User talk:JG66/Talk archive/2019

Source check

Hey JG66 hope everything is going well! I was wondering if you could source check the references in this section of List of songs recorded by the Beatles? Been using book sources from other articles but wanted to make sure they are accurate. I'd really appreciate it. Take care! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Sure, I'd be happy to help. See you there. JG66 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Jackie Lomax at Marquee Studios

It was the 2010 rerelease of Is This What You Want?" that stated the album was recorded at Marquee Studios as well as Abbey Road, Trident and Sound Recorders, but I'm not sure if it was the original album or the bonus tracks that likely contained demos. 203.221.93.47 (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it up here. I'll double-check the sources I mentioned, but I think any Marquee recordings have to be the bonus tracks, not the original album. JG66 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A few of your edits

Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [Reprise] wasn't included on 1967–1970 and yet it still gets mentioned. Without the information I added, readers aren't going to be educated of the differences between Back in the USSR's appearance on The Beatles and 1967–1970.

I myself wasn't fully educated about it until the very start of 2011. Because I never really paid attention, and assumed that it was probably a clean edition, much like A Day in the Life on the CD issue of 1967–1970. However, that isn't the case because unlike The Beatles where Back in the USSR fades out through the crossfade from Dear Prudence, the song fades out before the crossfade from Dear Prudence would have started.

So therefore it doesn't count as a clean edition, as they didn't separate the part with the crossfade. They just made it fade out before the crossfade, and thus taking the easy way out. I don't believe a clean edition of Back in the USSR has ever been released. Since it either fades out through the crossfade, or it fades out before the crossfade would have started. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned in comments with the edits at the song article, it requires a reliable source to note the lack of a crossfade on subsequent releases. Like almost any Beatle song, "Back in the USSR" gets a huge amount of coverage – detailed coverage – yet I've not read any reliable source commenting on this point. Happy to keep looking, though. JG66 (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Numerals

Hi. Regarding this edit. You might want to read the Wikipedia Manual of Style about numbers. Y2kcrazyjoker4 was applying correct formats. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's beneath them to actually leave a comment with the edit ... JG66 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Escape Orbit: But the MOS does allow for numerals in positions or rankings (MOS:NUMERO), which this is. If we were talking about a number-one choice, as in someone's favourite option, then okay, but a chart placing is a ranking. JG66 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

But none of the given examples at the MOS are what you are using in the article. The acceptable examples include "number one" and "No. 1", but the article is using "number 1". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

They are given examples, yes, but I don't believe it's proscribing them as the only acceptable options – that guideline's real issue concerns the unacceptability of number or hash signs. Using "No." certainly goes against the MOS-wide preference for avoiding initial capitalisation and unnecessary contractions or abbreviations. JG66 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think MOS:NUMERO contains a bad example, and anyway is about avoiding the use of # symbols. It doesn't over-ride MOS:NUMERAL. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I strongly disagree. MOS:NUMERO is about avoiding # symbols, yes, but rather than containing a bad example, it just doesn't contain enough options within the example. For instance, it's also common to see Number Three or no. 3 used for chart placings – neither of which are included in MOS:NUMERO, either as Correct or Incorrect examples. (Further to my reply to Y2kcrazyjoker4, about what I understand to be a MOS-wide preference for avoiding initial capitalisation, I'd live with "no.", although I still question the need to abbreviate the term.) MOS:NUMERAL is concerned with such a general picture, there are no end of possible exceptions to the rule-of-thumb guideline, "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", that are omitted from the discussion there. Which is no surprise, and why so many points of grammar and style are handled in spin-off pages from the main MOS. With regard to this particular issue, there are also street addresses, numbered sections in a written work, takes in recording studio parlance ... Chart positions, like tennis seeds or other player rankings, are examples of a defined position or ranking, and, along with street addresses, numbered sections of text, etc they're also examples where the number is integral rather than merely descriptive (cf. my point about a "number-one" preference or choice), which is where the MOS:NUMERAL rule-of-thumb approaches the issue from. JG66 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Original performers listed on earlier Beatles albums

Just for the record, I didn't add mentions of The Marvelletes, The Shirelles, or The Cookies on Please Please Me and With the Beatles, oh presumptuous one. As the time stamps will confirm, that information was present long before I arrived.

Noticing these entries, although I felt it cluttered, I thought it better to add missing information for The Donays, et al, for consistency, rather than delete pre-existing information.

For the sake of consistency, should we expunge mention of other "original performers" as well?

Please advise. Cheers! Key of Now (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour and White Album Templates

Yeah, I'm aware that you weren't the one that made those edits on the Magical Mystery Tour template. I just got a bit heated there, because I thought that it would have been obvious that those songs should have gone on the White Album template instead of the Magical Mystery Tour template. According to the revision history, it was Agent008Stirles that made those edits to the Magical Mystery Tour template. Which made absolutely no sense to me, because the Magical Mystery Tour album was already released prior to the recording of those songs. I've never heard of a session that was still going after the album the songs were intended for was already released. But if those songs don't belong on the White Album template, I'm unsure where they do belong. I noticed that Christmas Time (Is Here Again) also isn't on the White Album template. That song also wouldn't have belonged on the Magical Mystery Tour template, because that song too was recorded after the album was released. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

C.Syde65, why talk about this here – why not at the template talk page?

Anyway, the answer as far as I'm concerned is that Lady Madonna, The Inner Light and Across the Universe don't belong on either of the two templates – MMT or White Album. They're album templates, and the March 1968 single was not just a non-album single but also a single that had nothing whatsoever to do with the soundtrack EP/album that preceded it or the double album released at the end of 1968. (Where's the rule that says each and every song released by the artist has to have a home in one of the artist's album templates?) Every source identifies Lady Madonna/The Inner Light as a standalone release and a single designed to cover the Beatles' time between projects, while they were in India. So, to include the songs as a non-album single and particularly Across the Universe as an outtake in the White Album template is an attempt to rewrite history, and unsupported by any source.

For some bizarre reason, the three songs do appear on the six-disc version of the 50th anniversary release of the White Album. So I guess the way to go might be to have a new field ("50th anniversary supplementary tracks"(?)) that lists Madonna, Inner Light and Universe, along with other songs added to CD 6: Sessions – Blue Moon, Step Inside Love. That at least would position the three Feb '68 recordings in the correct context, since their relationship to the White Album is not as non-album single tracks (as Hey Jude and Revolution are) nor as outtakes from the sessions (which started on 30 May 1968, over two months after the Lady Madonna single was released). I'd rather not see them appear at all in the album template, so it depends on whether ring-ins added for that 50th anniversary super-expanded edition need be represented in the template. JG66 (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, right. Thanks for clearing that up. I always assumed that if any songs don't make the previous session that was just concluded, then they should be thought of as part of the session following it. Seeing as songs like "Lady Madonna" couldn't have been from the same era as the songs from the Magical Mystery Tour sessions were, because they wouldn't even have existed at the time. The only oddity I can think of is "I Me Mine" which I consider to be part of the unfinished Let It Be sessions, despite being recorded after the Abbey Road sessions. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

JG66, single "Lady Madonna/The Inner Light" and outtake "Across The Universe" at least as it has a relationship with the White Album sessions. These three songs were written in mid-late 1967 during MMT sessions, also "Hey Bulldog" written by this sessions. During the White Album sessions, "Lady Madonna" also was recorded in September 1968 during rehearsal "While My Guitar Gentley Weeps". Song "Across The Universe" could have released this year but forgot. Giles Martin wanted to include these three songs in 50th anniversary release of the White Album, as it is associated with the session and there is a book about recording in February 1968. Agent008Stirles (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Mother's Little Helper

JG66 Editor's summary: there is no tambura – where are you getting this stuff? (ie, sources please)

My reply: Sorry. You are correct and that was a mistake on my part that comes from my own web site for the "Mother's Little Helper" lyric page that I didn't even notice until now. So I need to change the incorrect info over there, too. Crazy, that's been up there for years now and I never noticed it before! So I thank you for asking me that.

However, the rest that I changed was correct and what you now have up again is incorrect. Where did you get the info that Keith Richards plays slide guitar on the song from? He doesn't. Keith didn't even know how to play slide guitar in 1965 when the song was first recorded. He learned how to play slide in 1968. I wrote about this in my book about the Stones, "Rolling thru the Stones", but I didn't want to quote my own book (as I don't believe self-promoting my own book is proper in a case like this... or is it?). Since my book wasn't self published, I guess I could note it on the page, going by the guidelines I have read at Wiki, but then again, Keith's learning how to play slide guitar in 1968 is noted in other books on the Stones, too. I was thinking most Stones fans already knew this. So while he did play 12 string guitar on the song, he didn't play any slide. So can you please explain where you heard he played slide on this song (regardless, the into is incorrect).

Brian Jones did play the Vox Mando guitar and you removed that info. Why? The Wiki page on Mando Guitar that I had linked to even noted that he played it - yet he only did so on this one song, and why if my info is wrong, why does Wiki already note that he did play the instrument (there's also a well known photo of him playing the instrument here - http://www.keno.org/stones_images/photo_page_2/brian_jones.htm . If he didn't, why didn't you also edit that Wiki page on Mando Guitar and remove the info up over there? The fact is, he did play the instrument. If I place that info back up with a citation, will you please let it stand? I would appreciate a reply to my questions, thanks. Kenotoo (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Keno, hi. I reverted a change you made at MLH that included crediting Jones with tambura on the track (as I did with your addition of the same at "Paint It Black"). I appreciate that there was more to the edit – the slide credit, the addition of Jones' guitar part – but I was concerned with and wanting to remove a detail that is patently untrue. I've had no hand in creating the list that appeared before you arrived at that song article, at least I don't believe I have. (Btw, re the Vox Mando, as I understand it we never specify the brand and type of guitar in Personnel lists; we just use a generic term.)

As you've said, you maintain a website on the Stones and you've written a book, Rolling thru the Stones. I think it might be an idea if you outlined this Stones-related background on your user page, particularly if you plan to use your book as a source. If it wasn't self-published, then I imagine it should be suitable to use on Wikipedia. Other editors might think otherwise, I don't know, or they might see a book like Margotin & Guesdon's All the Songs as more authoritative – again, I don't know, I'm just guessing. But I think you should let the community know in the suggested way, on your user page, so that it's all above board. The point is, all these credits require reliable sources and none of them have any; if your book's accurate and accepted as such by editors here who are knowledgeable on the subject, then that's great – as long as everyone knows that you're citing your own published work with the edits you make on the encyclopedia.

I was thinking of posting this on the talk page at Mother's Little Helper, but here we are. Pinging @Ritchie333:, because, while I might sound like I know what I'm talking about, I only write and edit, and he's far more knowledgeable about matters of protocol (if that's the right word) than I am. And I want to be sure I'm not giving you incorrect advice when it comes to how to declare what might be seen as a conflict of interest. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply JG66. First, on "Paint it Black", Brian absolutely plays tambura - it's one of the lead instruments heard at the very end of the song - just listen to the song's ending and you can't miss that drone sound of the tambura - there isn't a percussion instrument that makes a sound like that, or too many other instruments for that matter. This is also very old news and common knowledge to most Stones fans. I can't believe that it wasn't already listed on there. It's noted on several websites bedsides my own, like this one - http://revelationsfic.tripod.com/black.htm , although it's called a "tamboura" there, which is of course another name for it. It's noted in many other sites, like here: https://www.wxhc.com/?p=4777. If you run a Google search on for Paint it Blank - tambura, tamboura, (just don't use any quotes in your search so you can see the most sites that have one and not the other, quotes there limit your search to exactly what you quote) you will see a number of sites that list it - but again, some sites use the several other words for the instrument, as it has at least 3 or 4 different names that I know of. So I assume we can cite web sites as our source, too? do you know? If so I'll add it back in with citations from there - or look in a few of the many books I have on this, but that would take forever, as I have so many books and I can't recall - other than my own, what other Stones books note it, I just know that a few do.

About the Octave twelve Vox Mando guitar. I can/will remove "Vox" from Octave twelve Vox Mando guitar - however, it is noted on the Octave twelve page at Wiki - so isn't that allowed if they can note it there? I could remove "Mando guitar" too, but most only know a Octave twelve guitar as a Mando guitar I believe. If the main editors at Wiki feel it should be removed, then I will remove all but "Octave twelve guitar". Are you a main editor? Regardless, do you feel that "Mando guitar" is okay, or just "Octave twelve guitar"? If only Octave twelve guitar should be used, then what about the page that's up on Wiki where it's already noted? Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_twelve .

Cheers back to you. Kenotoo (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I'm afraid I've done no more than skim through your reply, Keno. As mentioned before, I had thought (originally) of taking the thread you started here to Talk:Mother's Little Helper, since it was about the content of that article; and it's the same regarding "Paint It Black" – I think any discussion belongs at that article's talk page. That way, more editors are likely to see it and may want to contribute.

All I will say on Paint is that I strongly disagree about there being any tambura/tamboura/tanpura on the track. I know my Indian sounds pretty well, and as far as I'm concerned, it's just not there. I've got a few Stones books and I've never read any mention of tambura on the song. And I certainly wouldn't trust the average website – false information just snowballs. It's about using reliable sources, and the most authoritative the better.

Can I suggest you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? There are links there to other useful (and/or boring) guidelines and subpages. Also, it might be an idea to follow links at the welcome statement (see Template:Welcome) – they contain a lot of advice for new editors.

Thanks for the advise, and yes, I read that page and many other help pages put up for us to use. I will say one thing, Wiki is very helpful in that matter.

I would still like to hear your advise on how the "Octave twelve guitar" should be listed, since once I put that info back up, I don't wish to see it removed again. That is, if I do put that one bit back up. I'm waiting to hear from a friend of mine who is personal friends with Keith Richards as to if in fact it's that instrument, or a sitar, as Martin Elliot wrote in his sessions book about this song. I spoke to Martin years ago when I was writing my book, but I have lost his email address and phone number. Yet I don't hear a sitar on this song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenotoo (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Martha My Dear

Hey JG66! I wanted to say thanks again for expanding "Happiness Is a Warm Gun", as well as "Helter Skelter" (before I didn't know the lyrics were about a slide so my view of it has forever changed lol), and "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da". All these songs were in desperate need of expanding, especially "Happiness". Anyways, I know you're most likely busy with other projects, as I see you've been working on Lennon's main page, but I wanted to let you know that I think the next "White Album" song that needs expanding is "Martha My Dear". It's one of my personal favorites from the "White Album" and its page currently has almost no info about it. I know it's one of the more inconsequential tracks from the album that probably doesn't have much info on it, but I still think it could use expanding. I mean Paul's piano part in "Martha" is one of his best, honestly on par if not better than "Lady Madonna". Anyways, thought I'd let you know my opinions on it. Happy editing! :-) – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey BL-TV. I'm afraid I don't quite share your enthusiasm for that particular White Album track (sorry!), and it's songs like "Me and My Monkey", "Bungalow Bill" and "Sexy Sadie" I had my eye on next, in addition to doing some more on "Prudence", "Gently Weeps", etc. (One of these days I'll actually get focused enough to finish something and nominate it for GA – lost the habit over the last couple of years, spreading myself too thin.) Having said that, if "Martha"'s a fave of yours, well, that's a good enough reason to give it a go ... I'll see what's out there, but it might not be anytime soon. JG66 (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Elvis Is Back!

Can you please resolve this because of 73.123.69.220. 183.171.114.126 (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved. I converted to Sfn instead of Google Books citation. 183.171.114.173 (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry not to reply sooner. (Btw, have you considered becoming a registered user? Makes it possible to ping you – I don't think IP users can receive pings or other notifications, but I could be wrong. You only need to have made 10 or so accepted edits to qualify, I believe.)

Think it's probably best I post something on the album talk page. It's good you sorted out the immediate issue, but I can't help thinking the listed genres might need reviewing. See you there. JG66 (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

More popular than Jesus

Do you think we should send this to a GA re-assessment on stability grounds? I took it to GA in the first place, but I can't keep up with all the changes, and Criteria Number 5 says GAs have to be stable, which this isn't. I'm sure I'll cope with having only 132 confirmed GAs instead of 133. ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333: There does seem to be a helluva lot of activity, doesn't there?! I've always thought the article brushed over or omitted a couple of important points, but my reason for coming to it again recently is through working on related stuff: Beatlemania, which was the subject of one almighty weld late last year, with Beatlemania in the United Kingdom and The Beatles in the United States being merged into it; and Cultural impact of the Beatles, when I've got the mental energy; and always with an eye on making Religious views of the Beatles worth the price of admission.

Some of the changes at "More popular" seem worthwhile. But I've clashed with a couple of the other contributors over their edits to Beatles articles, so I'm hardly a fan of their input. I'm talking about Anthony22 (who, imho, folksifies everything he touches) and user:Dildo or whatever their name is (if I'm getting cute/rude now it's because Dildo got overly cute with his bogus notification, three threads above this ...).

I don't know, Ritchie – I hope you won't take offence, but I do find some of your music GAs slightly lacking in depth and detail. I think The Beatles (album) could do with quite a bit more, for instance; it's a monumental album. (On the other hand, please let me stress: perhaps your approach is the one I should lean towards. I seem to feel the need to consult 20 or 30 different sources before adding a couple of sentences – so, lo & behold, I never get anything finished, let alone nominated for GA, nowadays. Short version: I'm not saying I'm right by any means, just that I do know the subject well, and I know when an article has it covered.)

With "More popular", I don't think there's a need for GAR, although you'd be far more qualified to say. I've got some ideas that I'd intended to raise at the talk page anyway. One is about the opening couple of statements in the lead – which might address the concerns you've been having about that ever-expanding section, of course. Maybe we start there: the to-ing and fro-ing takes place on the talk page, instead of live in mainspace, and the article improves along the way?

Again, R3s, I hope my comments don't offend. I really admire the care you have for articles you've taken to GA – I think of it as a Fully Comprehensive GA Follow-Up Service. Best, JG66 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

As you've probably seen, the page has been full-protected as there's far too much reverting going on; though if nobody else wants a GAR, I won't push for one. As regards the other point with The Beatles (album) and others, I think that's reasonable, simply because GAs are sometimes described as decent articles - they meet a basic editorial standard - but do not meet the FA criteria. I tend to find the work required to get an article through FAC to be more than I can face in one sitting, and consequently GA level is about as high as I can push. Even then, I've dropped out of the odd GA review saying "I've lost interest, can you fail the review please?" which does raise a few scratched heads, but I don't see it as being problematic. After all, a GA assessment is a privilege, not a right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, on the subject of full page protection, I'm distinctly unimpressed. There have been no warnings issued to the IP user looking to add that silly point about Mark Chapman. But worse, Ilovetopaint (= user:ILIL, I've just discovered) was clearly trying to accomodate your concerns about the lead length, and you made the request for increased protection before starting a discussion on the article talk page or raising the issue with ILIL at his. Call everyone to the talk page and insist on a parlez, yes, that's a great idea; but to have the the article frozen in adminwanksville for three days is ridiculous. JG66 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Just checking up on things, I see that the McCartney parents article has finally been turned into a redirect and delisted from GA. Man, that was like pushing a rock up a hill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, what a result! I'd still not added the article to my watchlist so I missed any subsequent efforts and discussion on Jim & Maz. Truly fab. Sorry about my grumps above re More Poplars than Greece – hope you're keeping well. JG66 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Collapsible material in infoboxes

Hi JG66, If you're still interested (we touched on it a year ago), I've raised an issue regarding the documentation for Template:Hidden on the talk page. On a different note, I was thinking of questioning the use of multiple infoboxes for the same recording in several song articles at WT:BEATLES. I haven't read through all the talk pages, but was wondering what your take on this is. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Ojorojo. I'll happily look in at that discussion – sorry, I think I let you down and went silent when you opened an RfC on the issue a while back.

With the Beatles thing, it's all things we've talked about, but I'm also seeing the inclusion of singles chronologies as a big part of the problem. I think it was SMcClandish who pointed out that chronologies (for singles and albums) are pretty much Music-exclusive – they're not at all in keeping with the rest of the encyclopedia. It results in editors adding (often unnecessary, imo) infoboxes for fairly minor cover versions. More later ... JG66 (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to have collapsed info, but if we're stuck with track listings, collapsed is preferable to the full display (now down to 35[1]). Chronologies, track listings, succession boxes, etc., seem to capture certain people's fascination with a new technology and are easier than writing prose. Unfortunately, they can become more distracting than functional. I'd support removing them, but in the current climate, it probably wouldn't get far. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I started the chronology discussion at WT:ALBUMS, because the last attempts at WT:SONGS went nowhere (I didn't quote you because I wasn't sure if they were your or SMcC's words). At least some people are talking. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo, no, that's fine – I figured perhaps you hadn't wanted to make feel obliged to participate. Let's see how it goes. I have found with a couple of the editors there, they're just not interested in any change, so ... JG66 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That too ... but I feel I have to add that I find this all unnecessary and have better things to do. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Following up on the chrono problem, I've tried an experiment by adding Led Zeppelin singles to their songs navbox (I picked an easy one – not many & all have articles).[2] I added the years, but other info could be included per release, such as country, reissue, remix, live, etc., that cover most of the details that people like to add to the infobox chronos. Should B-sides be included? "Hey, Hey, What Can I Do" was released on a single long before an album, but was not the single, depending on how one views it.

Besides the Beatles, there are several other Category:Singles navigational boxes that could be adapted. The Beatles, Stones, etc., include B-sides. Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, individual Beatles, etc., also include unlinked songs. WP:EXISTING (not a policy nor guideline) advises "Unlinked text should be avoided", but adds "Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result", which should be applicable to discographical navboxes (I doubt a red link vs no link would necessarily inspire someone to write an article).

Since this would be approached artist by artist, any proposed changes (moving the single chronos out of the infoboxes and into the songs navbox) should be brought up on the artist project talk page for consensus. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo, thank you for giving it this much thought. My feeling is that B-sides should be included, although, at the same time, I'm wary of how things can end up getting somewhat complicated – eg, for the Beatles, the overspill into "Other countries".

With regard to the WP:EXISTING point, I'd imagine most unlinked songs could be linked to parent album articles. That's if it's so important that each title appear in blue; but as you say, it's neither a policy nor a guideline, so ... I'm pretty sure all the solo Beatles' songs are redirects if they're not currently the subject of dedicated articles. But perhaps they shouldn't be redirects – this issue was being discussed recently, as I recall.

It could work well, following the approach you're suggesting. I think the problem will always be, and even if the cause is taken up at an artist project level, that most editors like these chronologies; they like "single" infoboxes as well, and lots of pretty cover art(!). You might remember this was a major part of my stance against chronologies (ie, the chronologies seem to invite second infoboxes) – we've still got that unnecessary situation at Sgt. Pepper (song), for instance, when really the 1978 single release doesn't need a separate 'box at all. More soon ... JG66 (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can almost hear "but they're not hurting anything", which maybe valid for the simple LZ chrono. But I think an argument can be made that indeed they are messing up Beatles song articles. For SP, the visual focus is on the infoboxes, which extend down most of the article (almost making the text secondary). Many other Beatles articles also have multiple extra chronos and/or extra infoboxes just to show a date and before/next for reissues/other releases of the same recording. Although I suppose there are some who would find a way to overcomplicate the singles discography template, it seems to be a better alternative than cluttering up the articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo: They are indeed messing up Beatles song articles, for the reasons you give and those I mentioned at Talk: WP ALBUMS (eg, how extended and multiple infoboxes create issues of text sandwiching). With the Beatles, I've found, each infobox can become a magnet for editors whose focus is purely on cover art to add alt images, thereby massively increasing the encroachment; needless to say, I don't get the impression these editors give a thought to the prose or the effect of multiple infoboxes on the page overall. From my point of view, it's a constant battle to reduce infobox sprawl to a minimum. At Revolution (Beatles song), for example, I do believe two 'boxes are needed for the Beatles' recordings, and I mean to add a third para of lead (which will reduce encroachment into the main text); but I've had to take the two music samples down to relevant subsections under Recording, and I'd love to do something similar with the video link (and can the singles chrono altogether).

Anyway, I'll try to get on this soon. I think the best approach is the one used at Matchbox (song)#The Beatles' rendition – the separate US release schedule being another reason for secondary infoboxes (as at Nowhere Man (song)). That doesn't address the chronology issue, I know, but for me, the real problem concerns infobox overkill whereby there's too much focus on a commercial release. Binning the chronos may well follow that; as we know, the information's all given in the singles navbox. It's a pity perhaps that SMcClandish didn't weigh in at that Albums discussion a few months back, because some knowledgeable input on the issue vs the situation encyclopaedia-wide would obviously be useful. JG66 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The spillover problem is also addressed at MOS:LAYIM. Although it refers to images, the same should apply to infographics, including infoboxes. Basically, there should be sufficient text (usually in a section) to support an infobox; if a box overwhelms the section or extends in to the next one, it probably shouldn't be there. (the Revolution 1 infobox might be better in that section; the McCartney/U2 SP version receives three sentences in the covers section, so another infobox is unwarranted, IMO; video and audio links can be moved to the See also section.)

Something similar to SONGCOVER or SONGTRIVIA should also apply to additional cover art: it should only be added if discussed as somehow noteworthy by a RS and then placed in the section where it is written about. Otherwise, it seems decorative and often makes the box too long. The Matchbox solution would be an improvement, but as you point out, doesn't include the chrono. I came up with a Template:Jimi Hendrix singles, which takes care of the US/UK chronos, plus the later reissues and live versions which don't appear in the infoboxes (thankfully). I'm going to wait awhile to see how it works, then propose at talk:Hendrix to remove the chronos from his singles boxes (one editor had no objection for "complex instances").[3] —Ojorojo (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo: Yes indeed – MOS:SANDWICHING and MOS:LAYIM. I agree it should apply to elements such as infoboxes but it seems that's only obvious to editors like you and me who work on an entire article, top to bottom. Ditto with regard to additional cover art, of course. (I mean, because each infobox has such presence on the page, I often find myself almost desperately thinking: What else can we say about this cover version? ... anything – anything – to extend the text down beside the infobox. It's the wrong way 'round, in other words. We should be approaching the subject from the perspective of genuine encyclopaedic content and then deciding if an[other] infobox is merited.)

I'm going to impose that "Matchbox"-style approach at Beatles song articles where the issue relates to the band's pre-1967 alternate release schedule. As mentioned in the discussion at talk:WP Albums (I think), this point's relevant to song articles for all British artists at that time. For examples such as Sgt Pepper (song), where the issue relates to a single release a decade later, I'm thinking of adding the chronology and perhaps the single cover art to the first infobox, and binning the second one. I'd done that – at least I think it was me – at "A Day in the Life"; "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" (the subject of discussion earlier this year) and "Got to Get You into My Life" are other examples. So it's a bit of a mountain to climb first before the chrono issue can be addressed. On the other hand, perhaps when I get into the process, I'll feel a little bolder and able to think: No, this is silly – just ditch the silly chronos altogether. JG66 (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

One of the main things I do as an admin on Wikipedia is remove unreliable sources (see my user page). I have been told with equal confidence that I MUST (a) leave text in and tag it {cn}, (b) remove text with the source, (c) find a new source for the text myself. You will note that these things are mutually contradictory the common theme is that the consequences of text being based on an unreliable source are somehow always my problem. So, you're not the first ;-) That source is self-published, if you want to include the text yo are welcome to do so, you can add {cn} if you like, or find anotyer source, but I am removing a trivium sourced to a self-published book and that is 100% in line with policy. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

JzG: Ah, you're doing it as an admin – that's different then, isn't it ... I'm pleased to see you've come up against opposition on this point in the past.

Really, show some imagination. How does the fucking encyclopedia get built if people like you are removing details wholesale, without allowing for the fact that the source is a problem, not the information? JG66 (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not different, it's just janitorial. Mop and bucket stuff. Don't take it personally, I am just saying that dozens of editors have instructed me that I must do crap source removal their way, and their ways are in some cases mutually exclusive, including different editors giving me mutually exclusive instructions on the same article :-(. So please start fomr the premise that I know what I'm doing, eh? That's all I ask. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

JzG: You know what you're doing? Bullshit! You're acting like a bot – that's the logical premise I see.

I'm not taking it the slightest bit personally, I didn't add that information or the source; I just can't stand stupidity. By the sound of it, you've been repeatedly told that your approach is off, but, do you then think: "Hmm, perhaps I'm not helping here, perhaps I need to change my approach to this"? No ... Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I have been told I must tag as CN and leave text, that I must rmeove the text, that I must find an alternative source and so on. The consensus in multiple discussions has been that removing the text is the least controversial approach. But some people - like you, for example - want to leave the text in. Which is fine, youc an just restore it without that source and either add a better one or tag it or just not bother if it's a "sky is blue" kind of thing. We're talking here about a situation where there are literally thousands of article referencing sources that fail WP:RS. You can be part of the solution, or part of the problem, I don't much care by now. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You ARE the problem, JzG. You go on your robotic way without factoring in WP:SPS' point that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I'm not waving a flag for self-published sources, by any means, but you're going about this like a stupid fuckwit ... Which makes you the perfect choice for an admin, but utterly incompetent as an editor. JG66 (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

India

So you reverted back into highly emotive, teen fanfare alike, terms like "Suffered" and "the driver left them". Well done! Ceoil (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil, you're introducing literal and other errors – that's what I'm reverting. If you genuinely improve the text, that's fine. JG66 (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) All this said, can we cool it - its a craking article, from one of my favourite of their periods, so there is that and well done. Ceoil (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil: Yes please – let's cool it, and I'm sorry for my part in things becoming uncool. As I say, where a change was/is an improvement, it's much appreciated. With your rewriting of the lead, though, several changes just didn't make sense. You removed the descriptor for Mia Farrow; you introduced one of the band members (Paul McCartney) by surname only; you replaced "many" with "a number of", which I gather is generally regarded as weak, noncommittal phrasing; you removed mention that the retreat itself was a factor in the individual Beatles' level of commitment (ie, it was conditions at the the ashram, not the discipline of practising TM, that led to Starr's early exit), as you did that McCartney left to attend to business matters (which is a subtext throughout the article – eg, McCartney's careerist approach having been responsible for the Beatles focusing instead on the MMT film, just as he became engrossed in planning their new album).

Sorry to go on, I just feel I owe you an explanation. JG66 (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, three things. (1) I didn't know it was one of yours (2) late here (3) peace be with you :) My apologies for being uncool. Ceoil (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Book source

Hey JG66. Do you happen to own a copy of this book? I'm currently working on bringing Starr's song list to FL and when I started adding refs, The Beatles Diary Vol 2 was cited for many of his unreleased songs but with no page numbers. I was wondering if you could help me out with citing these but with the page numbers? If you can't it's no big deal, I just don't wanna guess the page numbers and be inaccurate. Thanks. – zmbro _(talk) 17:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi zmbro. Sure thing, I've got the Badman book – all 700-or-so pages of it(!) – and one or two others that might be of help. Give me a couple of days and I'll see you there. (Feel free to come back and remind me in case I forget.) JG66 (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

JG66 Friendly reminder :-) – zmbro _(talk) 14:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Cultural impact of the Beatles

What is going on at Cultural impact of the Beatles? What is the reason for the edit wars and personal attacks? Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural impact of the Beatles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Let It Be (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Deep Blue

You asked to "not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles" to the song "Deep Blue." We added Don Preston to the "Personnel" list because he did in fact play on that session. He played an acoustic Martin. If you'd like to ask him about it, feel free (he's my husband). We've had problems with missing information/misinformation picked up from other articles wherein authors or writers did not interview Don and/or were not present at the original event, i.e., the recording session. We've been trying to correct info on websites for years now. [Also, apparently, the Wikipedia entry for the song "Bangla Desh" (flip side) also did not allow adding Don to the Personnel list. Was that also your deletion? Again, Don did in fact play on that.] Truth matters. Cwcpreston (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Cwcpreston: I did guess you might be related, yes. I sympathise with what you're saying, but Wikipedia's articles are based on information supported by the majority of reliable sources dedicated to the given subject. (Those blue links appearing in the message I left you should explain this further, I hope.) That might well mean that the "correct" version of events gets overlooked if biographers and journalists don't record it that way. It's often the case that the recollection of one participant or witness contradicts that of several others. With those two songs, "Deep Blue" and "Bangla Desh", I know for a fact (because I did a lot of work on the articles) that no source lists Don as a contributor. That's going from the session information available in one particularly thorough book, all the George Harrison/solo Beatle biographies, Apple Records history, and the details given by Jim Horn and Klaus Voormann.

So I'm sorry but, until the history as Don recalls it is acknowledged by a third-party reliable source, preferably a few, it doesn't belong in the articles. Truth does matter, yes; but, strange to say, it's not "truth" until it's widely recognised as such. This is the same situation in many other articles here. JG66 (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. First, “the history as Don recalls it" is the truth regarding his participation. I understand the Wikipedia guidelines you mention, but does Wikipedia reject a primary source such as Don? What was written by the cited "authors/journalists" was not thorough, at least regarding Don. The Apple history of participants mentioned was not complete, probably because Don played off the books on the session. (Note that GH rehearsed “Deep Blue” with Don preceding the BD concert because Don had just played on the recording with him, though it wasn’t performed at the concert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74fBU06IZT0) It’s quite possible that Jim Horn and Klaus Voormann were not asked specifically about Don’s participation, because they surely wouldn’t cast doubt on him. Or the writers’ understanding of what was said is skewed, perhaps innocently. We may contact participants mentioned and the authors about this—however, it’s doubtful that authors would be able to revise their publications until subsequent printings would occur, if that were to happen. Sheesh. Cwcpreston (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. More points of information from a primary source: Regarding personnel on "Deep Blue," Don recalls that there was no bass on that session. Also, the song was not included in the BD concert because George was asked to perform the more cheerful "Here Comes the Sun" instead.Cwcpreston (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cwcpreston. Thank you for the details and especially for the link to the "Deep Blue" rehearsal in NYC. But, again, Wikipedia's about reflecting the coverage afforded a subject by third-party reliable sources, so it's really an author or music journalist you need to bring this to the attention of. I'm sure there's no question of any of the other participants from the 1971 recording sessions choosing to overlook Don's involvement; far from it, I'd imagine. JG66 (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Garage rock article

Thanks for the touch-ups over that the GR article. I was wondering. Do you think we now need to take some of the photos out or downsize them? My original intent in doing the diagonal scheme w/ small sizes was to allow for plenty of photos of bands without creating an appearance of crowding/cluttering in the article. But, I from what I've heard there is a guideline about which way the directionality in the pictures must face in choosing which side of the page they are presented on. Should we prune things up a bit? Maybe we could make some of the images there smaller and I could, perhaps, take out some of the less well-composed/professional-looking shots from areas with a high concentration of pics. What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Garagepunk66, hope you're well. Yes, there definitely is a guideline about setting an image on the left when it's right-facing, which is why I felt confident in moving a couple back to the way it was before that recent edit. It did seem to me that there were a lot of pics, all up. Perhaps losing one or two would be a good idea, although it is okay to reduce images (ie, I don't know why that other editor swept through the article, removing all sizing and the occasional instruction to set left – both are allowed; I'll add links to the relevant guidelines if I can find them). I'd say trim the amount of pics where it looks especially busy, particularly if the text offers just a brief mention of the band. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. When I get some time, I might take a few out and maybe downsize some of 'em. Always great hearing from you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Line Space

Thanks, I'm learning -- much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso805 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice Please

JG66 Thank you for your defence. I am not an experienced Editor but I am quite shocked to see the references I have been adding to what I consider important and valid albums have all been removed. I am simply trying to get a fair balance between the regularly quoted Rolling Stone Albums and the 1001 Albums to listen to before you die. The All-Time Top 1000 is the bible in the UK and is often quoted.

How do I go about getting this reversed? Is there an arbitration board, as this seems grossly unfair and biased in favour of USA>

your advice would be appreciated. Muso805 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, what can I say, the guy's just a ... Some editors are able to think and others just hide behind a sea of blue links to policies and guidelines. I felt sorry for you, having all your edits systematically removed like that.

I did think you were going slightly overboard with the additions, but that's not to say Larkin's All Time 1000 Albums doesn't merit inclusion in most album articles – it definitely does belong, and it's far better known than some album guides. I've never seen anything like it in years of editing music articles – this mass removal of all new mentions of a book when it's clearly a reliable source. From memory, Larkin's book already appears in many album articles, anyway, eg it's been cited in the lead at Revolver (Beatles album) for years. I'll let you know if I think of a solution. JG66 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I was astonished at what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso805 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Muso805, as you'll see here, here and here, I've tried to urge them to self-revert. The editor's vanity appears to have led to the entire discussion being removed from sight. I do actually think there would have been a good case for taking MrOllie to the administrators noticeboard – obstructive, mean-spirited editing, and then what I can't help but see as spinelessness in their unwillingness to self-reflect or engage beyond wikilawyer posturing.

I've undone a few of their reverts, as you may have noticed. I don't want to encourage similarly combative editing on your part at all, but I'd say do the same to the other reverts if you wish: the source is good, that's what counts. I think any editor working on these "best" albums is very familiar with Larkin's book. I steered clear of a couple of Dylan FAs (because they are Wikipedia Featured Articles and I think some care should be shown for that reason). In the same way, generally, I think just make sure any addition you make, if you choose to, is put in the article's main body, ie under Reception (or whatever the section might be titled there). If it's worthy of inclusion, someone might add it to the lead, which is meant to sum up the article, after all. Also, that way, you'll see whether the ranking in Larkin's book is already mentioned in the article. JG66 (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and someone else seems to hold a similar view ... JG66 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the discussions you linked to, but my initial impression was that MrOllie noticed that Colin Larkin was editing the book article (and added a COI tag to it, which I am not sure is warranted) and then assumed that the references to the book in album articles were being done by Larkin or someone close to him to promote the book. But regardless, I think the references to the book are relevant and should be restored. Rlendog (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for constructive help and advice. I am nowhere near an experienced Editor so I feel a bit intimidated, but I do feel this is most unfair. I will try and get my head around how to go and get some proper arbitration so that other senior editors in addition to yourselves JG66 and Rlndog can make a ruling. There is no spamming here, I simply want to have balance between UK and USA and the many of my favourite albums that are in Larkin's book that have Wiki pages can be improved by an additional reference. I am particularly keen to see little known albums that did not make the Rolling Stone list but did make the Larkin 1000 get a shout. Muso805 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Muso805: I can understand the intimidation factor. That's what got me involved in the first place, because it seemed to me MrOllie was being arrogant and ignorant, and was out to intimidate you. In short, a veritable turd.

I was advocating caution above, eg when I said "I don't want to encourage similarly combative editing on your part at all ..." But that was because I was mindful of the way wikilawyering types like him find a way of gaming the system, so that the wronged editor can end up being sanctioned when in reality they're operating within the spirit of the law but might fall foul of the letter of the law. Anyway, given what's been discussed here and below, I'd say go right ahead and reinstate your original edits. I've done a few already, Rlendog has done masses of them as you know.

Some editors might question whether Larkin's book merits inclusion in a particular article relative to other sources, but that's fine; that would be a case of a change being questioned, reverted perhaps, in the context of that article's content, rather than having your edits and/or any edits that include the Larkin book dismissed on sight across the encyclopedia. You shouldn't feel that your relative inexperience here makes your input in any way unworthy. Perhaps what this episode shows is that there are veteran editors here that are ineffective because they've got considerable experience – meaning, they act like they own the place. But at the same time there are thoroughly decent types like Rlendog and Martinevans123 (who's also extremely funny, btw), so all's good. "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl", to quote the Osmonds! Happy editing, JG66 (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you JG66 for your sound advice, that alone has made me feel better. My wife said my face had turned grey just after it happened. MrOllie has not responded to my polite response, and a further one - - even taking the Vandal word back --he has gone to ground - and he seems to have removed the transcript so I am hoping he is one of those people who would never admit he was hasty and has seen the likes of you and Rlendog and Martinevans123 (who are all 10 zillion times more experienced than I) show unity in strength and strength in unity. For that I am most grateful. For my part I shall wait before I put back any of the remaining deleted items (although Rlendog is doing a fantastic job, with no sign of Sauron coming out of the cave!). And thanks to Martinevans123 I now know how to Italicize. Bless you all for your support.Muso805 (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hey JG66, just have a quick question regarding Ringo Starr. So he apparently recorded a song called "Nonsense" for the 1985 film adaptation of Alice in Wonderland but I can't find any source that states that. Would you happen to know if the Ringo Starr Encyclopedia or any books on Starr that mention this song's existence or anything? I'd appreciate any help I could get. Thanks and hope all is well :-) – zmbro _(talk) 03:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zmbro. I've add a source at List of ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. Would you happen to know if the book Ringo Starr: A Life (2nd ed) by Alan Clayson from 2005 lists any writers for the song "Do You Like Me Just a Little Bit?" It was performed by Cilla Black and Ringo Starr on the former's tv series in 1968 but I'm not sure if it lists any writer. Thanks very much. – zmbro _(talk) 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Clayson doesn't say much about the song. I used Madinger & Easter instead. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello again! I'm currently writing a lead for List of songs recorded by the Beatles over at my sandbox and I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me out with sourcing? I'm still not done yet but I only have Lewisohn 1988 at my disposal, which will only get me so far. And you are the source king... ;-) – zmbro _(talk) 00:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Bit busy with my own things to get too involved right now, I'm afraid. Since the lead's looking to cover so much, and in pretty broad strokes, you should be able to find what you want without too much trouble. I imagine that entries on the Beatles in books like David Luhrssen & Michael Larson's Encyclopedia of Classic Rock and Scott Schinder & Andy Schwartz's Icons of Rock should be enough; I've managed to access those entries in full through a combination of Google Books and Amazon previews. As I say, for a general overview, they should do the job as long as it's tailored towards the subject of the list. Hope that helps. I may be able to get involved somewhere down the line, if it's needed. JG66 (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, totally understand. Thanks for the tips! – zmbro _(talk) 21:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

All Time Top 1000 Albums

Hi JG66. I guess if this is a book, then it's title should be given in italics? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Yes, indeed it should. I was just focused on ensuring the systematic reverts (see Advice Please above if you're interested) were undone, but not always focused on the detail. Rlendog has been doing sterling work in restoring Muso805's original additions, also. JG66 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It should be italicized although I missed that in my first few reverts. I'll need to go back and fix that. Rlendog (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Rlendog, sorry, I wasn't trying to pass the task, or any task, on to you. It was more a case of thanking you for your efforts in restoring the original edits. JG66 (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem. JG66 - I understood perfectly that you weren't trying to pass the task. I was just acknowledging that I missed those but agreed that they should be italicized. 18:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for all your efforts. I dare not revert any of the 125 deletions in case I am blocked -- I don't understand how this all works. I genuinely thought I was doing some good. Ironically I had only another 23 albums to continue to add from Larkin's book (before MrOMuso805 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)llie deleted them all). I was only adding albums that I love - about 140 in total from the Larkin 1000. I don't care about the other 860!

Wow, it's so refreshing to see DECENCY from Wiki Editors - but most of all putting wrong to right. Thank you Rlendog for your sterling work in undoing my edits. I must say yesterday I was completely downhearted after all my work was undone in seconds - I received 140 emails at once. I thought my email had been hacked! My faith in human decency is restored. Thank you Rlendog.Muso805 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean undoing my deleted edits!Muso805 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

for attention of Rlendog and Martinevans123 Thank you JG66 for your sound advice, that alone has made me feel better. My wife said my face had turned grey just after it happened. MrOllie has not responded to my polite response, and a further one - - even taking the Vandal word back --he has gone to ground - and he seems to have removed the transcript so I am hoping he is one of those people who would never admit he was hasty and has seen the likes of you and Rlendog and Martinevans123 (who are all 10 zillion times more experienced than I) show unity in strength and strength in unity. For that I am most grateful. For my part I shall wait before I put back any of the remaining deleted items (although Rlendog is doing a fantastic job, with no sign of Sauron coming out of the cave!). And thanks to Martinevans123 I now know how to Italicize. Bless you all for your support.Muso805 (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MrOllie (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the second attempt. My first reply must show my ignorance because I cannot find the lengthy reply I just sent to user:Jehochman after receiving an email from him. First off I am not Larkin. I have never met him. I am not paid by anybody. I am retired and happen to be a Muso nutcase. Yes a self confessed Muso nut. I have all 4 editions of the Larkin All Time Top 1000 Albums books (along with many other Best Of Albums Books). Over here in the UK Larkin's book is the Bible, often quoted on BBC radio 6music and BBC 5 Live. It is much higher regarded than the Rolling Stone 500 Albums Book. Larkin's book was taken from polling Muso's whereas the Rolling Stone book and 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die are just opinions taken from writers and critics. The 3rd Edition of larkin's book states on the front cover 'Over 200,000 votes from the fans, the experts and the critics'. My reason for adding 140 references was not to spam (I have no intention of adding the other 860 albums because they are not of interest to me). The ones I added are my personal favourites and all have Wiki entries and many are neglected classics that are deserving of having an additional reference to Larkin's book. These albums mostly have reference to the Rolling Stone book or All Music Guide and there seems to be a strong USA Bias. My real intent is to get a UK balance as it seems unfair otherwise. Likewise albums such as Gene Clark's No Other and Moby Grape's 1st Album are cult classics and are in Larkin's book and I think it right and proper they be added to get the balance right. I think because Larkin's book represents the Muso fans it has more credibility than any of the other books and deserves at least being shoulder to shoulder with the others - and even though the 3rd Edition was in 2000 there are so many albums that have grown in stature -- like Nick Drake, Buffalo Springfield and Gram Parsons. Finally the book cover image used on the All Time Top 1000 Albums is woefully out of date. This is the 1st Guinness Edition published in 1994 -- my edits were all taken from the 3rd and most recent edition in 2000 published by Virgin Books (there was also a pocket edition as well). If there is an editor who sees this could they put the correct cover in the entry please?

I won't be doing any more edits - this whole experience has made me sick to my stomach. MrOllie's actions have really been upsetting and I have been so grateful to user:JG66 and user:Rlendog and user:Martinevans123 -- their advice, support and decency have been a blessing, and Rlendog's many reinserted edits of mine have been most welcome. I never received any reply from MrOllie and no longer expect to - perhaps he realises he was hasty and unfair. I won't go near putting any edits back in in case MrOllie appears again! As a very inexperienced Editor there is huge intimidation felt from all you vastly experienced Wiki editors. I know that what I did was genuine, and know that for sure after the comments from the three users I just mentioned. Furthermore there are dozens of references to Larkin's books and his Encyclopedia series on Wiki -- going back many years and nothing whatsoever to do with me! I won't be doing any more edits in the foreseeable future. MrOllies accusations have really knocked me back.Muso805 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Muso805: I'm very sorry to hear that. Might I suggest we just let the ANI thing run its course and see what happens? I appreciate that to be branded there a "single purpose account for generating publicity about this topic" and asked to "declare any connection you have to the subject" is probably frightening in its formality. I'm afraid any of us, all of us, make Wikipedia what it is, and it seems that the further one gets from the front line, the weirder it is.

It might be useful for you to post a brief message in reply at ANI, something short & sharp as you've written above: "First off I am not Larkin. I have never met him. I am not paid by anybody. I am retired and happen to be a music nutcase." [And perhaps mention your intention to help avoid the US bias with Rolling Stone and AllMusic, which I totally agree about and always try to address.] However, I completely understand if you'd rather not.

I might add to Black Kite's endorsement of the book with some other examples of the sort of attention it has received (it's laughable that that aspect should be challenged). But otherwise I'll try to stay away too.

I'm sorry that my hot-headedness – my baiting of MsOllie if I'm honest about it – has probably escalated things. I'm afraid that, generally here, when I see bullying, control-freakery and a refusal to admit one's mistakes (making them's fine, that's human), and especially attempts to then couch the issue in some sort of bureaucratic gobbledygook ... I tend to see red. Which isn't always useful. (Which is partly why I've highlighted the likes of Rlendog and Martin as far better examples to follow.) JG66 (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

PS. Oh, just realised you posted this message at User talk:Jehochman also. In which case, there's probably no need to bother with posting at the ANI discussion as I suggested above. Best, JG66 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you JG66. I'm so confused as to where I am sending things that I think as you say I will let ANI thing run its course. As long as someone with authority can actually read and digest my reasons - it's bonkers to think I have an agenda for single purpose account for generating publicity - why would I do that and what purpose could it serve. I just want to get the balance right between bloody Rolling Stone and Larkin's book. That makes me a bit angry that someone could dream that one up. Its makes wiki a hostile place and I shall be steering clear unless in the unlikely event of getting an apology from someone. I thank you for your hot-headedness as MrOllie needs someone to slap him down. I support your actions, and thank you once again.Muso805 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like your most recent comments may have been reluctantly agreed by Jehochman -- without actually agreeing. His comment to me seems to give me a green light. I'll wait a while before I make any more edits, but if it was not for your persistence and martinevans123 and Rlendog we would not have got to this point. The point about inexperienced editors like myself feeling completely intimidated by and experience is probably my overriding observation about all this. At times like this I would quite like to meet MrOllie face to face and "avaword" with him. Once again thank youMuso805 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Muso805, you're entirely welcome. I thought a comment in your previous post – specifically your use of the word "bonkers" – captured this whole situation perfectly. I've never had anything to do with that Administrators Noticeboard before, and I've lasted seven–plus years here by ignoring the existence of such a place. But even when this is over, I'm going to pursue some sort of action to get them to reflect on what that forum represents to anyone who doesn't look to add a form of self-importance to their existence through Wikipedia. (However pathetic my complaints [continue to] be.) Jehochman's reply was like the limpest of handshakes. They'd ignored your message on their talk page, as far as acknowledging it in the AN/I discussion; and, having set the courtroom tone at the discussion, they then performed the Wikipedia equivalent of playing golf (eg, by making such vital contributions as updating their user page) when their concerns were being addressed by others. Well, I just don't think a decent human being does that when they've adopted a position of judge-and-jury into someone else's behaviour. I'm going to take that up with them later.

Martin's message and yours here saved me (and the outside world) from my adding another rant at the AN/I discussion. I won't pretend otherwise: I'm so disgusted with the assumption that anything AN/I is in some way normal to the outside world – which is why I was asking, are we done, is the pantomime over? It's not normal, unless you're in the AN/I cult; it's an embarrassment. JG66 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well put indeed, and a pleasure to have made your acquaintanceMuso805 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

JG66, so sorry to trouble you again but your experience and advice would be welcome. Just when I thought this was done and dusted I received a note from Swarm saying: JG66 is warned for personal attacks and edit warring. Beyond that, from what I can see, the merits of the source in question is a legitimate content dispute, not to be authoritatively decided here but by dispute resolution and consensus at a centralized location. Neither party acted in bad faith, and there's really no purpose in continuing to draw out the dispute here. The fact that this thread has continued to degenerate into shaming and bullying is particularly unsettling, and I doubt there is any good will left on either side after the egregious behavior we've had the misfortune of witnessing. Who's more "right" in the dispute is irrelevant to this board—both editors are warned against continued systematic mass editing until the dispute has been resolved in some way, and JG is warned against continued combative conduct, and if any of it continues on either side, blocking is the next step. But beyond that, keep this dispute on the content side. It's unlikely that there is any remaining good will between these editors, and the hostility and aggression is to blame, not the existence of a dispute to begin with. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

From what he says (Swarm) can I just forget it and carry on editing as Jehochman stated or is this the equivalent of it being passed to the supreme court. Its all a bit silly -- especially the slap on the wrists you were given this is power posturing at its worst - - lordy lordy, I really cannot be arsed with going now to a 'dispute resolution' -- surely not? Muso805 (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, whoever Swarm is, they seem to have chosen to override Jehochman (power posturing? – could be), specifically the latter's comment: "I am not an expert on music topics, but if people who know the field think this source is good, it's fine to use it. I am satisfied with the explanations provided." Some admins are just fantastic, in my experience; so much so that, when editing articles, it can be a complete surprise to discover they're admins at all. But the ones who don't edit articles, who simply administrate the whole time, well ...

Muso, can I suggest you take this to either Rlendog's or Martinevans123's talk page? My feeling, as it has been from the start, is that the book's absolutely fine and indeed better than so many sources that have long appeared in album articles. Others who weighed in about this at the AN/I supported that view, at least in part, and Jehochman seemed fine with it as a result. I just don't want to lead you astray by saying (again) "Yes, go for it", and you'll no doubt receive less emotive comments from Rlendog and Martin. As you stated early on at AN/I, Rlendog has undone loads of the reverts, yet that too seems to have been overlooked in Swarm's decree. JG66 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

JG66 thank you so much for sound advice -- I have copied and send a note to martinevans123 and Rlendog.Muso805 (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Muso805 (talk · contribs) I saw the ANI discussion on Saturday and meant to contribute but got called away by RL. In any case, I hope you are now willing to continue editing. I don't think you are at any risk of being blocked for reinserting references to the book. Edit warring is frowned upon, but reinserting reverted edits after a discussion is not edit warring. And you originally tried to discuss with MrOllie on his talk page, and then there was a discussion at ANI which confirmed that this is an appropriate source. And I have not seen MrOllie try to re-revert any of the edits that JG66 or I reinstated. Almost everyone runs into these drama boards at some point, often early in their editing "career," when they do not have a full understanding of how things work. Hopefully that will not discourage you. I do think MrOllie's original reversions were due to a good faith misunderstanding of your edits. You made a couple of understandable mistakes that hopefully you'll learn from - references to vandalism should be used carefully and there there are guidelines about restoring content on user pages, but hopefully the fact that a number of experienced editors came to your defense at the ANI discussion made you feel better and make you willing to keep editing. Rlendog (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Appreciated, many thanks for advice and points all takenMuso805 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read - IMPORTANT / Lennon & McCartney Wiki entries.

Dear sir:

I see that you are a senior editor of some sort. That’s fine, I’m sure you are well educated and knowledgeable.

However, please do not undo any more of my corrections to Wiki entries on Lennon & McCartney compositions by removing “primarily”.

Read my post in the TALK section for each song I did that with. I will continue to correct these entries as I see them.

I’m not a senior editor like you, nor do I know my way around Wiki editing too well, so in case you didn’t read “How my edit improved the page” RE: Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da, I pasted it below.

If you wish to have a civil discussion about this feel free to email me, WarrenBoutros @ aol. I don’t know how to send direct messages here.

Thank you kindly

“Read my post under TALK. Almost ALL Wiki entires RE: Lennon & McCartney compositions which credit solely Lennon OR McCartney, are INACCURATE. They were a TEAM, and often ran songs by each other, and the other would suggest tweaks. This is widely documented. In THIS case, despite abhorring this particular song, Lennon wrote and played the introductory piano section. It’s a FACT, for whoever had the audacity to talk about “sources” then undo my revision,. Do NOT do that again!

This is just one example of an endemic problem with ALL Lennon & McCartney song entires in Wiki, and requires revision to almost ALL entries. Enough is enough!” WB (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

WB: you appear to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. You're saying this issue regarding Lennon–McCartney is an "endemic problem" – well, that's your opinion, and it's only your opinion that what you're doing is "correcting". I've cited WP:VERIFY in my reverts, and to quote:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. [my emphasis]

So, I'm sorry, but I will continue to undo any edits I see that violate this. I don't feel I'm a "senior editor" at all – anyone can land here and make edits that are more substantial and more useful than any seasoned editor. But you/one needs to know what a useful or "correct" edit is on Wikipedia. I feel your argument is actually with the hundreds of biographers and music historians who have written extensively about Lennon–McCartney songs, and even with the two songwriters themselves, given that they started the debate regarding true authorship of their co-credited songs. JG66 (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify a quick point, there is no such thing as a "senior editor". While I might assume JG66 is right because of his experience and knowledge on Beatles related articles, this comes from years of working with him and appreciating his diligence and track record. Nevertheless, he does not own the article and neither do you - you cannot demand that your changes are made if nobody agrees with them. As you weren't in the room when Lennon and McCartney recorded the session, you cannot say for sure what the facts actually are. The Beatles (album) does suggest that Lennon was getting pissed off with McCartney's "granny music" and whacked out the piano intro to just do something with it, but that does not imply he was a co-composer just by banging out two bars of an already-completed song. Nevertheless, the standard agreement is that songs came out credited to "Lennon / McCartney" and arguing over who did exactly what (as Barry Miles' book is want to do) is counter-productive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

WB (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies & info JG66 & Ritchie333

Ok, point taken about Wiki’s requirement for verifiable sources.

Please enlighten me as to how to go about this.

Are the books by Mark Lewisohn considered reliable sources?

Is the book “A Hard Day’s Write” considered a reliable source?

What about interviews in which McCartney states that he’s proud of the fact that in the close to 300 writing sessions he had with John Lennon, they always succeeded in finishing a song?

Are those interviews considered reliable sources?

Or would they be countered by arguments such as “Yea but he must have been referring to the hundreds of songs they wrote that they never used”?

What about McCartney’s possibly incorrect AND possibly correct statements that he came up with certain lyrics like the “Was she told when she was as young that pain would lead to pleasure” etc. in “Girl”, or the melody for “In My Life” ?

Now, it’s VERY possible that those are false memories on McCartney’s part. Psychology has taught us quite a bit about the fallibility of memory.

Also, I’ll admit, I WAS NOT PRESENT during the composition of any of those songs.

If SOME OF YOU WERE PRESENT; then I stand corrected.

But IF NOT, then since I have a BA in music and am myself a songwriter, and have thoroughly read as much material and watched or listened to as many interviews as possible in regards to ANY Lennon & McCartney composition that I could, I feel I have SOME right to make edits IF I cite sources.

Or am I incorrect in that?

Finally, IF, in some instances, there are are no irrefutable 100% absolutely correct sources, THEN, since the COPYRIGHTS state “Lennon & McCartney”, SHOULDN’T that be the “default” source (I ONLY mean in cases where sources are lacking or in dispute)?

OR, does this revisionist history “based on lead singer” SUPERSEDE the MOST LEGALLY authoritative source of ALL, COPYRIGHTS?

So tell me, HOW can I correct this endemic (yes, it IS endemic) problem of revisionist history which buys into the falsehood that it is was solely one writer or another that wrote a given song, and REINSTATE the FACT that they were a TEAM, EVEN to 1969, and ran songs past each other and respected each other’s opinions (which lead to changes OR not changing lines that might have otherwise been changed), and CITE ACCEPTABLE SOURCES SO THAT MY CORRECTIONS are NOT undone?

Thank you : ) WB (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

WB: Bit too much there – shouty caps, so many one-sentence paragraphs ... But might I suggest you raise this at WT:BEATLES? The issue you're concerned about has been in place here forever, as far as I know. Editors have imposed the "written by John Lennon and credited to Lennon–McCartney" thing since way before I arrived – I'm merely following what's become standard. But most importantly, I and anyone else are following what the majority of reliable sources state.

Turn the situation on its head: what reliable sources are there that state that, say, "Blackbird", "Yesterday" or "The Long and Winding Road" was only written "primarily" by Paul McCartney (rather than entirely)? And that, say, "Nowhere Man", "She Said She Said", "I Am the Walrus", "Revolution 9" and "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" were only written "primarily" by John Lennon? You say they were a team even into 1969 – well, McCartney (always the most eager to insist that the partnership was ongoing) once said that, after Yoko Ono arrived on the scene, he would try to have a writing session with Lennon but it came to nothing, and after a couple of occasions, he just gave up. Which would support the widespread thinking that, apart from something like "Birthday", there was no collaboration at all during the White Album.

I'm sorry not to answer your questions above, but this really should be discussed somewhere more central, for the reasons explained. JG66 (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

JG66 Thank you for your reply, if I am even replying properly. All I did was copy and paste your user name, surrounding by double brackets.

If there is a more straightforward way to communicate than have to physically type HTML, please enlighten me.

I will tone down the caps and yelling and all that, it’s simply that this issue is so pervasive and it seems everyone is turning a blind eye to it.

I have neither the time nor inclination to get into some silly Lennon & McCartney compositional expertise dick measuring contest with anyone, but it is abundantly clear from the myriad interviews and statements by both Lennon & McCartney and third party observers that they each ran (even completed) songs by each other, all the time, for feedback, tweaks etc.

You made a point that if “Ob-La-Di, Ob-la-Da” were to be corrected to say “primarily written by Paul McCartney” (because it’s documented that Lennon wrote and played the intro in a moment of frustration), then that would throw into chaos the intros and endings of hundreds of other Lennon & McCartney compositions with contributions by Harrison and Starkey.

I would like to point out that John Lennon is named on the copyright of that particular song, to give but one sample. Harrison and Starkey are not. So if folks are intent on citing “verifiable sources”, will they be able to cite ones with higher legal veracity than copyright law?

My PROPOSAL is very simple and REASONABLE:

Except in the very few cases where there exists undisputed, 3rd party verifiable sources proving that either Lennon or McCartney wrote a composition in it’s entirety, then the DEFAULT phrasing should be “primarily written by”, then the writer.

I don’t know anything about this WT:BEATLES? forum, but I will look into it, as it is far too an important matter to be left to revisionist historians with particular favorites.

Finally, you asked me to turn the situation on it’s head.

Do I have any evidence, for example, that Paul McCartney came up with the line “yellow matter custard”?

None whatsoever.

But I do have evidence that Lennon & McCartney compositions, even though they may have been primarily composed by only one or the other, especially in the latter years, were the products of collaborative teamwork.

What is my evidence? It’s called copyright law, and it holds higher legal sway than almost any other standard of proof.

For God’s sake, when even Lennon and McCartney’s attestation to authorship of song sections are in disparity, then what is the standard of proof?

The Editors who have imposed the written by John Lennon and credited to Lennon–McCartney thing are CLEARLY in the WRONG, regardless of what level editors they are.

I apologize for those caps, but this needs to be addressed and corrected RE: ALL Lennon & McCartney entries.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBoutros (talk • contribs) 10:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul is dead

I've cleared your backlog at Paul is dead, but I'm not sure why they were caught up in the first place.
Despite your comments elsewhere, this appears to be standard PC protection on an article which you successfully edited earlier this morning, and nothing has changed in the interim. - there seems to have been a big glitch, or glitches, on Wikipedia between 06.00 and 07.00 UTC this morning - I'm guessing that one of your edits got caught in this, and once caught, all your subsequent edits were hung up on the first one.
Can I suggest you try an edit on that page, to see if clearing the backlog has solved your problem? - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Arjayay, thank you for that – especially as I was just in the middle of posting at WP:RFUP when your message arrived.

But look, why the pending changes protection there? That move appears to put decision-making regarding article content into an admin's hands. Back in late October, and especially now, that level of protection was not commensurate with activity at the article at all. That's what bothers me, and I've seen it happening elsewhere. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The article was on my watchlist due to excessive vandalism in October - which was quite bad, but as shown in the public log the protection expires in less than 36 hours, so I don't think it is worth trying to get it lifted, or shortened, just let it expire - Arjayay (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Traveling Wilburys Collaborations

I believe that technically covers of Wilbury projects should technically be considered collaborations, because one of the artists was involved in the overall making of the song, the song would not be made without one of the collaborators. So I think technically, this should count. In the case of certain songs, like Ringo Starr's remake of "Back Off Boogaloo" where Harrison is credited as a writer and Lynne plays, I think this should be considered a proper collaboration because the 2 artists have a part in the song.

- Matt Brinsdon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Brinsdon (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. And I'm sorry but it seems to me you're looking for almost any link pre- or post-Wilburys to serve as a collaboration. Certainly in your original additions. I wouldn't be too disappointed to see the entire table disappear from the article; that might be a bit over the top, but it's reflective of the need to ensure the article is encyclopedic and doesn't become a magnet for trivia. If you wish to discuss this further, please take it up at Talk:Traveling Wilburys. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I can see your viewpoint regarding the subject, but Wikipedia itself states musical collaboration as "Typically, multiple parties are involved (singers, songwriters, lyrisits, composers, and producers) come together to create one work." and these songs I'm talking about (including covers) meet these qualifications for what makes a collaboration possible, so I would argue that these links, however weak, still count as collaborations. And this article could benefit by just expanding the backgrounds of the members and what made the band what it is. - Matt Brinsdon —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath

Hi there JG. I have copies of the 5th Concise Edition of EPM and a copy of the 4th OUP edition (10 massive volumes, bloody amazing, I picked it up in Oxfam!). Both have Aftermath as 4 stars. Nowhere can I see a three star. I don't think the book was ever published in the USA?Muso805 (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

JG Ignore last text, I see what you mean!!! You are referring to the US Edition of the album! I'm going to have a lie down an d take some 'pay attention' tablets!. RegardsMuso805 (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, thank you for the kind message – very thoughtful of you. I hope you and yours go well also. JG66 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)