry if I've come across as annoyed. And not for a minute, btw, did I think that my sandbox version was in any way perfect (quite the opposite – I winced at some of the excessive detail there when I looked back at it a couple of days ago). Now that you're pasted that version onto the page, I'll work on it there. One thing I remember from writing it, a year back or whenever that was, was trying to ensure that the paragraphs were not only focused on "songs recorded" (even if, inevitably, the discussion does veer towards albums), but also working in tandem with the images and statements made in the captions. Just thought I'd mention that again. JG66 (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The images below the 'list' line don't really need to be mentioned in the lead but they can be. I did expand on your version a little bit but I do think it'd be important to mention Phil Spector's Wall of Sound on ATMP because almost of its songs use it and in the case of "Wah Wah", to really full potential. But at the moment I think we can both agree that it's much better now than before. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

33 1/3

Hi JG66, sorry about the edit on Thirty Three & 1/3. If the issue is with just the italics, {{DISPLAYTITLE:<i>Thirty Three & ¹<small>/</small>₃</i>}} ought to do it. If you're not sold on the super/sub tags for 1/3 that's fine too. Thanks for attentively watching the page.-Ich (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ich, thanks for stopping by. The new appearance of the fraction(s) isn't great, in my opinion. The markup makes them look too large, imo – but I can see you've been citing MOS:FRAC with your changes, so I can't argue with that! Regarding the italics issue, I'll give it a go sometime with the title display code you've supplied, unless you've already tried it. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I did a preview to verify the italics tags worked but didn't want to make another edit after your reversion. MOS:FRAC is mostly an argument for replacing ½ with 1⁄2 etc., as the precomposed ascii characters are difficult for screen readers (and even on a normal desktop, it's quite tricky to differentiate ¼/½/¾. The only other page I remember seeing fractions in the title was 5/16 inch star but I'm sure there are more. Pages like 8½ have the precomposed ½ in the page name and I don't feel like messing with that; I just use the frac template in the body.-Ich (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JG66. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Book sources

Hi JG66! Hope everything is going well! I was wondering where you get access to the many book sources you use in Beatles articles, as well as George Harrison's songs; such as books by Lewisohn, MacDonald, Miles, etc. Specifically, do you own these books or do you find them online somewhere? Thanks! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi BeatlesLedTV. Yes, I own most of them, I'd say. Not the likes of Everett or Gould, yet, but Lewisohn, MacDonald, Miles, Schaffner, Hertsgaard, Doggett, Carr & Tyler, Badman, Turner (if those last few names mean anything to you), along with a good number on the Beatles as solo artists. Quite a few on the Stones also, as I've recently (re)discovered. As a result, I'm often a bit remiss when it comes to including a link to a google preview for each book – because I'm so used to working with the book in front of me! JG66 (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought so. I had a good idea that you owned most of them because I've been looking for free ebooks of them, especially for MacDonald and Lewisohn, but I cannot find anything. I ask because I'm looking to expand several of the White Album song articles as most of them are relatively small and feel incomplete. I've currently been adding sheet music covers for most of them but would like to do more, especially after seeing how much you've expanded "Dear Prudence". BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well, I'd only meant to make some quick additions there after Martin posted a message on the article talk page, then I've ended up sticking around for a while. I've got a few other things I wanted to do but if I see you expanding a particular White Album song article, I'll help out. By the way, as I understand it (from GA reviewers), we don't need to include something as an external link when it's already used as a source in the article. JG66 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah sorry about that. I knew you expanded Harrison's White Album songs to GA but I didn't realize you actual cited Pollack's notes in the articles. Thanks for letting me know! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

MusicHound and Jorge Ben

Do you have access to the MusicHound books? After seeing Acclaimed Music's entry for a Jorge Ben album and its MusicHound score, I am curious what the book says about Forca Bruta, what rating they give it. I would like to incorporate a ratings template to the article, but I've only been able to locate a single review score, from AllMusic. I am guessing the Jorge Ben entry would be in MusicHound World (2000). Dan56 (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Dan56: Only MusicHound Rock, I'm afraid. I was going to suggest you look at recordcollectormag.com (ie Record Collector), but unless there's been a reissue after 2007, I doubt there's anything there. Aside from that AllMusic review, by the way, you've got a score available in the NOW review, I notice. JG66 (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Yes, you're right, nothing there. And unless I am overlooking something, NOW's score appears to rate the reissue campaigns mentioned in the review as a whole. Dan56 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah that's right – sorry, I didn't read on. Nothing at goldminemag.com either, I notice. JG66 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)