Talk:The Rolling Stones' Redlands bust

Merging "We Love You" into the page

I merged information from the page for the "We Love You" single into this page for 3 reasons:

The original article for "We Love You" suffers from needing additional sources, and has been tagged with this problem for over a decade without being fixed
The song and the events of the Redlands bust are already very intertwined, which is mentioned in the old page for "We Love You". However, this connection is not mentioned in the old Redlands article
It fits to go into detail over a song released as a consequence of the event without spinning off to a separate page entirely.

As long as people are redirected clearly, I think it makes sense to display the page in this way. If the administrators disagree, I apologize for causing you excess trouble in reverting it back to normal. Hartcanyon (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in The Rolling Stones' Redlands bust

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Rolling Stones' Redlands bust's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "stonemag":

From The Rolling Stones: "The Rolling Stones Biography". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 30 April 2011. Retrieved 6 June 2006.
From News of the World: "The Rolling Stones Biography". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 6 June 2006.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the word cum in Morocco section

in the section about the trip to morocco it was "blue Bentley was his associate-cum-bodyguard" i think this is a act of vandalism and the word cum should be edited out. Communistsam23 (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Communistsam23: Cool username. But hopefully, your understanding and commitment to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is on a sounder footing than your understanding of certain aspects of language :) Its stem is the Latin com, meaning with in the sense of a combination: placed between two nouns, it forms a noun that refers to something or someone that is more than one thing. So, in the case of this article, intimating that Tom Keylock served several roles simulataneously. Cf. also, several English placenames in which it provides the same purpose: Salcott-cum-Virley, Cockshutt-cum-Petton, Kelsale cum Carlton and Chorlton-cum-Hardy, all places where two parishes have been combined into one.

As far as it being vandalism goes, I would also disagree. On Wikipedia, that refers to a pretty specific editing behaviour—see WP:VAN—which does not apply here. You see, the article has had one major editor, and it was this primary author who entered the word originally, in an editing sweep of June 2020.

Feel free to revert your removal. ——Serial Number 54129 12:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Tkbrett has dealt with it instead, many thanks! ——Serial Number 54129 13:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah thank you for helping point out my mistake i appreciate the kindness in your comment. i guess i have much to learn when it comes to language and latin. im glad my mistake was fixed (though before i could fix it myself). im still somewhat new to editing on wikipedia and i apologise for my incorrect diagnoses of vandalism. ill try and be more careful next time. thanks for all the help and friendly criticism. Communistsam23 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]