Talk:Northern Sky/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ocean's 12th

No great lover of where music-samples have been used in tiny television advert snippets etc. But is this really totally non-notable:

"The song was included on the soundtracks to the romantic comedies Serendipity (2000) and Fever Pitch (2005)."?

I mean, if it's good enough for Ludwig, then why not here, exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't see a problem with that.. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, add trivia is a problem! Those pages should link in here, not the opposite. Victoria (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(Hope you enjoy that battle at Eroica... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

The souces, given at Nick Drake discography, are these: and . Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps these could be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Come blow your horn on high

Cale added piano, organ and celesta arrangements against Drake's wishes. During and leading up to the sessions, the chronically shy and notably withdrawn songwriter eventually a friendship and allowed a mentorship of sorts with producer Joe Boyd

Hi, Victoriaearle. I was gonna reinstate that information somewhere, but the article is/was in such a state I felt it easier to simply chop that last sentence for the time being. Not particularly keen on the way the lede flicks from Boyd to Cale to Boyd. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"However despite the string addition by Cale... " - was this a single string, added to Drake's battered guitar? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

... might also be nice to know who played that bass and those drums? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• In less than 24 hours the article went from this to this. In other words, it's still being written, and articles in the process of being written tend to go through a messy stage. That's wikipedia for ya! I'd bet that Ceoil, who brought Nick Drake to FA has a pretty good grasp of the subject and sources, but rarely edits during the week, so perhaps just let it be for a bit? This edit summary, [1], suggests that sourced material was removed because of a phrasing error, which imo was easy to work out. Anyway, I'd just popped in, noticed it on watch and found the edit summary demeaning and not in the spirit of wikipedia (whatever that is!). That's all from me. Carry on. Victoria (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry to see that you have a status of "retired", Victoria. Yes, we've had a few rather unusual edit summaries in the past 24 hours! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Low blow Martin! And exactly the reason for the retired tag. Ducking out again. Victoria (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Low blow?? Who said anything about ducks?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, yes, perhaps I should have added the words for the time being to the edit summary, but I fail to see how anyone could find it "demeaning". Perhaps someone could tell me "demeaning" of this: Get top fuck with ref ask ? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's secret code. Has to do with citation tags that linger at least five years. As opposed to material inserted only recently. Anyway, as I said, carry on. I misinterpreted; thought the sentence (which gives a good sense of the dynamics) was being removed forever. My bad. Victoria (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Phew! What a relief. Not that secret then.... just secret to me and about 99% of other editors. (p.s. we already carried on, by the way.) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You have some neck. Go piss in another field. Where your taunting and baiting, on you talk, on this talk, or in edit summaries, might be better "appreciated". Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's take one page at a time... Could you please explain where I have been "taunting and baiting" in my edit summaries at this article and on this Talk Page? And could you please explain how this "secret code", that Victoria mentions, actually works? I didn't realise this was exclusively your "field". Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) ... or is your comment a reply to Victoria?

Quartet named after song

I had tried to add this:

"The name is also used by British acoustic/electric quartet Northern Sky, which features two musicians of the Birmingham Philharmonic Orchestra, and which plays a number of Drake's songs and other music of his era. In 2011 the group was invited to perform at the annual Nick Drake Gathering held in Tanworth-in-Arden. [2]"

But the source is only WP:SPS. Is this Worcester Music Festival source sufficient to confer notability, or do other editors have any better sources? It seemed to me that a whole group named after this one song might be at least as notable as a song partly named after it (or in tribute to it), especially if that group is closely connected to the Nick Drake "community". Even if that other song was a big pop "hit". But do other editors have any better sources for notability of this quartet? (Apparently real books are more reliable than websites, or so I'm told.) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, imo, books are always more reliable than websites and certainly more reliable than anything that's self-published. I'd add to what I wrote above - a nice page is taking shape about a nice song. Let it be written, there's no deadline. Why the need to add the trivia and etc, before the meat of the story is told? Victoria (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'm quite happy to get my two veg served up before the meat, provided the gravy eventually gets to cover it all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC) here's another link for them, playing at Cox's Yard, in Stratford-upon-Avon last year.

Not sure if it really adds notability, but looking at their own bio vocalist Julian Crook was one of the The Cohen Brothers -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted that too, and thought it might add notability. Maybe the quartet should be mentioned at that article. But this one seemed quite appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't add it, lest anyone accuse us of being meatpuppets -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

True. I mean those sources are not even real books, are they. Whoever heard of adding a self-published web site as a source in an article about a band. Whatever next. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Audio sample

Great to see an audio sample. A very sensible addition, I think. But I see that it's 29 seconds long. At Bryter Layter the entire track is given a length of 3:47, so 10% is only about 23 seconds, alas. So I think it might need to be trimmed slightly to comply with copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Its an old one...2006! Back then, 30s was the acceptable cut off, hence its running time of 29.9999 seconds. I can trim of the rules have changed sice I last looked, eek, 7 years ago. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Covers

I had tried to add a section on cover versions, which is a very usual section for song articles. But I see this was deleted with the edit summary "unsupported". Given that the entries were all linked to other Wikipedia articles, I think WP:RS sources could quite easily be found for each of them. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just not found them yet. The Everything but the Girl version seems the most mentioned...but can't quite bring myself to include them. have a POV there, I guess. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Image

Would the article benenfit from the addition of an image? The only image of the 1993 simgle that I can find on line is this one at discogs, but its very low quality. However, there is also this one: this one from here, suggesting that it was also issued, as a B-side to "Magic", in May 2004. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent finds. Problem though, can't right click on [3]. Will go searching around for other repros. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Line in the sand

Can we draw one. And at least pretend to be nice. I'll struggle with that as much as you Martin, but lets keep this on track. I notice that some of your recent suggestions are very good. I;m sure you can copy and paste well enough. Ceoil (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why has the Talk Page been deleted? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Dont play stupid with me. Ceoil (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure that's permitted. Would you prefer to archive these first discussion threads? But that seems a little too soon. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was still waiting for your answer to my question here after you told me to "go and piss in a another field". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Grow the fuck up. You earned that, with your pointy and childish edit suammries, and there was more. I know, you know. Not permitted? Are you 12? I'm cutting losses, moving on, being pragmatic. Note the line in the sand offer. Pity you didnt have the grace to realise. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way Martin, the true sign of a gaming wiki twerp is when they couch a passive aggresive, baiting, post with "Thanks." Saving up diffs eh? Well done in being so predictable. Ceoil (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of swapping abuse or insults. I haven't "saved any diffs" - wikipedia saves all of them. I just wanted some kind of explanation for your accusations. I don't own this article, or this article, or any "field". So it's not up to me to decide if the entire page is kept or not. It's just policy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"wikipedia saves all of them". Implied treath noted, and thanks for so wonderfully proving my point. And that post explains what position and insults exactly? Put up or shut up. I'd prefer if you left me in peace to get on with it frankly. Your just annoying now. I've attempted reson, didnt work. You realise that this started with you blind reverteing me, and I piosted on you talk in a friendly manner, as we knew each other from around. And you started taking the piss. On me and my friends. And its a week later now. Your into troll territory here dude, however you might couch it with "Ceoil carnt spell", and when its pointed out swears. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What does "blind reverteing me" mean? I reverted two of your three edits: [4] and [5] since, in the light of your edit summaries, they made no sense to me and did not seem to have adequate sources to support the opinion expressed. I added a cn tag. I think the appropriate forum for discussing personal differences of opinion is the users' respective Talk Pages? In the meantime, I think you'd better restore the Talk Page as per policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Would be counter productive. I'm here to work on the article, and am archiving in that respect. You here to grip and settle a score. Ceoil (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No "scores" to grip or settle, thanks. I just think you've acted contrary to Wikipedia policy. I don't think the article Talk Page is yours to do with simply as you wish, just because you don't like what's on it. Maybe I'm wrong. Would you like me to clarify this with an Admin? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You say that you want to work on the article and are "archiving in that respect." Yet you haven't archived anything. An ip editor has done that, but only with one of the threads, to which I added a question at 11:28 this morning. The other five threads are nowhere to be seen. They were all current as of one or two days ago. How is discussion to proceed on these topics? This Talk Page is here to support all editors who want to work on the article, not just one. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok now you just lost me. I blanked and you reverted. Problems with facts, on top of everything else? Anyway, the page was a load of self congratulotary rubbish to begin with. I notice you are more of a talker than a doer. "We should", "I'm going to", and tellingly and repetitively - "I find objection with", or "hang on I got ya here on this". Bla fucking bla. Ceoil (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted because I thought you might have blanked in error. Your edit summary was "un derail" and I didn't know what that meant. My edit summary was "restoring Talk Page, presumably deleted by mistake". I'm trying to have a constructive conversation, to resolve the matter, which doesn't involve trading insults. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you point out where was the "load of self congratulotary rubbish"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

My edit summary was in english? And anyway "derail" is a hard word. I fucked up there right enough. We are done. You have nothing meaningful to add, I decline your invitation to navel gaze. Blanking this soon, and moving on. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not resolved. I think other editors, as well as me, deserve a resolution in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Sorry, but this is not your own personal Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct. That is why this talk should remain in view. Rosemary Cheese (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The spelling was dire prior to this. Rosemary Cheese (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

So fucking what. Usually, that aspect is dealt with, quietly. The whole argument here becuase of piss taking over that. Carry on guys; the only thing acieved by reopening this is that Martin has a new friend to joke and sneer aruond on his talk with. And that helps the article, how? Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)