Talk:The KLF/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Peer review

i know its probably not finished but as its in pretty good condition already i put the article on peer review (as first step to FAC). please continue editing in the meantime, its just a formality. Zzzzz 22:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Blimey! That's great news, thanks for that :-) It's not there yet, but things I can definitely pinpoint immediately are:

• reworking of introduction;
• the tidying and expanding of ==Legacy==;
• more on the music itself, including descriptions, OGG samples, and contributors;
• standardisation of references. --Vinoir 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Legacy section? Also, I don't think we need to go overboard, we're not writing a novel :-)

My main issues are:

• Song samples
• Some statistics from good quality sources (not the music press) of units sold, especially for Doctorin'; and - more for other articles than this one - chart data
• Finishing my trawl through the Library of Mu for interesting quotes and sources

But, I think we have a decent article already and some more feedback about polishing what we have would be most welcome indeed. (Sorry if this is incoherent but it's freezzzzing here!). --kingboyk 11:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is not much left to do. There's nothing at all wrong with the Legacy section, it's good - it just needs comments about how The KLF influenced genres with Chill Out and (to a lesser extent) Stadium House. --Vinoir 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Instruction creep it may be (!), but I've found another relevant page: Wikipedia:Featured Music Project. --kingboyk 04:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a helpful page. --Vinoir 09:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Personnel

I like the new section. It might also be a suitable place to mention the brains behind the KLF (snigger), Wanda Dee? --kingboyk 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[1] --kingboyk 02:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I look forward to seeing what you do with that page! The writing still holds up I reckon for the ones I finished. D'you know, I stopped paying easyweb for ISP services and associated web space when I left the UK in 1998, but they have left that site online since then, I think it gives them page rank or something. I really should move that page to the library of mu. cheers and thanks for all the work you have done on the wikipedia entries, they are all great (even when you have removed unencyclopedic stuff I added! ;-) Drstuey 08:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Grafitti

I think maybe we should cover graffiti in the Themes section? There's lots of sources in the Library mentioning their use of it. This one is especially great. --kingboyk 17:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [2] is excellent too, and is already available in the article as a ref named "Stubbs". --kingboyk 17:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, good idea. I think in that case "adverts" will need a mention as a theme too. --Vinoir 04:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti now done. --Vinoir 16:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent first draft. When will the final version be ready? :P hehe. Nah, seriously, sterling work as usual mate. --kingboyk 16:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha. :-) And now for Wanda... --Vinoir 16:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Crop circles: maybe not important, but pasting the link here just in case: [3] --kingboyk 11:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Slang/Usage review

At Kingboyk's request, I just did a pass for usages that might not be as familiar to non house fans or non anglic speakers. As I feared, I didn't see any but can't be sure that means none are there. I DID notice on thing... I think I'd list Tammy Wynette on the personnel list at the bottom as a regular person rather than guest, but I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

Legacy section is looking good now, yeah? :) I'd like to get some more "Opinions of contemporaries" in there if possible, so if you find any or know of any stick 'em in there please. --kingboyk 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Personnel (2)

Cauty and Drummond were writers, producers and performers of the original music they recorded. However, as The KLF they often called upon the services of recurring contributors to provide vocals, instrumentation and production support. The KLF often referred to such contributors as "additional communicators" and, on some "Stadium House" singles, as "The Children of the Revolution". In alphabetical order, the contributors included:

• Isaac Bello - Also known as Bello B, the member of Outlaw Posse rapped on "What Time Is Love?" and "America: What Time Is Love?", and is credited with co-authorship of these tracks.
• Black Steel - A prominent lead vocal contributor to The White Room (including scat singing), where he also played bass guitar and piano. Before and since his work with The KLF, Black Steel has worked with Mad Professor.
• Cressida Cauty - Vocalist with The KLF's spin-off project Disco 2000, Jimmy Cauty's wife also contributed backing vocals to several of The KLF's singles and appeared in several of their videos.
• Nick Coler - Credited for programming and keyboard contributions across The KLF's output, including the orchestral arrangement of Jerusalem in "It's Grim Up North". Since The KLF's retirement, Coler has worked with Saint Etienne.
• Ricardo Da Force - Also known as Ricardo Lyte and MC Lyte, Da Force provided raps during The KLF's "Stadium House" phase. He is credited with co-authorship of tracks on which he rapped: "3 a.m. Eternal", "Last Train to Trancentral" and "Justified and Ancient (Stand by The JAMs)". Da Force later appeared on N-Trance's cover of "Stayin' Alive".
• Wanda Dee - Vocal samples on The KLF singles "What Time Is Love?" and "Last Train to Trancentral", taken from her track "To the Bone". To avoid a lawsuit from Dee's manager and husband Eric Floyd, she was given co-writing credit for these tracks (under her real name L'wanda McFarland), and featured in The KLF video The Stadium House Trilogy. Following The KLF's retirement, Wanda Dee toured America and Australia using the 'KLF' name, in an act variously reported as being billed "Wanda Dee and The KLF Experience", "The KLF featuring wanda Dee", and "The KLF". These concerts featured live rapping and singing played to a backing tape of The KLF's music ("the hits that she made famous", Floyd claimed), alongside Wanda Dee's solo work. Neither Drummond nor Cauty were involved with the shows. Cauty has commented "I actually felt more sorry for the band than the audience. We did write to them to ask them to reconsider and got this amazing letter in return, they really thought they were the KLF, and without the Wanda Dee sample we would never have sold a single record. 9 out of 10 for total insanity".
• Maxine Harvey - The KLF's lead female vocalist on The White Room projects and "Justified and Ancient (All Bound for Mu Mu Land)", a mix in which she replaces Tammy Wynette.
• Duy Khiem - Played tenor saxophone and clarinet, most prominently on "3 a.m. Eternal". Khiem was also responsible for the a cappella traditional Vietnamese song "Me Ru Con" on 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?).
• Graham Lee - Contributed pedal steel to Drummond's solo album The Man, and The KLF's Chill Out and The White Room.
• June Montana - Vocalist with Disco 2000.
• Scott Piering - a well-respected record promoter by trade, Drummond and Cauty claim in The Manual that Piering's involvement in the promotion of "Doctorin' the Tardis" was crucial to its UK Singles Chart success. Piering also leant his voice to several narrations in The KLF's recordings, including many of the profitable singles and the video The Rites of Mu.
• Mark "Spike" Stent - The music producer cites his work with The KLF on their most commercially successful recordings as the key to his subsequent rise to prominence.
• Tony Thorpe - Co-founder of The Moody Boys with Jimmy Cauty, Thorpe was credited for rhythms, samples and breaks during The White Room project. The Moody Boys were also responsible for remix 12"s of the "Stadium House Trilogy" singles.

Whereas The JAMs' earlier work sampled from the popular works of established artists, The KLF's international reputation allowed their later work to feature guest vocals from such established performers as Tammy Wynette, Gary Glitter and Glenn Hughes.

--moved this bit out of the article: it should be made into a separate article. its good but there are size issues (50K max) Zzzzz 11:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I heartily approve of your changes. Thanks very much. I've slightly expanded the removed section, creating the article The KLF personnel. --Vinoir 12:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. I wondered what that was all about it. Taken me by surprise a bit :) Thanks again for your help, I'll have a look at your changes and the FAC debate later. Cheers! --kingboyk 13:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

FAC

to prepare for FAC i made a few bold changes: max heading level is now 3 instead of 4, makes TOC smaller and less daunting. removed any sub-headings that came immediately after headings (normally they should be separated by some text). merged any one-pgraph sections. got rid of bold except for alternative band names in lead. rm'ed the above section - i hope someone can make it into a separate article (then it can be linked from this article). in the meantime please continue editing as u see fit. if you want to vote support or object please go here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The KLF. Zzzzz 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

i added fairuse rationales to all the single and album covers. if somebody could also add the sources for those images that would be great. the other images i leave to you. here is the relevant wikipolicy: Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. Zzzzz 16:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, I've had a go at it, and it looks like Vinoir is cleaning up behind me too. I've left a message for the uploader of Image:The KLF.jpg. Vinoir, with regards to the 2K in a wheelchair photo, can you remember where that came from? (I know I uploaded it, I'm meaning can you remember where it first appeared? I'm sure it was a 2K promotional picture, did it come from their website? (And if you think it did, can you remember the URL?) --kingboyk 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'll ask Drstuey if he recognizes it from any of the press clippings. As for Image:The KLF.jpg, that is credited at [4] to "Ronnie Randall", which requires a bit of detective work. I'll also get on to that. --Vinoir 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're gonna have a word with Dr Stuey it might be worth asking at the same time if he can suggest an alternative band photo for the lead. I fear we might have to lose the current one, which is a damn shame to say the least! :( --kingboyk 17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because it's a great photo. I think I've found Ronnie Randall here (describing a guy with the same name who has "over two decades of experience in music, fashion and lifestyle photography and journalism (beginning at i-D in 1982)". I'm not sure of procedure: would it be worth contacting him and asking (i) "are you he?", (ii) "is the copyright yours and if so, can we use it?", and (iii) "where did it first appear?". --Vinoir 17:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth contacting him and asking who owns the copyright (if it's The KLF or a record label and it's a publicity shot we can use it, I think) and if he owns it, would he licence it under the GFDL/Commons? Up to you mate. --kingboyk 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a reply regarding the lead image on my talk page now. Apparently it was used on a CD cover, but a trimmed CD cover is not fair use. We'll have to either try and get it GFDL licenced or find a replacement. No idea how! You don't have Bill's phone number do you? :) --kingboyk 08:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Having re-read Wikipedia:Fair Use#Policy, I'm pretty confident that we could use an image of Bill and Jimmy working in Trancentral in 'The KLF' section of the article and also in the 'Trancentral' section of Last Train to Trancentral, due to the lack of free alternatives. --Vinoir 08:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Instrumentation

Could you convert that section from a list to prose, Vinoir? Besides answering an FAC comment, it would help us better lay out how their equipment changed, add citations/inline references if need be, and it would probably take up less screen real estate too, as it would only be a few lines. --kingboyk 16:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'll by all means give it a try. Just realised I didn't have this page on my watchlist (d'oh!). --Vinoir 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't get anything that sounds good yet, but I'll keep trying. --Vinoir 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I like what you've written. Could you add citations please, even if it's only (and I assume it is) sleevenotes (and perhaps the Sound on Sound feature we already reference). --kingboyk 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I had to save it first to see what we'd already used reference-wise. I haven't used Sound on Sound actually. I'll put that one in. It's mostly sleevenotes. --Vinoir 20:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

two issue about intro para

I'd like to see a couple of changes in intro para.

"stadium house" (a form of rave music designed to fill stadiums and large nightclubs).

I disagree that stadium house was "designed to fill" stadiums - rather it was house music as if it were played live in a stadium - witness the addition of sampled crowd noise to tracks for that live feel. If the stadium house singles were designed to do anything it was to be hit pop singles. Perhaps it could say "stadium house" (rave music with a pop-rock production)?

Their most notorious performance was at the February 1992 Brit awards, where they fired a machine gun into the crowd

Surely we need to make clear that they were firing blanks! :-) But I'm not sure what the wording could be. - Drstuey 12:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sofixit man! :) I agree regarding the 1st point (and I wrote it**). With the second, probably you're right but we do mention them being blanks later on... Anyrode, I'll take a look and see what I can do. --kingboyk 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC) **I think. --kingboyk 20:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I knew something wasn't right with that "Stadium House" thing, but your interpretation is spot-on, Dr Stuey. Any more insightful suggestions for improvements that you see, please do say, or even better, come and edit! --Vinoir 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Vinoir 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice changes Vinoir, and thanks for the suggestions Stuart. --kingboyk 09:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

More FAC work

We have some more things from Tony to work on:

• Hyphenate top-ten
• Check Manual of Style regarding bolding in intro, and remove it if our usage is incorrect -- I couldn't find anything, so I've posted a question about it[5]. If we get no answer we'll assume Tony's right and debold.
• Hyphenation (excessive use of, and/or use dashes - I don't know how to get a long dash on my keyboard)
• Piped links for 's, to make it all blue
• "Ellisions within quotations: space before the three dots, unless ending a sentence as well, in which case no space and four dots plus space."
• "The KLF", "The JAMs", etc... Discuss.

Strike out when done. --kingboyk 11:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done/will do everything apart from reviewing hyphenation/changing to dashes. Will you do that Vinoir? --kingboyk 13:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. --Vinoir 13:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've checked MoS and the best I can find is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles which says "try not to put other phrases in bold in the first sentence. An exception to this arises when an article has alternative titles, each of which an editor puts in bold..." Now, "The JAMs" and "The KLF" are not interchangeable titles. Nor, however, are they mutually exclusive: because of the strong philosophical and self-referential continuity between the outfits The JAMs, The KLF, The Timelords, 2K, and The One World Orchestra, these are all components of an over-arching concept which the article describes in full. The concept does not have a formal name, but for practical purposes in Wikipedia it belongs under the adopted title "The KLF", the best-known and most popular of the outfits. This is the moniker which has become the standard name for the concept, but in fact The KLF are just one of the outfits. So I think all the above outfits should be bolded.

The remaining outfit, K Foundation, retains the philosophical continuity but was implied as distinct by the high-profile finality of Drummond and Cauty's "abandonment" of music. Thus the K Foundation is summarised in "The KLF" article but has its own article too, so I'd say this should not be bolded. --Vinoir 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's great but it says "first sentence". (I've moved it here as we can take a position here and summarise over there, lest the debate gets bogged down in technicalities). --kingboyk 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Perhaps we need to reorder the intro a bit, with the first sentence including "also known as The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu, ..." etc? --kingboyk 16:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. How about this: "One World Orchestra" could eventually redirect to "The Magnificent", since there is enough to say about it without it being fancrufty. "2K" can redirect to "Fuck the Millennium". So these two acts could be unbolded, leaving "The JAMs" and "The Timelords" to go alongside "The KLF" in the opening sentence? --Vinoir 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. And the OWO isn't terribly important anyway. --kingboyk 17:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First draft done. Please have a tinker Vinoir, then let's try to find a quality writer who is fresh to the article to copyedit it. The intro is our showpiece, we must get it right. I know there's shortcomings still, but I'm too familiar with the wording and material to be able to polish it any further :) --kingboyk 10:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Library of Mu

I've now finished my trawl through the Library of Mu, so our citations and references are pretty much complete (cheers (v.)). It's funny looking back that I suggested as a prank halting at 23 references, as we now have nearly 80!

I should point out however that I skipped a lot of the press coverage relating to the K Foundation, because of boredom at reading the same things over and over. If/when we come to polishing the KF articles we'll have to use the Library's search feature or browse by date. --kingboyk 11:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't too long ago that the "23" mark was reached, either! Well done for the research. I found a couple of as yet unused quotes in the Library that I made notes of and can incorporate. The progress of all these articles is also thanks to Drstuey, who not only did a lot of early (pre-project) work, but who obviously has enabled much of the subsequent content of the articles to be gleaned. --Vinoir 10:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I left a message on his talk page inviting him to add his moniker to the list of Project participants. We couldn't have got this far without his efforts. --kingboyk 14:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking good?

I think the new lead image works, and the intro looks way better with a short first paragraph and bold only in the opening sentence. We have nice prose, comprehensive references, fairly used images, and song samples. I'm much more comfortable about the FA candidacy now. --kingboyk 12:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Developments? The FA tag has been added to the Talk page, and the article listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles but the debate hasn't been closed. Maybe tommorow we will have a star? :) On the other hand, it might be a mistake as the 2K picture is still in the article and isn't quite resolved yet... that said, if it gets deleted the article can easily withstand that. --kingboyk 03:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've had a look at the contribs history of the FA system maintainer, and his modus operandi here is the same as other promotions. He's archived the debate and tagged the article, and that's all he does - tagging the article is left to others. I've left a note on his talk page just to check but it looks like WE MADE IT! Woot! --kingboyk 03:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Me is very happy! --Vinoir 11:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently visiting all the other-language Wikipedia sites that have KLF articles, and tagging the KLF article as "featured at en". Such fun :) --kingboyk 03:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

mainpage?

nice work on getting the page featured! anyone want the article to go on the mainpage now? are there any klf-significant dates in june that could be appropriate? Zzzzz 18:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah... that reminds me - to thank you for the nomination and your help. Very much appreciated! May 92 is when The KLF retired... June, not sure... we'll discuss/look up dates. --kingboyk 18:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm absolutely delighted with the successful candidacy, wonderful news. Will respond in greater detail tomorrow. Just to say, I think 23 June would be a good date. I can get a message to Bill to look out for it too...! --Vinoir 21:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Has to be the 23rd of some month doesn't it. And if we're still around then, it must appear on the front page in 2010 - an astonishing 23 years from their debut! (and presumably the year of release for The Black Room ;) ) --kingboyk 01:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, we live in hope. :) --Vinoir 14:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, here is where these things are discussed: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. I think, however, that there's no immediate rush. Let's get our final few improvements implemented, and identify an important date or anniversary. We should also take the great counsel of Zzzzz in this matter, as he knows the ropes better than we do. --kingboyk 14:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

21 July 2006 is the 20th anniversary of the release of The Man - but that doesn't really include Jimmy. Agreed that there's no mad rush anyhow. --Vinoir 14:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, not enough of a big deal. Should either be a very major anniversary (which might mean waiting until next year) or the 23rd of any month imho. --kingboyk 11:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

June is filling up fast. The 23rd is still vacant right now. --kingboyk 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Next steps

I've had a read (without attempting to edit) from top to bottom, and I think there's still a few things to sort out here before we go back to working on the peripheral articles:

• Vinoir, please review my recent changes. In particular, I feel my change to the intro probably needs a slight tweak. Please review from 10:36, 20 May 2006 to date. I made some big-ish changes which you didn't get to see before the FA badge appeared.

Looks excellent to me. --Vinoir 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• In the "History" section, we ought to consider losing or seriously trimming one of the two Bill quotes about his idea for forming the JAMs (probably the second quote).
• We have an entire paragraph on Whitney and Down Town, not because they were important records but because they don't have articles. I guess we should make articles for all of the singles, and transfer some (but not all) of that text into new articles. Let's resurrect the Singles template you designed? (**But after we've finished here. We need a plan of action, to tackle albums or singles in chrono or reverse chrono order).
• I think The KLF section is a little short. Specifically, we could use 2 or 3 extra lines about the successes of 1991 and the buzz around the band at that time. In fact I don't think we even mention that 3a.m. was a number one. - nice work Vinoir!
• "Illuminatus!". The first 3 paragraphs seem all to be hinting at the same general theme, and could probably be made less verbose/merged into no more than 2 paras.

I think some or all of the changes above would sharpen the article a little, perhaps reduce it in size by a kilobyte or two, and not harm its integrity in any way. Comments? --kingboyk 01:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions:

• I too am not comfortable with the amount of space that Whitney and Down Town have.

Some text on "Whitney" removed, and placed at Talk:Whitney Joins The JAMs. --Vinoir 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely. As we've noticed before, "Stadium House" coverage is disproportionately small. "America" and "It's Grim" (with Bill vocal) get no mention at all.
• I'll have a look at ===Illuminatus!===. Shouldn't be a problem to trim this down considerably, especially as discussion of the topic begins earlier in the article.

Illuminatus! shortened - what do you think of it now? --Vinoir 11:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, better - thanks. --kingboyk 11:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please check that we don't repeat ourselves too much from the introduction of the topic earlier in the article, and then strike this as done. --kingboyk 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think:

• The journeys/rituals/fires theme(s) deserves as brief as possible a mention.

I've had a go. If it meets with your approval please strike the above. --Vinoir 11:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• The section ===Graffiti=== could do with being renamed as ===Promotion===, with a brief leader and a mention of the ads.

• Agree. Please proceed. --kingboyk 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• We need a new image for ===Post-retirement projects===. This could be a screen capture or one of Anders images.
• We need samples of "All You Need Is Love" (original version), "3 a.m. (Brits)" and "Fuck the Millennium" in my opinion. What do you think about the quantity/appearance of samples on the page? Do we need "WTIL (Trancentral)", "Grim" or "America"?

Addressing these concerns should not be too problematic. --Vinoir 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a nice quote in 1987 about them being caught out by the unexpectedly high profile of that album; conversely, we seem to have a quote from Jimmy in this article which we don't use in that (supposedly more detailed) piece. --kingboyk 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

When I was in bed last night (!) I suddenly realised we have a real shocker in here still... we say they used the newly-affordable Akai sampler, and then later on we say the early records were made using a sampler card in an Apple II... whoops! I'll fix it now. --kingboyk 12:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we've done pretty much everything here, so when you get back let's look at getting some more articles to GA class? --kingboyk 11:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the 23rd...

and according to www.klf.de it's the anniversary of the release of Doctorin'. Why aren't we on the front page?! :) (You know, I ought to do some Illuminatus style subversion and simply do it! hehe). --kingboyk 14:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history

The oldest edit in the database is from February 2002, and it was by the conversion script that converted Usemod-format articles into Mediawiki syntax. In other words, this article has been around a long time! Interestingly, most of what was written by Feb 2002 (which isn't much) survived into the present day Featured Article. --kingboyk 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed

I've trimmed some stuff from The JAMs section[6]. Most notably, I've commented out King Boy D's info sheet quotation, which we use again (apart from, at the present time, the "The future?" paragraph) in 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?). I think it's an easier read without it. If you agree, please remove the HTML comment and that's another 1k off the article. If you don't agree, revert it. --kingboyk 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's cool by me. HTML Comment removed. --Vinoir 04:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitive version

Since we got the FA badge a little before we were fully done, I want to "lock down" (record for posterity) the version ID of the revision we consider "complete"/"final". Please review the recent changes and let me know if the current revision at the time of my writing[7] is the one. --kingboyk 12:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good to me sure enough. A couple of things before we lock it down:

• Do we need to mention gunfire (all three "Stadium House" singles, "America No More", the Brits) or evangelists in ==Themes==? I think we should hold them back; they get mentions in the relevant recording articles. That said I've dropped 'chant' songs into ===Ceremonies and journeys===.
• What Stent says in ==Legacy== about "live" edits is borne out by comments in Chill Out (KLF album) and the use of the "Live..." single subtitles. Their use of those subtitles weren't completely bogus then—not something I'd actually appreciated before—and I think as a production style it requires a mention in ==Instrumentation==. What do you think?

--Vinoir 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Timelords

"The Timelords released one other product, a 1989 book": what about the 12" "Gary in the Tardis / Gary joins the J.A.M.S", KLF 123, from 1988 (they also made a 12" of Doctoring the Tardis, KLF003T, but that one can be considered as covered by the single)? I don't know if it should be included (in the discography as well), but I feel that the sentence quoted above gives the impression that they made a single and a book, and nothing else, while they made at least this one 12" (perhaps other things, I'm no specialist). Any ideas how to make this better? Fram 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Lazlo's discography, Gary in the Tardis was part of the same release. KLF003R where "R" means Remix. (KLF003T means "Twelve inch"). Listening to Gary... now, and I do believe it's fair to think of it as a remix of Doctorin'. --kingboyk 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK! My turntable isn't installed at the moment, so I cab only longingly watch the record... Mine does have the KLF 123 number though, not the 003 (or 003T). But now looking at Lazlo's page, that is just the Europe (export) number. Allright, we can leave it as it is. Thanks for the swift reply! Fram 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The joys of MP3 :) I think the line in question is a very old one, dating from before we started working to FA status. We can probably clarify it with a few tweaks, I just don't think any major change is called for. Did you like the article? I hope so! --kingboyk 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely! I wouldn't suggest such a minor change if the rest wasn't good enough: I would either leave it alone, or start doing some serious editing. It's very informative, and as far as I know entirely correct. And it is great to get FA status for such bizarre extremes of popular art (like the Krazy Kat article from today). Fram 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great to hear, thanks very much. I probably will tweak it slightly, just change a word or two to remove any ambiguity. Won't do it now though as I'm relaxing for the evening with a glass of Russia's finest with orange juice :) --kingboyk 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With orange juice ! Whether that is the band or the extract, you are a heathen, sir.

But, sleep well. Derek R Bullamore 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bah! So tell me, what do you recommend? Can't stomach the vodka neat. Not only am I a self-confessed heathen, but I'm a lightweight too :) --kingboyk 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With tonic, ice and lemon (or lime), dear boy. Currently supping Black Sheep Brewery's 'Riggwelter' myself. Very nice.

Excellent work on the old KLF, by the way. Sorry, but can not help much further on that article... probably the 'Riggwelter' to be honest.

Derek R Bullamore 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah real ale. Good man. Fullers is a particularly fine brewery if you ask me. And one of the finest brews I ever tasted would be Wadworths' Farmers Glory. <gets coat> --kingboyk 21:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fullers, now you're talking ! Fullers bottled "1845" is pure heaven in a glass. Wadworth's brew fine stuff too. All this comes from a Yorkshire man, who are traditionally supposed to despise southern brews. However, I'm a life member of CAMRA, which probably explains why I'm rarely sober. Night, night.; Derek R Bullamore 22:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Commentary

This looks like a very well written article, following the Wiki guidelines as far as I can tell. In that regard, I think its one of the best I have seen. But I think this band is a bit obscure. It almost looks like a vanity article, particularly with so much detail. At least some description of the number of records they sold would be useful in that regard. But otherwise, great job!--Blue Tie 05:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good point regarding the number of records sold, we'll have to look into that one, cheers for the comment. The band are not well known in the US, but in the UK, some other European countries and Australia they gained a lot of attention. They are also cited for their pioneering involvement in the development of dance music. If a consensus forms that there is too much Illuminatus! detail, something can be done about it, but the reason for its inclusion is due to its impact on their methods, and for their obsessive continuity. --Vinoir 10:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As we've stated before, we try to stick to published opinion. Unfortunately for us (in terms of making it obvious that we're not writing vanity or fancruft) the vast majority of published opinion available to us comes from the British press, and they have been overwhelmingly supportive of this band over the years. It is worth emphasising, however, that they were also very successful and popular in this country, albeit for about only one year. Nowadays they seem to be mostly forgotten except by fans and - strangely enough - the press! This, of course, has a great deal to do with their catalogue being deleted here.

The article has passed through FA now, which means it's had the most stringent peer review Wikipedia can offer, and it's one of under 1000 articles to wear the badge. As always we can try to make a few tweaks here and there (and I'm a little troubled about the depth of Illuminatus detail tbh), but basically the article is sound and has been reviewed as such many times. In fact I would contend you won't find a better biography of this band anywhere, and you'll find few music articles on Wikipedia better than this one :-)

To see us call a spade a spade, have a look at Doctorin' the Tardis, which got a good natured slating from the press, which we dutifully report (likewise Brilliant (band)). Finally, see WP:KLF where we acknowledge that this is not the most famous band in the world, and we're not trying to inflate their importance; they did however have a fascinating career and we like writing about them. It's easier to write about The KLF than so many of their contemporaries (many of whom I love also) because we have such a wealth of sources. --kingboyk 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys have every right to be proud of the article. If all articles were written this well in Wikipedia, this would be the #1 killer site on the web, hands down. It would be used by everyone in the world for information and no other encyclopedia would exist. Having said that, I would like to make some suggestions and two final comments. Of course you can take or leave these comments as you see fit, but I think you have done such a superb job in writing the article (even if it is a bit long) that you probably want it to be perfect and these are my ideas. The suggestions are grammatical or structural:

This sentence is a bit turgid: From the outset, they adopted the philosophy espoused by esoteric novels The Illuminatus! Trilogy, gaining notoriety for various anarchic situationist manifestations, including the defacement of billboard adverts, the posting of prominent cryptic advertisements in NME magazine and the mainstream press, and highly distinctive and unusual performances on Top of the Pops. You might consider breaking that into two: From the outset, they adopted the philosophy espoused by the esoteric novels The Illuminatus! Trilogy. They gaining notoriety for various anarchic situationist manifestations, including the defacement of billboard adverts, the posting of prominent cryptic advertisements in NME magazine and the mainstream press, and highly distinctive and unusual performances on Top of the Pops. Note also, the word "situationist". I do not think that is actually a word! Is that some sort of british / chav slang?

This sentence probably needs a comma: It was New Year's Day ... 1987. I was at home with my parents, I was going for a walk in the morning, it was, like, bright blue sky, and I thought "I'm going to make a hip-hop record. Who can I make a hip-hop record with?". I would put the comma after the word "thought".

This sentence might be more readable: Although the Justified Ancients of Mu Mu name was not yet retired, most future Drummond and Cauty releases would go under the name "The KLF". if you changed it to Although the Justified Ancients of Mu Mu name was not yet retired, most of Drummond and Cauty's future releases would go under the name "The KLF".

The following sentence might need some edits: In 1990 he recalled that "We wanted to make [as The KLF] something that was ... pure dance music, without any reference points, without any nod to the history of rock and roll. It was the type of music that by early '87 was really exciting me ... [although] we weren't able to get our first KLF records out until late '88".. I might delete your first "that" and put a comma (or colon - as you do with another quote later) between "recalled" and the quote. I might put another comma between 1990 and he. In fact, you should go through the whole article and look at every instance where you say "In 19XX" to start a sentence and see if a comma after that phrase would be appropriate. In many places it would be right and it is not there. Another place where you might check that sort of contstruct would be every place that you use the word "which". A comma before "which" might be appropriate.

Another case: Scott Piering said that "They've got a huge buzz off this, that's for sure, because it's something that's finally thrilling. Take out the "that" and replace it with a comma or a colon.

Maybe some links to Dr Who, Tardis, etc? Remember most Americans do not know those things.

I think you should (probably) remove some of the links that you have spread throughout. The first instance of a reference is probably sufficient. I don't know what other editors would say though.

Here are my two final comments:

The length and depth of the article are substantial. More than most articles. I am not sure if this is really a measure of quality though. There is a certain quality in brevity as well, particularly for a group that is not quite so well known. To my eye, the whole article from section 1.4 Retirement though the end, is a bit heavy. The retirement section (after scott pierings announcement) is like reading an obituary for a modern saint. Themes is almost like another whole article altogether both in content and in length. Then Legacy resumes the accolades of the modern saints. It's all a bit heavy. However, this is your baby. And me saying this is sort of like saying your baby is ugly. Really, I do not mean it that way. But I think your article is almost more like the start of a biographical book than an encyclopedic summary. However, clearly it is a labor of love and I would not suppose that you could take a huge knife to something so dear. But you were looking for a peer review and I really felt that you should get an honest reaction. And that is my true and honest reaction.

Final Comment. As well written as the article is (and it is exceptional) I am perhaps a bit old-fashioned but I do not think that insolence or disrespect or flauting of convention or whatever you want to call it is necessarily admirable even with the excuse of 'creativity'. One particular offensive/vulgar word stands out in the titles of their work. Listening to the samples you provide helps me appreciate their work and I like it, but these album titles turn me off. There is nothing you can do about that, but you wondered "what would be a negative about featuring this article?" It would be those titles. Not if they were ONLY kept in the article, but if they were used as headlines for the featuring (As they are on the peer review page) -- that would be objectionable. I would not want to see that word on the front page of wikipedia.

But again... this was a really good job! --Blue Tie 21:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of thought you've given it, much obliged for that substantial feedback, and thanks for the kind positives too. Soon I'll look through the article with each of your stylistic/general comments in mind. I agree with what you say about certain words featuring on the front page of Wikipedia too. If you're referring to "***k the Millennium" then that's a separate article being peer reviewed at the moment, and even if it didn't have a controversial title, it's really too fringe to appear on the front page. Not all featured articles do appear there, and while The KLF are sufficiently notable to themselves take the front page, rest assured the recordings themselves are almost certainly not. Thanks again for your interest and feedback. --Vinoir 09:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me also: I'll read your suggestions in full later. You're absolutely right we want to make it the best article we can, and having the FA badge doesn't mean we stop. Indeed, it sounds like you are exactly the kind of person we need to listen to: not overly familiar with the band necessarily but open to new things and with a sharply critical eye. Excellent stuff. Don't be surprised if we call on you again for advice!

With regards to the bad language, you are of course right that we didn't name the recordings ourselves and there's not a lot we can do about it :) Wikipedia isn't censored, but I understand your concerns about the front page. As Vinoir said, most of our articles would never likely be considered for the front page anyway: they're just too obscure. The articles which might make it are The KLF (I'd be cheesed off if it didn't), K Foundation, and Watch the K Foundation Burn A Million Quid (the latter would be a good April 1st article I think!). ***K the Millennium wouldn't be a strong candidate, but maybe we will rename that article anyway. The true name of the song is up for debate, so perhaps we should err on the side of caution? Watch this space. --kingboyk 09:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. Some of the grammatical errors you have picked up on are within quotations. We can make use of sic's and square brackets perhaps, but basically such words are directly copied and pasted (of course, as we're quoting someone).

First, if I did not say it before, I should say it now: You guys have done such a good job, that you should take all my suggestions with a grain of salt. I am only trying to help out not annoying. I did not make any edits of my own because I really think that you guys should be the ones to make those calls.

Second, Forgive me! I did not realize I was commenting on the WRONG article. I see now that you want a comment on the *** the Millenium album. I'm still a bit new at Wikipedia and did not understand (you can see my user and history page -- I just started after lurking for a while!). I apologize. I will look at that article and comment on it also, if you would like.

Third, Thanks for the sound samples in the file. I listened to them. I have probabably heard this group before, without knowing it. I listen to that sort of music on XM Radio sometimes. I am not sure, I may have heard the Dr Who piece before. (Its probably the worst song on the page - LOL! But it stands out).

--Blue Tie 12:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Hah! OK. That would explain why you posted under "peer review" :) We did the peer review on this one quite a long time ago. Certainly your feedback is welcome on any of our articles. It's great to have a critical eye, because we are a bit too close to our own work to see its faults some times. Please comment on the talk page of the article you are addressing, so that we know which one you're talking about. Fire away! --kingboyk 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I commented on the **** the Millenium page. But so you know, you guys still have it listed on Peer Review page. You may want to delist it from that page if you are done! --Blue Tie 13:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that peer review request is current :) We hope to push that article to Featured status like this one (denoted by the little star at the top right of the article). --kingboyk 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why sheep?

Just a thought about the sheeps in their theme. A sheep I've heard is by some persons a symbol for peace, harmless, etc. Also it could be a symbol for "a follower", a person who does just like everyone else does - because everyone else does. Whereas Illuminati is controlling mankind, the controlled mankind is a follower or one being controlled. I dont know if this made any sense to you...--SavX 01:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes good sense, and it's a nice thought, one that hasn't occurred to me before. However, to use the theory in the article it would need to be a published theory otherwise it's original research which isn't allowed. (I know you're new, by the way, so welcome aboard... you'll find out as you get more involved that there are lots of guidelines here to keep the articles neutral, balanced and enyclopedic. :) This particular article is a featured article meaning it has been identified as one of Wikipedia's best. Anyway, if you have any questions about editing here drop me a line on my talk page or at WT:KLF.) --kingboyk 08:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Links section

What is "links spam" ? I think this (the current list) looks halfway spam:

   * www.klf.de german KLF homepage
   * www.klf-communications.net KLF homepage
   * search.klf-communications.net KLF database
   * pics.klf-communications.net KLF gallery
   * KLF Mailing List
   * Video clips of a 1990 KLF interview
   * KLF Communications at the Internet Movie Database
   * The KLF at the All Music Guide
   * The KLF and Illuminatus! - including a list of their references to the number 23.

For the reasons: www.klf-communications is listed three times, just different pages on the same site. The only of those three worth being listed, are the first one. And it should have a description that its a discography database. Giving a website called "www.klf-communications.net" the description "KLF homepage", would make people believe its their official homepage. The other two are not the first interesting pages for a non-fan. Instead of linking to "The KLF and Illuminatus!" which is just one section on the KLF-site, its probably better to link to the indexpage, which also has other interesting KLF-links. The Illuminatus-links is already well covered under Themes article in this article. And what about other sites like PositiveVoid, the discussion forum, the FAQ at http://www.illitrate.co.uk/klf/FAQ/KLFfaq.html or at KLF Online, etc ?

Yes, I don't know why someone has taken to doing that but I've rolled it back again. It's nothing to do with me or WikiProject The KLF (which is myself and Stuart at the moment as Vinoir has vanished into thin air). --kingboyk 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Link_spam (or here) is the practice of placing links to your own website on more popular sites in order to increase the search engine ranking of your website. In the context of wikipedia this means linking to non-notable websites. WP:EL is the wikipedia policy on external links. One of the guidelines is that "Blogs, social networking sites and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself." Which would be one reason why I keep deleting the link to the totally useless "Jimmy Cauty forum" website. I actually thought the inclusion of the alternate addresses for klf-communications.net was sort of useful and possibly Justified as they allow non-JavaScript users accces to the info. - Drstuey 10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and an even more relevant policy link is: WP:MUSTARD#External_links. It says, link to "forums or other community pages, only if they are an unusually established and recognized institution with an important focus." and "Fansites, unofficial fanclubs, online stores and similar sites should generally not be linked." and also that "In general, when linking to a fanclub, unofficial community page or other such website, it may be wise to provide a justification on the talk page.". - Drstuey 10:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The KLF discography

hi, just to inform you that the article The KLF discography is currently up for Featured List Candidacy. Please vote "support" or "object" with your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography. cheers! Zzzzz 12:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)