Talk:Too Much Too Soon (album)

Title meshegas

Is it The New York Dolls in Too Much Too Soon, The New York Dolls' "In Too Much Too Soon or (as appears to be the case), The New York Dolls' "Too Much Too Soon? If so, what is the purpose of the preposition? Is it to confuse us all? --Fantailfan (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes it appear like a movie poster: The New York Dolls (are appearing) in "Too Much Too Soon". 41.132.117.121 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Too Much Too Soon (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dan, I'll be glad to take this review. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This looks quite good on first pass, and so far, essentially ready for promotion. One small action point:

• "^ Christgau, p. 279" -- needs year to clarify which source this is from.

• done. Dan56 (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good; see note below on copyright check
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	One citation still needs clarifying (due to mulitple Christgau sources)
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Does a good job presenting a range of viewpoints.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

1a note: Some sentences are rather superficial rewrites of their sources, mirroring both specific language and structure more than I'm comfortable with. For example,

Article: The album's front cover shows the band in a mock live performance and avoids the drag style of their debut's cover. For shock value, Thunders held a doll in his arm as if to strike it against his guitar

Source: The front cover pic has the band in a mock live shot in far less of the drag style than their previous album. For full shock value, Thunders has a doll by the arm, as if he's about to use it to strike his guitar.

If there was a full paragraph like the above, it would probably be a fail for excessive close paraphrasing. But since no source seems to be used for anything longer than this example, and the material is at least superficially paraphrased, I don't think that it's extensive enough that it could be considered a copyright violation. The bottom line is that I'd recommend that some of this be revisited and rewritten, but it also appears to me within the GA criteria. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Response

In response to this off-base remark and futile attempt to evade their block, I don't see their point; the piece of filler was added over a year ago in June when I made my first additions to the article ([1]), and my expansion of that section happened this past May ([2]). What's their point? Dan56 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"were dropped by Mercury and disbanded in 1975."

If by disbanding you mean the departure of Thunders and Nolan in Spring 77 (widely regarded as the end of the "real" Dolls) as opposed to Johansen and Sylvain finally ditching the bandname in '77 then the chronology is wrong - the Mercury contract was quietly left to expire some time after Johnny and Jerry quit. Had the will been there on both sides, there was a period during which Mercury could have potentially released product by the "Dollettes" (as 1975-1977 lineups were unofficially known). 62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done - edit carried out. If anyone objects, please post reasons below. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You revised the lead, a summary of the rest of the article, which includes this sentence (verified by two sources). "A few years later" (as the time of their disbanding) is a simpler solution, since you offered no sources. Dan56 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay by me personally, but expect a visit from the angry Thunders/Nolan hardcore unless you disambiguate between the end of that version of the band in '75 and the dropping of the bandname in '77. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written with the general audience in mind. Furthermore, this discussion touches on what constitutes the band and seems somewhat abstract. It could just as well be argued the original band was with Rick Rivets and Billy Murcia from 1971 to 72, before Nolan or Sylvain Sylvain. For those readers with a deeper interest in the band, the New York Dolls article would be the place to go for greater detail. Dan56 (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Caption dispute for the picture of the band

Well, now we're here; however this turns out, Dan56 is attempting to exercise ownership over this article. I'd like to change the caption for the picture of the band to "The band in 1973". They're already mentioned in the lede as well as the infobox, and "The band" is clear enough in that context – it wouldn't refer to anyone else. Does anyone disagree? Esszet (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's avoid discussing the editors (and their supposed tendency toward article ownership) and stick to the edits instead. El_C 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I personally think that "The New York Dolls" is better because it is not the subject of the article. Referring to the New York Dolls as the "band" is ok if the full name has been said in the section before, and if there are no "competing" bands in that section. For images, I regard them slightly differently, but it should still be the "New York Dolls" regardless, because of the mention of the Shangri-las in the section that the image is in. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Esszet: It seems like we will actually have the discussion at the RfC below. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the caption for an image identify the subject by name?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I was asked, as a completely uninvolved editor (and I was not even pinged specifically, it was simply mentioned on IRC) to close this.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions mandates that the caption of an image should be "as unambiguous as practical in identifying the subject". The phrase 'the band' is ambiguous, while the name of the band (with a wikilink) is both unambiguous and practical, as the linked article identifies the specific people. They are photographed here as 'a group', not a collection of specific people. The caption should be "The New York Dolls in 1973".

While I am not an enwiki admin that can issue specific sanctions, I would specifically admonish Dan56 and MShabazz for a lack of civility in this discussion, and note that referring to other editors as (a particular example) 'stupid' is likely to lead to formal administrative action. Revent^talk 19:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the caption for the image of the New York Dolls in this article identify them by name? It's been argued that the caption should refer to the subject of this image as "the band" ([3]). Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - I really thought something so self-evident wouldn't lead to a dispute and require a request-for-comment SMFH. Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• No - Specifying the band name is not necessary when the article is about them. Repetition of the "New York Dolls" in every instance, when common synonyms such as "The band" or "The group" could be used, is boring for the reader. The alternative breaks up the monotony, so as long as it doesn't introduce any ambiguity, the use of "The band..." etc. is to be preferred. This is a simple matter of effective writing and presentation to the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  There's no "monotony"; "New York Dolls" appears 14 times in this article's prose, compared to 27 times for "band". You obviously haven't read the article... Dan56 (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes - I personally think that "The New York Dolls" is better because it is not the subject of the article. Referring to the New York Dolls as the "band" is ok if the full name has been said in the section before, and if there are no "competing" bands in that section. For images, I regard them slightly differently, but it should still be the "New York Dolls" regardless, because of the mention of the Shangri-las in the section that the image is in. (this is basically just a copy & past of my comments below) RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. The article is not about the New York Dolls, it's about one of their albums. Referring to "The band" leaves open the possibility of confusion, quite unnecessarily. In flowing text it is not necessary in every occurrence, but in relation to a free-floating image it is necessary, or at least very helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe - I suggest the alternate text "The band after their 1973 debut album", as that will clear up any confusion. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Referring to the image subject by their name would clear up whatever confusion you think exists. You're reasoning is confusing. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am trying to get a solution that we can all agree on, and the image is providing extra information not there before. I would be ok with the wording you suggested (I thus changed my vote to "Maybe"), but it seems that some editors are opposed to it, so I was trying to present a solution. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• (addition) - Also, referring to the band by name isn't exactly needed, and the text that I suggested could not possibly refer to the Shangri-Las, thus any confusion should be cleared up. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• This caption change isn't exactly needed; this discussion devolved from another editor's wounded ego and inability to grasp their change being undone. There's no harm in identifying the subject of the image by its actual name; there's a reason this didn't come up in the featured article review, or good article review; this is a whole lot about nothing. Dan56 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Wandered in here from WP:RFC/A. If this is over "the band in 1973" vs "The New York Dolls in 1973" for the first image past the infobox, then "The New York Dolls in 1973" (or "...after the release of their 1973 debut album") imparts more information and does not seem cluttered or overwhelming to me. Although I wouldn't say that images past the first one need a similar caption. I also don't think there is a huge risk of confusion vs. cluttering either way on this issue, but that's what I think would be best for the article. I'm also troubled by the WP:CIVIL issues in the discussion, but this is an RfC on content. Staeiou (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Summed by a bot. I see no reason not to include their names in the caption for the photo. It is descriptive but not overly descriptive. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The guidelines on image captions say the subject of the image should be clearly identified by the caption (WP:CAP#Clear identification of the subject); the clearest way of identifying the subject of an image is by name, and I can't believe I have to explain this. Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You're being much, much too literal in your interpretation, and disruptive in your editing. "The band" clearly identifies who is in the picture, since it is a synonym for the subject of the article, The New York Dolls. Effective and non-monotonous writing calls for the occasional use of synonyms and pronouns instead of the constant repetition of "The New York Doils did this, then the New York Dolls recorded that. Two years later the New York Dolls rsleased such-and-such." That's plain silly and boring, and very bad writing, elementary school stuff. The caption is no different. As long as it's unambiguous who is being referred to, there is no need to be repetitive or strict. We don't say "This is a picture of the New York Dolls in such-and-such year" and "This is a picture of the New York Dolls in so-and-so year", we can say "The New York Dolls in such-and-such", "The Dolls in so-and-so", and "The band in this date". Remember, we're not here to edit robotically, we're here to impart accurate information to our readers in an effective way, through referenced facts, good writing, informative images, and good visual design. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You're being stupid; there is no constant repetition of the New York Dolls in this article; it's pretty split between the Dolls, band, and group, and this is the article on their second album; the article on the band is here --> New York Dolls. Dan56 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no "monotony"; "New York Dolls" appears 14 times in this article's prose, compared to 27 times for "band". Dan56 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop this RfC. It is disrupting the discussion. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What, so now I'm wrong for taking the initiative to start a discussion? LOL. Just redirect your comments here @RileyBugz:. A consensus won't be determined without an RfC IMO. Dan56 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying that since the discussion has already been started, an RfC is unneeded. I'm assuming that you started constructing this to implement a discussion, which was the correct thing to do, but you likely did not realize/started this before the discussion by the other party was started. The discussion provides a less... for lack of a better word, disruptive feeling. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What discussion? All I see above this thread is Esszet clearly not describing the issue neutrally, pathetically resorting again to ownership accusations while reductively promoting his point of view. You're the only one who responded in the above section. I don't see a problem. Dan56 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine... let us now shut up before we need dispute resolution for dispute resolution. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I personally think that "The New York Dolls" is better because it is not the subject of the article. Referring to the New York Dolls as the "band" is ok if the full name has been said in the section before, and if there are no "competing" bands in that section. For images, I regard them slightly differently, but it should still be the "New York Dolls" regardless, because of the mention of the Shangri-las in the section that the image is in. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is not about the Shangri-las, and the mention of them does not shift the locus of who "they" are. "They" are clearly the subjects of the article, the New York Dolls, and not the Shangri-las. If the image was of the Shangri-las, then, because they are not the subject of the article, the caption would have to say "The Shangri-las in so-and-so", but that is not the case for the band which is the subject of the article. This is basic stuff, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a better solution here then? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe say "The band after their debut album"? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Thoughts? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objection to that (if it's accurate). Giving the reader more information is almost always a good thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is accurate. @Dan56 and Esszet: Is this ok with you guys? That statement can't be misinterpreted as applying to the Shangri-las. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, and others... just *sigh*. You really wanna overcomplicate an image caption just to appease someone who started an edit war? I'll say this for the last time: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT ANY BAND; THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE IS TOO MUCH TOO SOON; THE SUBJECT OF THE IMAGE IS THE NEW YORK DOLLS. I repeat THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE NEW YORK DOLLS :))))) Dan56 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Dan56, it takes two editors to edit war. If you want to know who "started an edit war", take a look in the mirror. Despite what you may believe, and the way you act, you don't own the articles to which you contribute. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz:, why are you here? Go away. Dan56 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

He is just trying to tell you your fault here. I do point out that both of you were edit warring, not just Dan56, but not just Esszet either. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

He's also accusing me of article ownership. He's also being a hound, and a dick; not his first uninvited appearance at a dispute involving me... Dan56 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWN much? This article has been on my watchlist for years. I'm sorry, Dan56, but it's time to acknowledge that you don't own Wikipedia's music articles. And more importantly, to stop acting like you do. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

And even if the article hadn't been on my watchlist, you invited comments when you started an RfC. Remember that, genius? (PS - Thank you for your recent vandalism to the articles I edited recently. Real mature.) — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing all of that out. Now leave me alone. Dan56 (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and can we just shut up about the edit warring now and the accusations? It is preventing a productive discussion here. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you all even forgetting that the image is the first thing that appears in the body? Why not also just refer to the Dolls elsewhere as band or group instead of by name? What is the point of using their name at all!!!??? Why not ditch "Johnny Thunders" name also in the next image and just refer to him as "the band's guitarist"??! Dan56 (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

And there's no "monotony", as @Beyond My Ken: inaccurately describes; "New York Dolls" appears 14 times in this article's prose, compared to 27 times for "band". That's the problem with editors like @Esszet:, and the like, who just come around pushing the most trivial of changes in an article you may have not even read... THERE"S NO REASON TO CHANGE THE CAPTION, other than some ludicrous personal preference. You guys blow my mind. Dan56 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Everyone please aim at a more collegial atmosphere and an overall friendlier tone. I'm a displeased with a lack of civil discourse here. It's only an image caption. El_C 19:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm absolutely shocked that there's so much discussion about this. My goal was to have Dan56 sanctioned for obvious attempts at exercising ownership, not to start a major discussion on something so minor. All I'm going to say is that "The band" in this context wouldn't refer to anyone else and is thus clear enough. How it escalated into this I don't know. Esszet (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

And "why are you here, go away"? He should get in trouble for that alone. Esszet (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the editors, we are discussing the article. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we have to discuss both. Esszet (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How's the view from your high horse, Esszet? Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

And this is why we don't discuss the editors RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Dan56: I've given you a valid and concrete argument to support my !vote. What I see on the other side of the coin -- on your side -- is personal preference, an overly literal interpretation of an editing guideline (which, like all guidelines is not mandatory, so you should stop acting as if it is), ownership, pointy ([4]), and battleground behavior, the bludgeoning of other editors, and personal insults. It happens that in RL I'm quite busy at the moment, so I don't have the time or energy to engage in a discussion with an editor who takes a aggressively confrontational and absolutist attitude towards such a completely trivial matter. I'll just leave it to the closer of this RfC to judge strength of arguments and make a decision, since continuing discourse with you is clearly useless. I look forward to seeing this matter listed at WP:LAME. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

*sigh* Dan56 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "*sigh*" indeed, but not for the reason you mean it. The only behavior on this page deserving of a "*sigh*" is coming from the person doing the *sigh*ing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Boy, you really told me. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Now gentlemen, this is not helping. Why won't we let the RfC run its course. El_C 00:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's not helping, El C: Administrators who are turning a blind eye toward Dan56's persistent vandalism, POINTy editing, ownership behavior, and general dickishness. Will one of you take action? What the fuck will it take to stop him, NeilN? Or are you all spineless morons? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Enough. @Dan56 and MShabazz: I think you've made your points about the captions. You've both been warned here by me so the next one who engages in name calling or pointy editing gets blocked. I suggest that both of you refrain from looking at this page for a few days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't the individual members identified by name? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Captions should aim for succinctness; more than three lines of text would be distracting (WP:CAPTION#Succinctness) Dan56 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the link, but it doesn't really apply to my question. If the five names cannot fit on three lines, make the picture bigger. The advice to click through the image for more info doesn't help, since they aren't identified there, either. The only other page with the image is on the Spanish wiki. You were the one saying "the clearest way of identifying the subject of an image is by name." Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It does apply to your question. I fail to see how it doesn't. The subject is the New York Dolls; the caption should read "The New York Dolls". As for increasing the size, that would not conform with individual user's preferences; forcing an image width is generally discouraged (WP:IMGSIZE). Dan56 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I explained how it doesn't - your link is the one that suggests making a picture bigger to avoid 4+ lines of caption and clicking through for more information. Your link does NOT make a case for failing to accurately identify the contents of the image, who are people. And if you read your new link, it only discourages forcing an image size, but not scaling it. Finally, I test-edited the caption "New York Dolls in 1973 l-r: Johnny Thunders, Sylvain Sylvain, Jerry Nolan, Arthur Kane, David Johansen", and it fit on three lines just fine at the current size, so neither of the links you provided apply to my suggestion at all. Are you deliberately being obtuse by pointing to these tangential guidelines instead of actually discussing my suggested caption? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This would not fit three lines: "The New York Dolls in 1973, left to right: Johnny Thunders, Sylvain Sylvain, Jerry Nolan, Arthur Kane, David Johansen". Regardless, this is not succinct. I don't see what problem you're trying to solve with a more elaborate caption; this exact caption is already atop the band's article, where readers should ideally go if they would like to know this information. Because reiterating the names of the band members would appear more appropriate at an article where they are the primary topic. I also don't know what you mean by "scaling it"; do you mean using the "upright" parameter? Wouldn't this cause the image box to bleed into the next section? Dan56 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right - using that longer version of the caption would take 4 lines. The one I typed out (omit "The", abbreviate "left to right" as l-r) fits three. And yes, I meant the upscale parameter. Whether it would bleed or not depends on the reader's screen size and the degree of the upscale. I agree that the band members should be identified on the band's page, but that doesn't mean the information can't be duplicated here. Since the band members are mentioned by name in this article, and since the discussion above seems to revolve around overusing the band's name or not being specific enough, this seems like a valid third option to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Such a long caption may be distracting as well, thus my reference to WP:CAPTION#Succinctness. Dan56 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• So, it seems that there is a general consensus to have the caption say "The New York Dolls in 1973". Do we agree here? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 03:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

*Comment. In response a Request for Comment notification, the caption of "The New York Dolls in 1973" is indeed informative to the reader. Let the unnecessary, profane insult-ridden banter go, folks. Civility builds community. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

…Did this really go anywhere at all? Esszet (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: Don't you get it? It's Dan56 who's preventing a civil discussion here. Of course, MShabazz shouldn't have started responding in kind, but if you try to have a civil discussion with him, he either starts shouting or sneering at you. He's the main problem here. And, Dan56, if you'd like to know how the view from my high horse is, I'll say one more thing: no, this isn't an article about the band itself, it's about…an album they made? Whoa. Esszet (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I count 4 votes to 1... Dan56 (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

In my view, all three of you are not exactly being civil. Why don't we just all stop and close this before it gets too out of hand? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose BMK's and (maybe) MShabazz's don't count? And am I going to have to report you for administrative incompetence? Esszet (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

↑ Dan56 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, a few things. First, I cannot be accused of administrative incompetence because I'm not an admin. MShabazz didn't vote. BMK gave reasoning for their vote, so that is good. Overall, it is the closer's job to weigh the votes, not mine. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More fighting

In the interest of getting Dan56 to stop regarding this article (as well as several others, probably) as singularly his:

1. No, "Information adapted from…" is just fine; the period at the end doesn't make a difference. See here and here for examples (as well as lots of others).

• See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Actually, wait, no. SEE MOS:LISTBULLET --> "Complete sentences, each one is formatted with sentence case (its first letter is capitalized) and a final period (full stop)." Sentence fragments, on the other hand, (which is what you've made it by removing the verb connecting "information" with "adapted", don't require a full stop. Probably should fix those other articles then, huh? Dan56 (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

2. As for the infamous caption, isn't it nice to know what they were doing? Esszet (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nice, but completely unnecessary and not indicated by the photo to the point of requiring needless detail. Dan56 (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

1. See WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, and bulleted lists have nothing to do with this at all. The verbs are, er, completely unnecessary, don't add anything, and thus sound silly.

It sounds silly without the verb actually. Because it's not a complete sentence, for some reason, after everything in the article before it was a complete sentence. So consistency is another reason. And if you're only reason for writing it your way is because of it being written elsewhere that way, then what is the reason for that other stuff existing? Because you still haven't explained why it needs to be written as a sentence fragment, other than "is just fine". Dan56 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Nice, so why the hell not? Unlike with #1, it doesn't sound silly or anything. Esszet (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A caption should be succinct (avoid needless detail) and establish relevance to the section in which it's placed (WP:CAP); "more information can be included on its description page" (MOS:CAPTION). How does "on Dutch TV" establish relevance to this article or add anything helpful for readers? If anything, it's distracting from the only two relevant details (New York Dolls, and 1973). Dan56 (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should this sentence be with or without the verb?

The consensus is the sentence should be with the verb: "Credits are adapted from the album's liner notes". Cunard (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Concerning this edit: Original complete sentence (removed verb italicized): "Credits are adapted from the album's liner notes" vs. the revised (without the verb) "Credits adapted from the album's liner notes". Dan56 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Votes

• With - Appears more grammatically correct with the preposition than without, seems like the verb would've been retained had the sentence been in the body. Dan56 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• With, obviously. We don't need to have RfCs about trivia like this. Write proper English. We only use fragments in headings, image caption, tabular data, and the like. Especially given that this prose is the only prose in the section before the tabular data begins, it needs to be a proper sentence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• With - It reads better in the body of the article. What an odd and silly thing to do an RfC for. DrkBlueXG (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.