Jump to content

User talk:WesleyDodds/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Designated "poor auld soul"/Youtube posting place

This is going to end in lists of guitar solos and tears, but bass lines on my talk pls. Ceoil sláinte 21:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you know Brian eno wrote Third Uncle? Was always my favourite Bauhaus song. Built to spill covered it aswell. Ceoil sláinte 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm very impressed by this. Good auld cuteeex3, I always knew he had it in him. The tone is perfect. Ceoil sláinte 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not the Terraform version, but mighty all the same. Am I wrong? Ceoil sláinte 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Voice of god recommends this. Remember a time when one (wo)man.... Ceoil sláinte 04:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

UP

I put Disintegration up for GAC. Blah. NSR77 TC 19:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. For a second there I thought you were going to say "Where's the fucking hookers?" Haahaha oh well. But yeah, I don't understand that song (or band, for that matter). They're the epitome of bland. And those faux violins really have got to go. NSR77 TC 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Find the bit about "Milk It" and In Utero. NSR77 TC 01:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I can try. I know you don't want there to be another month without an FA, but there is no guarantee that the article would be promoted before August is up, anyway. NSR77 TC 05:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm.....all that really needs to be done is the tour section. In retrospect, that should only take me a couple hours (if that) to write. You would need to be able to copyedit everything and then we can ship it off to FAC. Did you think anything else needed to be added? NSR77 TC 05:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Disintegration is, FINALLY, all done. Take a look, copyedit, drop a note on my talk page when you're done and I'll nom that bad-boy. NSR77 TC 03:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you want to handle that last comment from Tony? I'm petty busy at the moment and can't really spend much time on the internet. NSR77 TC 22:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Honestly it needs to be done soon. There are two things left. I can only check in periodically right now; it'll take you ten minutes. NSR77 TC 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course it passes two days after the end of August. Figures. If you need any help on some of the Nirvana articles just drop me a line. NSR77 TC 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If there was ever a flaw in the "WesleyDodds game" it would be chart positions. :) NSR77 TC 02:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered why people don't actually notice that "The Man Who Sold the World" is not at all "unplugged"? In fact, it's quite blatant that Kurt uses effects. NSR77 TC 16:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. At a quick glance they look good. I'll read them thoroughly in the coming days. NSR77 TC 05:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
As you've probably noticed I did some general tweaking with "Come As You Are". I haven't noticed anything wrong with "Lithium". Both are pretty small; I'm surprised you didn't find anything else to add (more of the former then the latter). Both are probably ready for GA. On another note, I'm going to start work on Mother's Milk quite soon. If there's anything else you need help with just drop me a line. NSR77 TC 04:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Killing Joke section is actually very good in my opinion. What did you think was wrong with it? I'm such a lazy bitch when it comes to that article. It has been in the back of my mind for the past few weeks, but I'm just not looking forward to the sources I would have to re-read (Kiedis' autobiography and the Apter biography, plus a barrage of magazine articles and online news sources). I want the article to be Featured more than anything else, don't get me wrong, but the sheer work load is pretty damn daunting. NSR77 TC 14:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can dig up. Not next week, but the week after is MBV at Santa Monica Civic. Very stoked for two nights of shoegazing heaven. Oh; have you ever contemplated the possibility that Isn't Anything far surpasses Loveless?I enjoy the fact that one can actually discern Kevin Shields' voice from the onslaught of distortion, effects pedals and random "noises" that constitues Loveless. NSR77 TC 19:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere is just as good of an album as Isn't Anything, but I was never really into Lush. NSR77 TC 16:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of getting the 5-star VIP package for the Pumpkins in LA. If I do I get to meet Billy. NSR77 TC 00:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Swimming them so well

No problem regards The Smiths chart positions. Regarding Bunnymen articles, I think I just got a bit "bunneymen-ed out" having done a few in a shortish space of time. I'm just doing a bit of new-page patrolling and wikignoming until I get my mojo back - hopefully shouldn't be too long. Cheers --JD554 (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been having a look at the Chart position section for Nevermind. I can't confirm all the chart positions that are on the page there (and in fact some appear to be wrong). The trouble I'm having is finding out what year the release peaked as the album was released late in 1991 but the claim is that some of the peak positions are in 1992. I'm sure that's correct, it's just the sources from Nirvana discography don't confirm it, they simply give the year of release. Any ideas? --JD554 (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm on holiday for a couple of weeks after today, but I'll give a hand mid-Septemberish if it still needs it. Cheers --JD554 (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's good to be back. Even though I really enjoyed my holiday here, it was ever so slightly marred by this! But that's all over now, I'm back and refreshed.
I did see that request for help, I see you've already made a fair amount of progress on what should be left out. I think I should be able to help out. What do they need for this, a diff of the best recent version of an article? Let me know which ones need looking at (assuming the remaining candidates are split between whoever's helping out). Cheers --JD554 (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I can get that done today sometime. --JD554 (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a go. --JD554 (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

I've made a few changes: shifted audio samples around and condensed the prose in the Musical Style section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the way its taken shape. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
originally I just wanted as many sources as possible for conformation, but I don't really need it now, so its removed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we nominate yet? *acts like a two year old* The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll do a quick run through of sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you think its good enough to close the peer review? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Janet Jackson. YAY! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC) No problem and thanks. It would be nice to work on Barbara Gordon next, since its more of a mutual interest. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been fighting recentism on Britney Spears since I decided to take on the article. Everyone wants to add every up to the minute detail of her new album which won't be released until December. JJ shouldn't be a problem. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Janet is featured! YAY! :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. And I understand about the infobox/genres issue. It just with artists like Gwen Stefani and Britney Spears, people want to list every single genre, subgenre and music style variation that the artist has been associated with which is really ridiculous. Hence why I try to enforce only using the parent genre, to keep overzealous editors in check. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 13:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Por que

Por que você fez isso, why can you only have on genre on the infoboxs on Waking Up the Neighbours. Tudo o que me leva a dizer-me um passo mais perto da borda (um passo mais próximo, canção)

Yay!

I recently bought the Everett True Nirvana biography. In between the self-glorification and Rolling Stone-bashing, there are reprints of Melody Maker reviews of Nirvana releases. I'll get down to adding them sometime. Also toying with the idea of reworking Bleach... indopug (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There's one for "Teen Spirit" too, do you want me to add it? indopug (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of psychoanalysis of Nirvana songs and videos here (from page 79 onwards). indopug (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm on holiday till the weekend and I have Internet access now. So I'll (finally) get down to finishing Blur and adding what's there in the True book to the Nevermind singles' articles. indopug (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

B-U-T I-T-S R-A-D-I-O-H-E-A-D!! I've had a Radiohead phase, but it was mainly with The Bends and Kid A; apart from the singles, I don't see what the deal with OK Computer is supposed to be.
I've been expanding "Come as You Are" and I think the Composition bit needs to say how its in the minor key, sounds morose etc. I would add it myself, but I'm allergic to the technical aspects of music (I'm tone-deaf and can't understand what any of it means). While we're on the topic, this is exactly the kind of scholarly information our encyclopedia needs. We should add it immediately! indopug (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Heh, thanks; I didn't see that . . . indopug (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Why haven't you shipped Nevermind off to GAN yet? indopug (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
How many can you identify? I got half of them. indopug (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess we could, but I've been finding it hard to figure out what exactly they did and what to include. Worse is the fact that they completely stopped mattering in the 2000s (i.e. after 13). indopug (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Disintegration

I passed the article as GA. It looks good as far as I can tell, just minor tweeking and a good PR like we did with JJ. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dookie

Please find a source that Dookie is alt rock and not pop punk. Regards. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please stop ignoring my requests. If you want to include alt rock as a genre, then find a source. Pop punk is now a sourced genre, do not remove it. Regards. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, please note that Dookie is extensively mentioned in the pop punk article, but not at all in the alternative rock article. Your continued reversal of this genre without any discussion is rude and counter productive. Please engage in discussion before continuing to revert this. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Pop punk is not a sub genre, but a mixture of punk rock and pop. It is a huge, broad term that refers to numerous artists, and is entirely broad enough. Plenty of album articles use pop punk as a genre, are you going to remove all of those to "keep it broad"? As a compromise I have added pop punk in addition to alt rock and punk rock. There is no reason to remove this. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Is that just your opinion or can you provide sources for that, as it is in clear opposition to what the sourced material at the punk rock and pop punk articles state. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree on whether it is a sub genre or fusion then! Can we at least agree to leave the three genres on Dookie as they are? Nouse4aname (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. If you ask 100 people what genre they consider Dookie to be, I guarantee at least 90% will say pop punk. There is nothing wrong with having three genres in the infobox, it doesn't confuse anyone. Unless you plan on removing pop punk from all infoboxes, "for the sake of simplicity" then I suggest that it stays. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I disagree. I don't think it does "suffice". Dookie is widely regarded as a pop punk record, what is wrong with being specific? You say punk rock, people think Sex Pistols, the Clash etc, you say pop punk, people think Blink 182, the Offspring, Green Day. What is more appropriate? Nouse4aname (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If punk rock will suffice in place of pop punk, why is there a List of pop punk bands? How come all these albums have pop punk listed in the infoboxes? Riot!, Enema of the State, Dude Ranch (album), Americana (album), New Found Glory (album), Last Stop Suburbia - this is just a few, there are hundreds more that use pop punk, in addition to other genres in the infobox. Why are you so against including pop punk as a genre? Nouse4aname (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In Rainbows reverts

Why? At your earliest convenience, please post on Talk:In Rainbows#Revert?. I spent awhile adding the sections and formatting recommended by WP:ALBUM and WP:DASH and I really don't understand why you keep on reverting them and why you refuse to explain yourself there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Library

I noticed your offer as concerns the library at the WP:ALM page, and thought I should get in touch. I'm slowly working on the Maiden album Somewhere in Time (currently writing about its artwork), with a view to working on other Maiden articles. If you come across any general books that have review snippets (for any albums or specific songs) or anything of interest I'd be very appreciative if you could get in touch. Thanks very much for your time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have two Maiden bios myself. If you could keep a lookout in those mags that'd be great - there could possibly be a retrospective piece that has brief reviews for each album. Thanks very much. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Link of the now

This is pretty good. Ceoil sláinte 23:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thriller info

Nice article here, I've already used bits in the article. Could you read the piece, and give me feedback on what is worth adding to the article. I'm not gonna play guessing games about it, tell me what you would like included and I will happily insert. Cheers. — Realist2 02:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't mean to pressure you, my internet connection went down yesterday anyway, it's just that Thriller is coming to the final quarter of the FAC list, we are running out of time before the review is closed. I can add whatever you like, I just need to know what it is. If your too busy over the next few days, we can always add the info afterward, even if it passes. — Realist2 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Copyediting request.

I'll go over disintegration today. I may not be very good, but I'll try.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  11:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

I saw the film for the first time on my birthday on August 23. Heath Ledger is a god. I miss him! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A Cure for Tony

I'll do what I can, but you already know I am limited in this area. You should approach Outriggr -or whatever he is called these days- as ye already know each other, and he is near the best damn copyeditor the project has. Ceoil sláinte 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Often read about XTC, but never listened to them before. Grand. I'm listening to a lot of PIL these days; (This Is Not A) Love Song is camp fun, and Memories is just plain evil. Nice: I like evil......Ceoil sláinte 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me why think you are a good guy, but I'll see you and raise you five: Nice apples, no? Ceoil sláinte 22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mug shots

I started a thread here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mug_shots. Would you mind giving input? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani

Since you were involved in the genres, you may want to comment at Talk:Gwen Stefani, so there hopefully won't be future edit wars. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for August 2008

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 17 - August 2008
"Oh, we've been called an alternative band before. But we eat meat, so I think we're disqualified: chili dogs, corn dogs, Jimmy Dean Sausage Breakfast."- Kurt Cobain
Project news
New members

Corythepaperboy, Hiram111, Yozzer66, and Lugnuts joined the alternative music fold during August.

Editors

User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot II (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Free CDs

Kings of Leon and TV on the Radio both have albums out, but no copies of either on teh internet yet. Have you heard either? Reviews for Kings are poor, for TV v v good. Ceoil sláinte 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thriller

Is there anything specific you feel the article omits? These days, I'm not exactly that keen to get stuck in at FAC - some nominators don't see eye to eye with me, and I'm frankly fed up of spats on Wikipedia. However, I've taken a look at the article per your request;

  • Some of the statements could be questioned within the article. For example, the statements "The years between Off the Wall and Thriller were a transitional period for the singer, a time of increasing independence and struggles with his family" and "In 1980, Joseph Jackson told his family of the affair and child. Jackson, already angry with his father over his childhood abuse, felt so betrayed that he fell out with Joseph Jackson for many years.[9]". If a biographer makes statements like that, I'd like to think that he had some reliable testimony to base those opinions.
  • "Seven singles were released from the album, including "The Girl Is Mine"—which was seen as a poor choice of lead single and led some to believe that the album would be a disappointment, and others to suggest that Jackson was bowing to a white audience.[21]" - This is another of Taraborelli's opinions touted as fact, and the statement isn't clear enough for me. "Some" can mean two, or ten. "Seen" by whom? Who are these "others"? In short, it's Taraborelli's interpretation of the album's reception, and his emphasis upon certain facts. Another biographer may opt towards a different interpretation, and may choose to emphasis certain other aspects.
  • "Jackson's success was unusual for a black artist in the 1980s, but his popularity saw him become one of the first to have a replica doll made in his image.[51]". I guess Lionel Ritchie, Stevie Wonder et. al. weren't "successful" in the eighties then. Seriously, I'm not a fan at all of what the article is shoving down my throat - ie., that Jackson is black music's savour. "Before the success of Thriller, many felt Jackson had struggled to get MTV airing because he was black.[23]" - Who are these "many" people then? It'd be great to hear some names. Also, personnel at MTV may have a different view as to why they didn't play Jackson's music - perhaps they thought it wouldn't appeal to the channel's audience, or simply thought it was cookie cuttie material. Who knows?
  • In one sentence it says ".. critising its "degenerat[ion] into silly camp"", yet in another says ".. calling it "the triumph and the thriller", but criticized" - "Criticize", or "criticise"? Only one should be used.

That's what a cursory glance threw up anyway. Hope that helps. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP 0.7

Done mine, I think. Something I noticed; I dunno if the RHCP discog should be on the list there. Other than that, looks cool. I'll see if I can help out with improving any of those tagged. Giggy (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are basically that if they're making a DVD release (more so for a book release, I guess), there'd be more interesting in the stories than in the data. Giggy (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Batman emblem

Rather than just revert, I'd like to try to understand your thinking. Would you please clarify? - jc37 09:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bat-usi

It's a non-notable element of a fictional character that's better off being a part of the main article than its own article. Believe me, I spent hundreds of hours doing research and read through scores of books and academic essays when I was working on Batman a year ago and pretty much all that ever said about the emblem in an out-of-universe context is that Julius Schwartz changed it in 1964. Seriously, that is it. Frankly, a lot of the Batman-related sub articles need to be redirected. Check out the mess with all the Batmobile subpages. Sometimes you discover after digging through all the reference material that some things just aren't that notable, and they should be redirected or merged. Referencing my other area of interest on Wikipedia: at one point or another almost every song from Nevermind had its own page. But in reality, there's very little noteworthy about most of the songs despite what many Nirvana fans perceive (and having worked on the song articles, I myself was surprised at the relative lack or resources available for a notable song like "Come as You Are"), so those pages were turned into redirects.

At least there's tons written about Batman to work with. You'd be surprised how little is actually available about The Flash. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that POV.
But even if we look at the article from that perspective, it's still a list article, which is using primary sources to provide information.
And I don't think WP:N is applicable to this associated list. To paraphrase someone else, this isn't a page listing the circumstances surrounding each time Batman ate a jelly sandwich. His costume is iconic, and its changes (including his emblem, which has appeared on things other than just his suit) are notable as reflective of the changing "tone" of the character, at the very least. You're certain nothing has been written about the changes to tone, costume, emblem and paraphernalia over the years? - jc37 10:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The only costume changes ever given attention by sources are the early redesigns by Finger, the "New Look" in 1964, and to a far lesser extent, the Azrael costume. Most everything else is chalked up to artistic license (as demonstrated by that Dennis O'Neil quote in Batman about different artistic takes on Batman). Batman's costume is certainly iconic, but only in the sense that people recognize its elements at a glance. I've seen more written about Superman's costume (and even that is generally limited to his cape and the fact that he doesn't have a mask). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've seen quite a few references to the Neal Adams "new look", and the reasons for it, just for one example.
Essentially I disagree with this redirect as such.
And I disagree with your characterisation (and interpretation)of "iconic" and the lack thereof.
So for now I'd like to see the redirect reverted.
That said, as a discussion for the future, there might be a way for you to be able to eventually redirect/merge, and yet have the information we're discussing covered uniquely.
Since most of the Bat-items are typically updated "together" (for a unified "look") perhaps an article illustrating that for each "group" might be appropriate.
What do you think? - jc37 10:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
People often just draw element of Batman's costume however they want with no explaining. Only twice in the character's history has there been explicit costume changes worth talking about (there's his suit briefly being black in the mid-nineties and the return of the Year One suit after No Man's Land, but there's no explanation available as to why those happened, so we really can't write about them). In most instances you're dealing wiht artistic license best explained on the artist's page. For example, Dick Sprang's way of drawing Batman was the default from the early forties until 1964. It's more that the other artists were suppsoed to draw like Dick Sprang or Neal Adams rather than there being conscious choice being made about the costume details. Also, if no one writes about something you shouldn't have an article on it. Even if you can find a handful of facts you're best off merging and redirecting, because you're probably going to be stuck with an eternal stub article. Really, there's only about a sentence's worth of secondary source material about Batman's symbol, so it's realy not necessary to give it its own page. Imagine if someone made a page about Sherlock Holmes' hat. Sure, it's iconic, but beyond being able to recognize it immediately when you see it, there's little said about it from an academic standpoint. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. For example, there were articles just after Crisis (Especially just pre-Legends), which discussed Batman (and others), and the choices about the costume (including the emblem), and why. And there has been innumerable discussions regarding the movie constumes. (Can he turn his head, does it have nipples - it's amazing what makes the news sometimes, but ours is not to reason why...)
But all this aside, per WP:SS. WP:SERIES, and WP:SIZE, articles may be split due to size. So even if we were to merge these into Batman, these would be good places to split off into their own articles.
But let's set even that all to the side for a moment. What's your concern here? Is this merely due to a personal reading of WP:N? Is this a due to a mergist general preference when it comes to articles? or what? - jc37 12:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It's both. Even assuming that there's enough reference material to merit a separate article for Batman's costume, creating a whole other separate article for his chest emblem is splitting hairs unnecessarily. Think of it this way: what would you think if you came across an article about the mark Zorro makes with his sword, or Harry Potter's scar, or the Autobot symbol? It's best to deal with that sort of information, if it is notable, in the main article and not in a separate article. Unless you're dealing with a symbol with scores of resources dedicated to it (such as any religious symbol of your choosing) you're not going to want to give undue weight to it, especially by creating a separate article for it. One of the simplest reasons is that the reader doesn't have to click another link for further information. That ties in a bit to the need for our articles to be well-written; you want to explain things in a way that is clear and to the point, and doesn't drag on, be it for several paragraphs in one article or by making you go unnecessarily to a subarticle. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
And I really don't see any reason why there needs to be so many Batman subarticles. The prose is within reasonable size limits and the important out-of-universe information and context details are covered sufficiently and succinctly by the main Batman article, making a few of the pages effectively redundant.
Oh, and details about the movie costumes are best explained in the relevant movie articles (and from what I've seen, particularly in regards to the Nolan films, they are dealt with quite effectively). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you suggest comparisons, none of those examples comes even close to Batman's symbol. And beyond that, presentation in a visual art form, especially in comics, is quite important. And a character with the history of Batman, with a suit which has the same length of history, and a logo which also has that same length of history... I'm just not seeing a comparison, even to the symbols of the Transformers (which are the closest examples of the ones you listed).
But further, I think that the main issue here is you disagree with the quantity of fictional topics presented (see also m:Wiki is not paper), and whether articles related to a main topic should exist (see WP:SS). As such, if you haven't already, please join in on the discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise.
But in the meantime, as is clear from WT:N, and the discussion noted above, and even XfD, and common practice, what you seem to consider to be "rules" for "notability", are disputed.
So to bring this back around to the pages: I don't think the redirects are appropriate. You do. You boldly made them redirects. The next step, I suppose is for me to revert, and for discussion to commence, in order to determine if there is consensus for the redirect. (Per WP:BRD.)
So I guess, I'll see you there... - jc37 09:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It's rather simple. You shouldn't create a separate article for a topic unless there is enough reference material to work with. You're assuming too much about my point of view. I don't have problems with the "quantity of fictional topics presented".. What this all comes down to is this: there is simply not enough to work with to create an article on Batman's chest symbol. It's for the same reasons I wouldn't make an article about the Led Zeppelin symbols, ot Abraham Lincoln's top hat. Yes, all the examples I provided are comparable; are you familiar with the amount of academic literature available on Harry Potter? Nevertheless, just because something is familiar and "iconic" does not mean there should be an entire article devoted to it, because something's iconic nature is subjective and we need to establish notability. I can't write an article when the sources are lacking; that's why it's useful to merge or redirect. To create an article on this topic would be pointless and frankly rather silly. To paraphrase, it's the goddamn chest symbol, and little more than that. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead to suit?

Just 2¢ (and dropping it here since this seems to be the right discussion)... bur shouldn't the redirect have been to Batsuit? That is since it looks like the reason for the redirect was that the article was "costume element" oriented instead of "brand/marketing tool" oriented. - J Greb (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of redirecting Batsuit to Batman as well, and thought I'd avoid the double redirects. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Batman

WesleyDodds, let's avoid an edit war here and see if we can come to some common ground. Twice, you have reverted all of my edits to the Batman article under the pretext that multiple paragraphs look unsightly. Yet you have reverted edits that have nothing to do with the number of paragraphs in the introduction. I would appreciate it if you would stop automatically gainsaying my work. Thank you. --Jcbutler (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget it, I suddenly find that I have better things to do than hang out on the Batman article. You boys have fun with it though, ok? --Jcbutler (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Watchmen

Sure, I think the current version is fine but I understand a more historical takes on the film projects (because someone else will adapt it in future, I'm sure), as well as how it increased perception of the novel. Alientraveller (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Dunno if there was an announcement as such, but it's based on recent changes to WP:MOSNUM. Giggy (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with Pearl Jam and nearly done with Radiohead, if you want to add the first oldid (or do you want me to do it when I'm done with both?). Giggy (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Did you get the article removals sorted? (Still saw some discogs and stuff there.) Giggy (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bauhaus

Speaking of which, did you listen to Eno's origional version of third uncle. Very cold, makes the Bauhaus track look a bit manky. By the way, I dont like the Kings of Leon ablum, but they are huge here now, have taken over from Muse as the plebs fav indie band. Ceoil sláinte 10:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded both versions of third uncle; if you look after the baffling FU disclaimers, I'll add them to pages. Listening to The Futureheads today. alleluia, mate. Ceoil sláinte 13:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Random, zzz zzzz. Ceoil sláinte 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Super Freak link; but I need a few others, man, preferably angst ridden eh things not great. Today is Wedding present sunday....if you catch my drift. Ceoil sláinte 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
???You wat? Ceoil sláinte 08:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

watchmen

Sorry for the late response. You guys already have such an extensive list of sources, I couldn't find anything relevant. Hope you're able to keep it FA. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Cookie

Tezkag72 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Recent edits to Batman-related articles

I've noticed that you've put merge templates on four Batman-related articles, however you did not start the talk for it on the Batman talk page, where you wanted the articles merged to. It is the responsibility of the person proposing the merge to start the discussion for it. Therefore I have removed the merge templates for now. Feel free to put them back in, but please make sure to start the discussion on the Talk:Batman page as well. In addition, you have proposed that Batcomputer be deleted. However, you used a different template. I'm going to ask that you use the standard AfD template and start the discussion creating an AfD page for this. You can read about it on the articles for deletion page. This way, for one, people actually see it and secondly, people will have longer than five days to attempt to improve the article. Therefore, I am going to remove the template you put in, and ask that you put in the standard one. Thank you. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Merge: After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page.. It is the responsibility of the person proposing the merge to state their reasons. You have listed the Talk:Batman page as the place to discuss it; therefore you must start the discussion. I will remove the templates if you have not stated your reasons on that talk page. In addition, you need to add a merge template on Batman. I suggest using the {{Mergefrom-multiple|X1|X2|X3|X4}} template. Anakinjmt (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review help

Greetings WesleyDodds! I got a recommendation that you would help me and I see that you are interested in rock. I would appreciate your comments/suggestions on Wikipedia:Peer review/Meshuggah/archive2. So if you'll find some time, I will welcome your opinion. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FabBob's Band

Hi. I have recently received this message on my talkpage. Can we have more discussion and agreement on talkpages rather than debate via revert and edit summary? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can you explain to me your reasoning for reverting three and a half hours worth of efforts by me to improve the reference formatting of this article? Jennavecia (Talk) 03:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The referencing on the article is substandard for a Featured Article, and it's not consistent within itself. The changes I made were improvements. Wholesale reverting three and a half hours of edits with no message or decent reason is extremely rude. The manual style used in the article is sloppy. The format I used is clean, consistent and more convenient to the reader. So you may want to check out WP:OWN before stating what is preferred for ease of use for you and others who regularly edit the article. Also maybe check out that line about "anyone can edit". Jennavecia (Talk) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this just shows you didn't even look at what I did. I appreciate the offered course on how to reference an article, but this is what I do. I use manual refs on simple articles. This is a detailed article with detailed references. The cite templates were only used in the reference section for the books. Harvard ref templates were used inline in order to use simple footnotes, as is the current standard in the article, that then linked to the reference section. It's an improvement on the existing style. As evidenced by looking up on your talk page here, you have a bad habit of reverting other editor's work without discussion and, apparently, without paying attention to what you are doing. Additionally, can you link me to where it says I'm supposed to use whatever format of referencing is in the article? I've missed that consensus and believe it somehow violates WP:BOLD. Last, in your blind reverting, you removed other improvements I made to the article. And now my valid and necessary improvements cannot be restored because of subsequent edits. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I call your WP:CITE#HOW, and I raise you WP:WIAFA 2c. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Because it's a featured article, that little guide is trumped. The current style is sloppy and inconsistent with recommended referencing. It's close, but it's not up to standards. And I really think you're underestimating the abilities of your fellow editors if you think they lack the ability to comprehend how to copy a citation template in the reference section and use {{harvnb|Lastname|Year|page}} inline. The result is the same as currently present in the article, only it cleaned it up and provided handy, dandy little links for readers. I could care less what's most convenient for you in the edit window. It's what is most convenient for the readership. Don't forget who you write for. The article is brilliantly written, but the ownership shown over it by you is horrific. Your edit summary stating you would be redoing the refs later, and now on my talk to say you would be redoing them in my format is shamefully pretentious. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is an FA, but it doesn't meet the 2c criteria. I was in the process of fixing it. And just because this is my first series of edits to the article is irrelevant. I was a main contributor in getting Maynard James Keenan featured; I keep it, Tool (band), Tool discography (all of which are featured content) and other related articles on my watchlist. I added this one to my watchlist when I started editing it. I intended to not only return this evening to continue the work, but to continue to work on the references until all were completed and consistent. Then, as I do on others, maintain the references. You tell me I should have first gained some sort of consensus to clean up the reference section. I believe it is you that should discuss before making wholesale reverts to edits that improve content. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The referencing is, in my opinion, too sloppy for an FA. I'll drop an informal request for opinion on SandyGeorgia and Malleus Fatuorum's talk pages to see if I am perhaps being too strict. That aside, let me once more explain my choice in format here. Reference work is one of my main areas of focus here. I don't use cite templates because I rely on them. In fact, I prefer manual referencing, as you prefer. However, for this particular style of referencing, templates are required. Citation templates are used to list the books with all of their information in the references section. Then, in the body, harvnb templates are used. As I exampled above, only select info is required there. It takes the last name and searches the references section, in cases of multiple references with the same last name, it checks the year. It makes its match and links the simple footnote to the specific reference in the reference section. The final result, as I said, is the same as it is now, only there is a link in the simple note ("Smith 2000, p. 3", wherein Smith 2000 would be linked). The simple harvnb notes also make for very clean edit windows, as the brackets make it easier to distinguish the references from the text. Check out Hitler for an example of this format in action. That took me several days. I was planning to put the same effort into improving this article. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchmen (III)

Certainly. Do you want me to (and I'm not being flippant, I assure you!) to put the work in, or do you want me to just port various sections across from the me-edited version to the temporary one..? I imagine its no problem for me to do more than just transpose sources... (Incidentally, what specifically - do you feel - is still lacking/odd/'wrong' about the current revision..? I thought sources was the main problem, so I tried to get them straight, but if there's more needed, I'll have a look around and see what I can dig out. :o))
There absolutely is information along the lines you asked of ("would those Comics Journal articles have information on sales or the publication delays I've heard about, or this news I keep hearing that the story is supposed to to change ownership from DC to Moore and Gibbons when it's no longer in print?"). Specifically, I can get you an on-the-spot, mid-publication comment from Moore about his understanding of their deal with DC. I'm not entirely convinced (remembering, not referring at the moment) there's much specifically addressing delays, although there are comments to the effect of 'we're still working on issue seven/issue five just came out,' and I think there's a 'delays may occur' type comment. I think I should be able to locate the TCJ that reviews either the trade or just does a retrospective of the series, which may mention delays/sales, but in the meantime I can get easy access to the CBG Standard Catalog of Comics which may have raw numbers (it has many, but not all) in print form, but you can also dig the (alleged) print run out of the "4colorheroes" website via the Internet Archive's archived Watchmen page (which appears to be down on the website-proper). For ease of reference, these online-quoted numbers are:

  • Issue #1 - Print Run: 34,100
  • Issue #2 - Print Run: 38,350
  • Issue #3 - Print Run: 38,000
  • Issue #4 - Print Run: 40,500
  • Issue #5 - Print Run: 33,150
  • Issue #6 - Print Run: 32,700
  • Issue #7 - Print Run: 30,150
  • Issue #8 - Print Run: 28,150
  • Issue #9 - Print Run: 28,150
  • Issue #10 - Print Run: 26,850
  • Issue #11 - Print Run: 28,300
  • Issue #12 - Print Run: 34,150
  • Millennium Edition (#1) - ?

For what it's worth, I toyed with looking out the numbers but didn't think it worth making an attempt at working them in to an already immense (and rightly so) article. Likewise, I wonder if a list of the 'backup' materials (you'll note the quote/comment about the letter's page theory being overruled) could be incorporated anywhere. It would go (as per 4ch):

  • Issue #1 - Mason's Under The Hood (ch. 1, 2)
  • Issue #2 - Mason's Under The Hood (ch. 3, 4)
  • Issue #3 - Mason's Under The Hood (ch. 5) - (Moore was asked whether he might release the book at some point, but answered the fan query in the negative because only these sections of these chapters exist... the book does not, and will not.)
  • Issue #4 - Excerpts from Prof. Milton Glass' "Dr. Manhattan: Super Powers and the Super Powers"
  • Issue #5 - Chapter 5 of Treasury Island, Treasury of Comics - (I can get a quote likening it to books such as Denis Gifford's The Complete Catalogue of British Comics, and explaining that the title is a typo - it's supposed to be the Treasure Island Treasury, for obvious reasons. Illustration by Joe Orlando, I believe. Can't check the comic itself at the moment. They talked about putting out a Black Freighter mini-series in the old DC style, and deliberately used Orlando for the reasons currently cited. Fascinating!)
  • Issue #6 - Kovacs psychiatric materials
  • Issue #7 - "Blood from the Shoulder of Pallas" by Dreiberg in The Journal of The American Ornithological Society
  • Issue #8 - Selections from New Frontiersman
  • Issue #9 - Silk Spectre articles
  • Issue #10 - Veidt memos
  • Issue #11 - Veidt interview by Doug Roth (Nova Express)

Let me know what you'd like me to do. Are you/anyone thinking of copying over the temporary copy wholesale or in parts; destroying the edit history of either, both or neither..? ntnon (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. :o) I'll try and get sources and section-edits piled into the temporary version over the weekend, then. I don't know of any (obvious) sources talking about relative sales numbers, but I'll have a look around look. (And if it takes longer than 0.7, oh well.) The rights issue is somewhat difficult, because the two main sources are Rich Johnston's interview(s) (about which there is some debate, although it is - the consensus seems to be - clearly acceptable) and various severalth-hand comments. I'll go dig out the on-the-spot "this is what they've told me" quote later on, which will be useful.
As for lateness, the cover-dates go Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec/Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr/May/Jul/Aug/Oct. So clearly at least two issues were delayed, and since it seems clear (from the interviews) that the fifth issue was out by the end of September... However, the blogs and commentators are probably working from part-memory and part-confusion. Camelot 3000 is the major early delayed comic - nearly a year between #11 and #12. The real point is that solicitation information was sparse, so readers would be vaguelly expecting it every week, so the composite disappointment is magnified. I'll see what I can find, though. It was definitely delayed, although probably not as horrendously as it is often cited as being.
I don't think that sales chart information (relative to other issues) will be easy to get hold of, although the Krause Publications archives apparently has Capital City Distribution's sales records from 1985 to 1996, which might have such information. Not sure whether TCJ did such things, don't think so. There may be somewhere that did, though. However, I did think that 4ch would be pushing it source-wise (although it's palpably clear that the numbers came from somewhere and are someone elses figures, although we can't know their accuracy), but fortunately the Comic's Buyers Guide Standard Catalog.. does have them - also known as "Capital City orders" - and they are identical. (Surprise, surprise!)
Now, from there it gets complicated. Diamond was around in 1985, although it was relatively small. But many, many other individuals and companies were also distributing comics - and newsstand sales (although spotty) were also still around. The Standard Catalog says this: "they are only part of the total number of copies that were actually sold overall." The CBG team estimate (and I would be wary of this estimation, too!) that CC accounted for approx. 8-9% "of [DC]'s comics [between 1985 and 1986]." DC "also had significant newsstand sales in these years." I think, although it's not totally clear, that the percentage figure is relative to total sales, and not the percentage of comics CC sold. (i.e. 9% is not 9% of CCs sales were DC titles, but 9% of DCs sales were through CC.) So, extrapolation might suggest a figure of 425,000 issues available, but without an easy way of guesstimating total sales. We can reasonably assume that the 36,000ish direct market copies broadly sold well, though. But that's squarely in the realms of original research/guesswork. But the numbers above can be sourced properly, so that's a start.
Also from the Standard Catalog, we get Capital City figures for:
  • "Bk 1" (AKA "TPB (1st)"): 7650 [cover price $14.95]
  • "Bk 1/2nd": 2335 (+ Diamond orders of 841) [cover price $19.95]
  • "Bk 1/3rd": 3349 [cover price $19.95, and "ca. 2004".]
The Black Freighter definitely needs its own section - EC, Joe Orlando (who knew!?), intertextuality, etc. I would probably put the other materials under their own sub-heading, but... we'll see. I like the length and depth of the current article, so I hope it doesn't wind up being stripped back too far...!
Have you been able to turn up the 'official' quotes from the Lost folk who cite Watchmen as a massive inspiration on their program? That/Those will help with talk about the additional materials, filling in the background details in semi-flashback. ntnon (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sadly it does look like it'll need to be hacked about a bit. I've actually been wondering whether it'd be a good idea to split it into a sub-article on "The Genesis of Watchmen" (or similar)..? I would prefer not, but then again, I don't want to see any of the information currently there lost! ;o) Not just investment of time, but because I think it's all very, very interesting - and almost-entirely relevant. Plus, full-ish quotes mean that there's no cause for complaint of misrepresentation, nor obvious reader-misunderstanding.
If you could hold of pruning it for just a while longer, I should have piled everything I can think of into it, and it'll save some cross-purposes back-and-forth..! I'll certainly though - if you don't mind overmuch - be keeping an eye on what gets pulled out or foreshortened... for example, while many series' have had merchandise, Watchmen was one of (maybe THE) first. Moreover, it has had precious little - not least because Mr Moore quashed the anniversary figures... and that's rather relevant. The buttons were the major reason he got upset with DC and left them, so that's utterly vital. The Graphitti edition has a wealth of extra information, and was one of the earliest co-productions of a comic book series with DC (bar a couple of Marvel crossovers), while it was (probably) the first 'Director's Cut' release, and certainly I would imagine the first time a comic had gone from paperback to hardback...! The cover change is interesting more than vital, but the Absolution is important and the Mayfair supplements have new information from Moore, and... the merchandise may need some work, but it also needs to stay. In my opinion. :o)
Yes, please mark the web references - were they mine? - that need correcting, and if they can be, they will be. If they can't, we'll see what can be done. ntnon (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Righto! I see three GOLDAs, two HILDEBRANDTs and a CARLYLE. I would suggest that losing the "..and expressed in Watchmen" takes care of the latter; I understand the complaint against "The Annotated Watchmen" (although I don't really agree), so ft66 can be resourced to the issue, while ft55 can hopefully be reworded to not reference the annotations, but say "there's so much detail and symbolism and stuff that some Hildebrandt has annotated the whole thing." (So long as the Hildebrandt annotations can stay as a "see also"/"external link," I have no problem with switching those two references for something else (or nothing). The complaint against Golda, as I understand it from Erik's page is that of proving who he is, since his Pennsylvania (1997!) e-mail address was dodgy. Well, he appears to now be at Sacred Heart, Connecticut with SHU e-mail, and credited with teaching 'Comics and Animation'. Good enough for me! ntnon (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm nearing the end of things... but that just means I'm slowing down, so a day or so wouldn't hurt, if you wouldn't mind. Plus I might be able to pre-empt you in some cases. I would be mildly unhappy to see you revert the whole of the Background section back though - I copied that section in from my edit, which I think I severely revised/re-sourced (although I'm too tired to check at the moment), and I certainly don't think most of it is extraneous. 2000AD, Martian Manhunter, sorting out the true(r) logical progression from what to what and why and how... we can work something out, though, I'm sure. :o)
(Incidentally, when you purged Juvenal, you also took out "the title is derived from the phrase...," which seems like it was probably a mistake. I quite liked the tabulated translation, but.. fair enough. Maybe a vote at some point?!)
I'll try and catch things up tomorrow or.. by Tuesday, I would suspect. Fingers crossed! ntnon (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've not quite finished what I'd hoped and planned to do, so it's up to you if you want to start wading in, or give me another day..! I will add though, that I now have access to the Graphitti edition, and on quick perusal there should be some decent quotes. However, the pagination for the bonus material is... odd to non-existent. But "Minutes" should suffice if much is needed. ntnon (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Interview with Len Wein, the comics' editor. Sorry I haven't written a film section summary yet. Alientraveller (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work so far on the revision! I was wondering, though, about "Themes"... the whole thing seems to be original research. You've noticed that I've marked the resources as unreliable or improperly synthesizing information. If you look at the "Books" and "Journals" of my main Watchmen page, I have five items marked (saved). I can send them to you via email if you want to address the "Themes" section better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.... I can see that argument, but don't fully subscribe. Synthesis is not automatically equable with OR, and OR at its broadest covers all edits. My interpretation would be that the current THEMES section is pushing at the boundaries, but is moderately/adequately-somewhat lacking in being accurate and sourced:
  • Realism - Set in America, set in the past. Not a hypothetical future with future-casting elements. PLUS, extrapolated from the standpoint of superhero interaction (as cited), thereby injecting the elements of realistic technological progress in a world with Veidt and Manhattan. That seems fair, if perhaps lacking a little something.
    Deconstruction - Watchmen and DKR are THE foremost, earliest and 'best' examples of deconstruction in its most general sense, and clearly the foundation blocks for the term as it pertains to comics. This should go without saying, although it is distinctly unfortunate that - so far - it's moderately uncited. Which shouldn't be hard to fix, although its such an established and uncontested fact that it might ironically be tough..!
    Apocalypticism - If the ticking - and nearing - doomsday clock weren't enough, and the general pervading sense of unease, worry and panic didn't cut it, then Moore's point about trying to get Americans to be less complacent (did I put that in somewhere, yet?) and start to wise up (something like that, anyway) surely points in this direction. It's hand-in-hand with deconstruction in many ways, but the paranoia of Rorschach and the nuclear threat is apocalyptic even without the biblical overtones and ultimate threat. Plus the final panels give rise to an even more apocalyptic threat - the destruction of this tentative utopia.
    Morality - This might be pushing it, as far as 'theme's go, actually. It's interesting stuff, and some parts ought perhaps to be re-incorporated elsewhere - is Veidt called a megalomaniac elsewhere yet? is the Comedian said to have a nihilistic outlook? is the consequentialist nature and 'ends justifies the means' manner of Ozzy's final solution mentioned specifically? - and then this can be wisely removed. It's the most speculative and least accurate section of the four. Plus, in decent works of fiction the moral standpoint of the characters will almost always be showcased and weighed - doesn't make it a thematic choice, rather an integral part of any decent novel.
So, yes. "Themes" needs work, but I don't it fair to say that it's all original research/synthesis, nor even predominantly so. Obvious in many cases, and therefore tough to cite, but not original thinking or interpretation. ntnon (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this assessment... we cannot use the primary source beyond basic descriptions, and themes are definitely not basic descriptions. Combining Watchmen with resources that don't mention the comic at all is full synthesis. Believe me, the five sources I have saved are very useful and take a much different direction than the completely original themes. By the way, Wes, do you have a junk email account to send the sources to? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, combining with sources that don't mention it is originality of thought. So that's "deconstruction" and "morality" the problematic two, as it stands - the other two are nearing full support from external sources. "Deconstruction," as I mentioned, is arguably the primal 'theme'/tone/point of Watchmen, so that shouldn't be any hassle to source properly, and "morality" should go. Which should address things somewhat.
What direction do your sources take, then...? :o) Could you zap them over to Wiki@NTNON.zzn.com for me, please, or are they only for other eyes..? ntnon (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


A Musing

Today I managed to get my hands on the Mayfair Games Sourcebook, which at a brief lookover seems to be a third powers and stats (unhelpful for here), a third reprints of the backup materials (useful, but superfluous) and a third all-new, behind-the-scenes-of-the-Watchmen world material.

Which leads me to muse... would a World of Watchmen article solve many problems, or create more...?! Problem one: LENGTH. Solution one: Split off various (parts of) sections to World of.... Problem two: LOGICAL PROGRESSION. Solution(ish) two: Freeing Watchmen for the book plot, format & extraneous, with World of... being behind the scenes (art-wise?) of the world, with the electric cars and Nixon and suchlike. Maybe. The World... could then also have a fair-sized film section on recreating the page on set (part-sourced from the videoblogs, which quote the designers and Mr Gibbons and others), which could also free up parts of the film article.

Anyone daring enough to mull this over..?! ;o) ntnon (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Points

  • Wright may say that Manhattan is the only character to possess superpowers, but Watchmen says otherwise. Veidt catches a bullet, among other (more minor) feats beyond the normal abilities of man. That his abilities are not widely known is integral to his not being apprehended, hence it being shielded from the reader. Nevertheless, it is far more technically accurate not to say that Manhattan is the only superpowered character, since he is not.
  • A link to Registration acts (comics)#Watchmen takes away the definitive need to mention the act in text, while still incorporating it. The best of both worlds, I thought!
  • "faking an alien invasion" is not necessary. The method of his plan does not affect the plot, except to provide an outside threat to unite the US and USSR, but that much is obvious from it being a world-saving plan. Plus, not mentioning aliens allows a new reader to either work it out or be shocked and surprised, which is always nice. :o)
  • Literary stuff:
    • While the roots of The Black Freighter are noted as deriving from Brecht, Rorschach's 'quotations' cement the analogy, and create a broader picture. Simply, put: that Rorschach evokes Pirate Jenny in addition to Freighter tells us that Moore meant for more than just a passing allusion. Since Moore wrote as "Curt Vile" (Kurt Weill), we could reasonably assume that he just likes the Opera and put in a throwaway reference in the foreboding Freighter. By doubling the analogy (and utilising the parallels of the comic-within), we know to look deeper, and see the links.
  • That Mason has Gladiator, tells us about Veidt... :o)
  • The Day the Earth Stood Still adds a popular cultural parallel that is far more accessible than Threepenny, and is surely reasonable to mention.
  • Nova Express, and Burroughs' "cut-up technique" are useful links to make, and this the best place to make them. Nova in particular, but "cut-up" explains the rationale.
  • Nostalghia and The Sacrifice are symbolic of Moore & Gibbons' discovery of serendipitous uber-links between their work and what went before. The Sacrifice in particular speaks of Rorschach (lost sanity), Manhattan (lost humanity) and Veidt (lost morality) in the face of preventing armaggedon in whatever ways they think best (maybe, glibly: reaction, action and inaction).

(I should write a book! :o)) ntnon (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Drummers

Animal: He put his trust in you.

I'm throwing down the gauntlet, and saying that these are the best drum tracks I've heard so far:

Thats 34; back with 21 more later. Ceoil sláinte 13:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Radiohead

Since I've got the book on OK Computer (and because Kid A's already featured), I think we should go all out on OKC for the time that you have the Exit Music book and get try to get it featured. Plus the OKC singles; the book I have is pretty great because it has a fairly long chapter for each song plus a chapter on the videos (It's like a 33 1/3 book on steroids), so the song articles should be fairly easy once the album article's been fleshed out. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Since homework will probably dominate my week anyway, we can start working on the articles on Friday. As far as the song articles go, "Paranoid Android" is probably a good place to start. It'd be sweet if we could pull a featured topic out of this. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
How sneaky. I think all of those can be redirected for now, although "Exit Music" and "Lucky" both might just make the cut for notability, seeing as they were both released before OK Computer came out and both made at least one of the two Radiohead Best Ofs. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured topic

Great idea, but it might be a little early to discuss an FT right now as we don't have any FAs on the OK Computer topic yet! Saying that, I'll help out with my usual pedantry wherever possible. To get an "OK Computer" good topic, we'd need to improve the following articles:

Another option would be a "Radiohead albums" good topic with the following articles:

Papa November (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Start-Class on Label Fandango?

Just wondering why you rated the Label Fandango article as start class? By definition - "more than a stub, but still severely lacking and may neglect to include significant aspects of a topic's history altogether. A poorly developed article that needs major attention." - What exactly is it that you feel needs major attention about it? I have covered most of the details of the label's history, so i don't see how this should be rated as Start.

Fair play by stating it as low importance, as its not terribly important. But start class, no. I won't change the edit before discussing it with you but i think this should be changed to around "B" class. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 21:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What information is it that you feel is missing? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for September 2008

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 18 - September 2008
"And suddenly the plane dropped to the right, then to the left, and the ground was right there. And all I could think was, Fuck, I didn’t finish "Fix You." That would have been my last thought: I didn’t get that chorus right."- Chris Martin
Project news
New members

ThinkBlue joined the alternative music fold during September.

Editors

User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot II (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Avengers List Deletion

I was checking on the page for The Avengers: United They Stand and was wondering why this deletion was made and why you didn't give a reason for deleting it (Since we're usually suppose to provide a reason for an edit): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers%3A_United_They_Stand&diff=237218345&oldid=237218246 Antiyonder (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I still say it's fairly noticable. Is there a way to present it to make it appropriate for wikipedia standards? Antiyonder (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall spin off comics being a violation of the rules. Antiyonder (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

About the only thing I can do to prove these comics exist are www.comicpriceguides.com and the actual comics in particular that I own, but I'm guessing the comicpriceguides doesn't qualify? Antiyonder (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I did find a couple of sites, but I'm not 100 percent sure if they qualify:

Would you give them a check to see if they validate the section? Antiyonder (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine then. Since I don't have anyone's good faith, I've just deleted my info. Antiyonder (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

When I'm being told that I need to immediately delete something because I don't have instant proof, it's hard to see that as good faith (besides I'd think that having a decent edit history would merit credibility). I'm sorry if I sound pushy, but the problem is that the official sites don't have much in the more obscure. Could you perhaps point me to a wikipedian that has good knowledge on official websites? Antiyonder (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WesleyDodds/Archive_11&oldid=1136126441"