Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:27, 30 November 2009

Jerry Sloan

It's sourced, so I'm fine with letting the statement stand. But if you don't mind, I'll mention parenthetically that it was measured over his last three seasons. This is just so the reader understands that it is not a typical "career" stat, and is contrary to the usual qualification standard (e.g., see ). In all likelihood, I would expect his true career average was higher since the tabulation only occurred as his career was winding down. — Myasuda (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

McCartney/Lennon

You edited the Please Please Me page and provided this edit summary, "'Lennon/McCartney' was the original credit; certainly listing as 'McCartney/Lennon' for the first album is ridiculous." That is not correct, and not ridiculous. For their early singles, and their first UK album, McCartney's name came first. The consensus opinion among the many editors who edit Beatle-related articles is to show the credits in the order they appeared on the original UK releases. As a result, I have reverted your edit.

I agree with some of your other recent edits were you have made the track listing sections for later albums consistent by always using "Lennon/McCartney". I think other editors were trying to be explicit about which Lennon and which McCartney, but I don't think that's necessary. In any case, the album articles ought to be consistent. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Journey

Thanks for contributing to this entry. I have no problem with the substance of your edits yesterday, just with the use of "minor." "Believin'" vs. "Believing" and the "Legacy and Influences" section have both been discussed in the talk page ("To G, or not to G" and "Legacy Section"--the latter being archived). Both of these edits were substantive, not minor (although the third edit, catching one additional G, was minor). Dave Golland (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they were substantive rather than minor edits, and I'll not mark larger edits such as these as minor in the future. "Believing" to "Believin'" had to be purged after I forced the page change, and that I thought was minor as it was just changing one incorrect name to the correct one (despite the number of times it had to be changed). As far as my other edit, it was a major change to the article, but it needed to be removed as opinionated, unreferenced, etc. Should not have marked as a minor edit at all. Thanks... Doc9871 (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to tell me what you are talking about?

Journey "Niceness" You can "yipe yipe yipe" all day, but it won't help. Experienced editors tire of these whinings very quickly, and crave only entries from contributors with BALLS, not cherrystones. Don't be that guy who needs to be drop-kicked like an insufferable lap-dog. Try also not to be too offended by edits that may hurt your precious feelings, but simply happen to coincide with the truth...

In short: toughen up, or be prepared to cry yourself to sleep on a daily/nightly basis. This isn't for kindergarteners...

"I've got your name... I've got your ass!!!" Doc9871 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I copied and pasted this. This is what was found on my user talk. It was written by you today. I feel that you owe me a specific explanation as to what this all means. I consider this to be harrassment. Especially since I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about a particular edit? What is it with these remarks? Would you kindly be specific? Runt (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Runt, I sincerely apologize. I'd didn't even intend to send this to you in the first place, and it was just a draft of something that got accidentally sent. I certainly don't want you to feel harassed or threatened, and I in know way have any problem with you or your edits. My language was exceedingly harsh, and I was venting about something stupid that I would have edited later were I to send it at all. Please accept my sincere and embarrassed apology, and rest assured you'll not see a post like this again... Doc9871 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, Runt, I certainly never meant for you to cancel your user page. You seem to have made quite a few edits, and I made a simple mistake. Don't cancel yourself like that. Sorry, chief... Doc9871 (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

talkback

"Fresh Start" For the Eagles...

Only recently did I read this article in depth and my first reaction was that it was too far gone to save but maybe the time is right to get it corrected. The discussion should continue so the "Eagles is" proponents will have to make a valid, logical argument supporting their view (which will be impossible). Verb usage is not debatable and could be changed immediately without controversy but it might be better to tackle it all in one revision. Perhaps some examples from books or major newspapers and music magazines showing the prevailing use of "the Eagles" will be convincing. I already cited several interviews on the talk page where the band members consistently refer to themselves as "the Eagles" and so far there hasn't been any response from anyone arguing against. More examples from respected publications should help. Piriczki (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I also have seen zero convincing arguments from "Eagles is" (I like that) "proponents". I only see the change made, with the reasoning "The band's name is Eagles.", or, "No 'The' in band's title." Nothing more, and either no one from that camp is paying attention to the talk page, or they lack ability to assemble a reasonable argument (which, as you point out, cannot succeed). More people are chiming in on the right side, so perhaps this will snowball and the "flat-earthers" will see the curvature. Experimental changes, followed by noting who reverts them and contacting them, is the first step in at least getting the opposition to organize itself. And further examples from more reputable sources can only help... Doc9871 (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:RMeisner1977.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RMeisner1977.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done what you've asked, and hopefully we can keep this historically irreplaceable image on WP... Doc9871 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist template colour

After replying to the talk page, I looked into this a little more. The current location of the code that handles the template background colour is here:

Template:Infobox musical artist/color

The section of documentation that needs changing, is also in a page by itself, located here:

Template:Infobox musical artist/doc/type

This documentation cleverly references the colour-choosing code, so that if someone changes the background colour for any value, the documentation immediately changes. A neat idea, but harder to experiment with. What you would have to do, to propose the change, is:

(1) copy the "color" page to a personal sub-page, and add a new value and colour. Actually, the contents of this page are quite simple, so it should be easy for a non-technical person to do. I had suggested the new colour could be pink; try hex code "FFCCCC" for pale pink.

(2) copy the "doc/type" page to another personal sub-page, and change the documentation to the proposed instructions. Add a new line to the chart of examples, and you should only need to point to your other new sub-page for the line(s) with new or changed colours.

(3) when it's all ready, transclude the second sub-page to the template talk page, as your proposal.

If it sounds to you like I've done this kind of thing before, you're sadly mistaken! But if you want, I can give it a try. Since it's YOUR suggestion, I didn't want to do it without checking with you, if you would rather figure it out yourself. (Or if you're thinking of chickening out.) If I were to attempt it, I would be creating sub-pages of your user page, not mine, so you can take credit for it (or take the blame if I screw it up). Also, I'm not going to do the actual visible rewriting of the instructions; that's your baby. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your interest and excellent advice on this matter. While a quick check of my edit history clearly shows that I never shy away from a fight, and am "aggressive" to say the least, this is truly a massive change, and I'd probably be "in a world of shit" if I tried to implement it in a "rogue" fashion (which I'd prefer ;>). I'm trying the other option first - garnering heavy political support before submitting a proposal that cannot be defeated. Old alliances will emerge, and this change will come soon. Please keep me informed of your opinion (& BTW: credit is never something I take for myself, as I'm nothing without those who help)... Doc9871 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

I am glad some editors share my view about the "writer" field! () — John Cardinal (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anytime, John. I'm 100% behind official credit in the Infobox, for all artists. The Hey Jude "credit battle" is logically over; now random IP users attempt to sneak it in (sour grapes perhaps?). We both know it's not going work that easily, however ;> Keep up the good work... Doc9871 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no evidence either way, but I don't suspect any of the named editors who had the opposite point of view. It is odd that IPs have begun to drift in and redo the edit, but perhaps the smoke that emanates from the various discussions draws them in... — John Cardinal (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just kidding about "sour grapes"; I know the dissenting editors involved in the "Jude" discussion wouldn't stoop that low. I find the general level of intelligent editing to be well above average for The Beatles, which is appropriate for, in my opinion, pretty much the best band that ever was (well, after Milli Vanilli at least) ;>

I'm wondering what you think about a substantially major Infobox change I'm working on (see most recent discussion on Template talk:Infobox musical artist). I'm not the first who's tried this, and I'm trying to get as much feedback as possible from good editors before I propose a change, as I want it to pass. I would value your opinion on this, whether it's for or against the "proposed proposal". Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney

It's pretty simple: cite all information you add. That's all I ask. If you want, I can recommend some Beatles books. If you need help citing sources, see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. It's poor form to include blocks of uncited text in an article, and it falls to you to provide sources if you want to keep that info in the article; see WP:BURDEN. If you want, you can write out a revision of the page first on a user page, then move it to the main article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the editing advice. It's not my "first day", but I'll take it in stride. I was 16 when "The One I Love" hit the airwaves, and remember it well (didn't know 'til recently you were an R.E.M. fan; I have every album and have always loved 'em). You are absolutely correct about blocks of uncited text, and that won't happen again. No problems here... Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I never meant to get off on the wrong foot with you. I've written several Featured Articles on Misplaced Pages, so I know a thing or two about writing music articles. I'm always willing to help people work on music articles. If you ever want advice or help, feel free to ask me. I also have access to a lot of sources. Need help verifying something? I'm always happy to do some research. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool! We're all here for the same reasons; to improve the site and educate those who access it by providing them with factual information. You and I never really had a problem; you showed me my mistake and I corrected it. I have a thick skin, and learn from more experienced editors like yourself (& then from my own mistakes), rather than pout and react negatively. I would always rather end an edit war than engage in one before it even was warranted.

I just may take you up on your offer of help, especially with the Eagles, and possibly Journey, as both are hugely commercially successful and deserving of FA status. Peace ... Doc9871 (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have access to Rock's Back Pages, which is a website that reprints old music press articles. And as you may have gathered, I. have a lot of R.E.M. books. I purposely designed R.E.M. to act as a template for music band FAs. Take a look at it. Not every article will have the same layout, but it's representative of what we should be trying to achieve with articles on highly-popular and written-about rock bands. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well done article - believe me, I've seen it before, as I'm a big R.E.M. fan. I especially love the 132 references! If this treatment could be achieved with the Eagles (the #1 best-selling American band ever), the Misplaced Pages music articles would only gain further credence. I've been working sporadically on Eagles stuff... I should first ask if you are a fan of the band? BTW - my absolute favorite R.E.M. song "you never hear about" is "Wendell Gee". Freaking gorgeous... Doc9871 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really into the Eagles, althought I like radio staples "Hotel California" and "Life in the Fast Lane". I'm more partial to Journey, actually. Personally, I generally favor bands with strong melodies and heavy emphasis on guitar (particulary if it's distorted). So my favorite artists include Beatles, Nirvana, Husker Du, Smashing Pumpkins, Green Day, Led Zeppelin, R.E.M., although there are some exceptions (bass is more often than not the lead instrument in Joy Division, Prince will use whatever he wants as a means to an end, and Depeche Mode is at its best when they are completely electronic). I'm sure they should have at least two or three well-researched biographies available on the Eagles. Finding well-sourced biographies is key when writing band articles; the author will done most of the heavy work for you, combing through old articles and reviews and summarizing them. As for my favorite underappreciated R.E.M. song, that's "Harborcoat". The way Buck plays on the verses is awesome. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Harborcoat" is excellent. Love the first EP stuff, esp. "Wolves, Lower" and "Carnival of Sorts (Box Cars)". I was a huge Nirvana fan ever since they came out during my sophomore year in college, and they were a huge influence on my personal musical taste. Prince is a musical artist almost worthy of his own category (like Frank Zappa).

And by the way, R.E.M. is a perfect illustration of the problems concerning The Beatles crediting problems. R.E.M. always credited their compositions as "Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe" (in alphabetical order), regardless of who wrote the bulk of any given song. Lennon/McCartney was arguably the prototype for this "unselfishness" of credit? Perhaps... Doc9871 (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The main difference is that there's so much research on the Beatles it's quite well-documented who actually authored what in many cases. In R.E.M.'s case, all the band members generally did the write the songs together (and Stipe always writes his lyrics and comes up with his vocal parts), while solo compositions are largely exceptions (for example, Mike Mills wrote "{Don't Go Back to) Rockville" and Bill Berry wrote "Everybody Hurts"). But I don't want to get back into that again . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We're all good. Everything is copacetic, and I'm certain we will both only aid in improving WP. Cheers, mate :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Eagles and Journey

If you want, I can give you my detailed critique on where these pages need improvement. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely would want! As I said, I'm more interested in the Eagles, but seeing as I forced the Don't Stop Believin' correction change, I'm obviously wanting both bands to make it to FA as quickly as possible. Any feedback (& help) would be greatly appreciated not only by me, but for all others who want to see correct information. Keep me posted... Doc9871 (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, to start, familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:Summary style. This will help you focus on creating concise, well-written prose. You are always writing for a general audience, not hardcore fans. So in the lead section, you want to explain the groups for those who have never heard of them. Start out general, then ease the reader into specifics. For example, if a band it noted for contributing to specific rock subgenres, I start out with "Soandso is a American rock band formed in . . ." Then I list the menbers describe the band's sound, etc. You will need three to five paragraphs, depending on the length of the article. The lead section is supposed to reflect the contents of the article (as a result you shouldn't require citations in the lead, except in special circumstances), so I usually leave that last after I've written everything else. Never start out with how great they are by listing sales and awards out of the gate (why should the readers care if they have no idea about the band in the first place?). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, always keep in mind which details are better suited for subarticles like pages on albums or songs. With these more specifc items, only include what is necessary for context. For an example, note how I wrote about the R.E.M. albums in that article. I detailed only what was necessary for context (recording process, the year of release, any specific musical traits that are pivotal in that point in the band's career, and notable hits). There's no superfluous specific details; that's why you have links to the album pages. At most you want a pararaph on an album; if you're writing more than that, you're probably including too much specific information that belongs in the album page. Compare the paragraph on Reckoning with Reckoning (R.E.M. album) (which I also wrote). That's why summary style is great; it keeps you focused on the true topic of the article, which is the band, not the band's albums, songs, music, awards, etc. At the end of the day, that's the focus: the band as a whole. Remember that, and you'll avoid bogging the article down with miscellanea and trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, you see that three paragraph section on Desperado? That can easily be condensed to one. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This pitifully unreferenced section is soon to disappear. Unreferenced and poorly written. Gotta go to real-life work, but will correct this section soon... Doc9871 (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How's about throwing me back a Barnstar?! It'll be my first, and you can pick anyone you want. I'm still absorbing the info... Doc9871 (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's how you format citations: Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#How to format citations. Personally, I'd recommend avoiding the cite templates. it's much easier and less cluttered if you format everything yourself. WesleyDodds (talk)

By the way, do you need help with this pages anytime soon? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't Stop Believin' is still the first article I would love to get to FA, esp. with its huge recent popularity (& since I insisted it be correct, without the "g" at the end). I've sent 2 e-mails to Allmusic about their incorrect spelling of the song title in their article body, but correct spelling elsewhere on the site; I've had no response. Take a look at DSB' on WP if you have time and let me know what you think. Thanks, Wesley... Doc9871 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Allmusic before to fix some stuff but they've never implemented it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pow! Biff! Sock!

Your user page is on my watchlist because I posted a message to you before. I notice you added this notice on your page:

I reported myself as a suspected sock puppet of myself to see if I turned up on the list of Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets. Sure enough, I'm on the considerably massive list. The ease with which one can level accusations of "sockpuppetry" needs to be seriously re-examined...

That happens because the template automatically adds you to the list. Really, what would be the point of adding that template, if it didn't show up somewhere so that someone could look at it? You will remain on the list until you or someone else removes the template from your page. This isn't a good test to see if anyone noticed, because someone may have seen it, figured out you were doing a test, and left it as is. In fact, I noticed it when you tagged yourself, and thought it might be an experiment. As for the "ease" at which anyone can make an accusation, what would be the benefit of making it difficult or impossible to make an accusation? We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and anyone can report suspected hanky panky too. It's just user pages, not articles, and it's hardly a defamation of character. So you can post anything you like here, if you're bored and have nothing better to do, which as you can see describes me right now. :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Zowie!! Thanks for commenting; I saw one editor accused of being three(!) separate sock puppets; and I went "overboard". I'm not "for" making it "impossible" to accuse these insidious animators of footwear, but I truly feel for the "investigators of sockpuppetry", who are overburdened with frivolous accusations (like mine). I choose to remain on the list of suspected sock puppets for now; it only reaffirms my good feelings about puppets in general.

"There's no Messiah here! There's a mess alright, but no Messiah!" Doc9871 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw that triple template too! I also saw that the person who made it, get hit with a counter-accusation of being a sock of one of the same people in his accusation. (That template was posted by an anon IP, but even so, it could be true, because the person who made the 3 accusations is a "newbie" who knows too much to be a newbie. I'm sure it's all very intriguing... to someone who cares!) :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

I have no problem with this edit, but in general, you aren't supposed to edit talk page entries by other editors. Another editor might object, so it's probably best to let bad grammar/spelling stand on talk pages. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Heh... sorry 'bout that. You're absolutely right; the grammar teacher in me just took over for a wild moment. Won't happen again :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes & well-meaning editors

Thanks for the note, but I am anticipating the discussion has now died. The two supporters have studiously avoided responding to my last post, when I pointed out, quite clearly one specific issue. I must admit I was having a little fun, instead of giving all the reasons why it doesn't work in one go, I was going to roll them out one by one. OTOH these kind of arguments are precisely the reason I avoided the music parts of WP for so long. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• You argue very well, and certainly should not avoid the music articles, which tend to be the most in need of "correction". I hope you are right about this particular discussion dying, but methinks it may have a last gasp or two before... mercifully... it will die... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You were right, it has raised it's ugly head as a second proposal. Hopefully I have kicked it to death with my clown boots. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The squeaky clown shoes, right, not just the oversized variety? The second proposal is not as perversely dangerous as the first, but it could (hah!) pave the way for further nightmares, and is unnecessary at best. Neither prop will get to a vote, and let's hope we've encouraged the supporters to concentrate on "better" things. If this discussion persists, I may have to bring out the "big guns" - and this would fare poorly for the opposition, by ending it, and quickly. Shhh! I've said too much already... the walls have ears... Doc9871 (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the second proposal is a step towards the first proposal, a little more thought and if the proposers had nominated in reverse order they might have cleared the board. Why does fandom rhyme with random? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's next? Slapping a {rfctag|prop} tag on it to get more consensus before closing the discussion as "No consensus" or "Failed"? Pointing the opposition to the "Points important in reaching consensus" on the WP:Policies and Guidelines page - all the points this prop does NOT meet? Asking Mediation Cabal for advice? Of just debate and debate and debate, getting absolutely nowhere? What do you think? I don't know about you, but this is getting downright annoying and pathetic at this point... Doc9871 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a 10-point plan. as per CfD Country songs by songwriter. I expected lots of blood over that one, but it went through easy-peasy. A little silence from me in the meanwhile will not go amiss. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy molé! Now THAT was a 13-step clown-boot "stomp" waltz. Very well-written and referenced! This may quiet things down long enough for it to fail through lack of consensus. Howeeeever... I hate to tell you this, but I'm thinking of "flopping" over to the "Support" side now, because you didn't really convince me enough... yet... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What inspired me into action was the guy who claimed to have studied UK copyright law, if he had, he would have known he did not need to tell us he studied "UK copyright law." Speaking of feet, he shot himself there! Sorry to hear you might change sides, in which case I might have to review my own situation. And there was me thinking I might just have managed a knockout punch. How about an proposal regarding song genres as per my CfD above? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as genres go, I'm not a fan of trying to meticulously categorize bands into "genres" that the bands themselves would laugh at (Jethro Tull winning 1989 Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance Vocal or Instrumental)? Aren't they "art rock"? Maybe "Medieval-sounding Progressive Art Rock" should be a "genre". Sure, I organize my iTunes songs by these lame genre tags, for convenience. But, really, just what the hell is Industrial music??! Music to be played to factory workers? And I stay away from The Beatles skirmishes concerning whether or not an album of theirs falls into the "psychedelic", "baroque pop", etc. genre. Too much headache, with constant reverts.

As for the current question concerning listing, e.g., Fever (1956 song) as Fever (Madonna song)... a bit complicated. I certainly support the proposed proposal, and would love to smash the Madonna page to pieces. And... oh, crap. A certain member of the opposition is digging up that old corpse again... Respond to this latest affront, and I'll get back to you... Doc9871 (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my CfD for "country songs by songwriter" which stated that genres are about arrangement, not songwriters, as a song can be done in many different styles, therefore the category had to go and it did. As far as I am concerned the wider genres are OK, rock, classical, latin, etc, but the rest are merely marketing tools to explain why this or that performer are different. Maybe we can get Wesley to sort it out, I am not going there...

I agree regarding disambig, which is why I said I was happy to change my mind, I don't actually like by date, but I can't think of a better alternative. Whatever is decided it will have to be compromise. Pls go over and support the merge proposition for Fever... I have responded to Wesley, he's obviously not paying any attention so he and go and argue with himself. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

They can go and argue amongst themselves, they are patently not paying attention to anything written that does not support their POV. It's not going to go through - there are precedences which can be used. Concensus cannot be reached. I'm gonna sit it out until armistice day, barring a minor edit on one of my posts. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Postscript. Remember countries have gone to war over "wee tunes of maize construction" --Richhoncho (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Credits

Right You are correct that R.E.M. credit themselves as (Berry/)Buck/Mills/Stipe, but this says to use their proper names. However they credit themselves is secondary to how Misplaced Pages chooses to style or present that information. Please respond on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What he said. The practice in tracklisting sections is to write out the songwriters' proper names, with Wikilinks. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Song Infoboxes should list official credits, or is my (Don't Go Back To) Rockville edit gonna get chopped, too? Doc9871 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's best and most logical to link to the people, which is why I hate the Lennon/McCartney link in Beatles infoboxes, because really it should link to John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Smiths songs don't link to "Morrissey/Marr", after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to the individual "people" on R.E.M singles; but instead of "Bill Berry/Peter Buck/Mike Mills/Michael Stipe", it's Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe. Or, Berry, Buck, Mills, Stipe. Or Berry Buck Mills Stipe. Or Buck, Mills, Stipe. The official way the band credited it; and it depends on the album in this particular band's case. You have got to see by these examples that the artist chooses how their writing credit is listed, even within the same band, with the same members. John and Paul did the same thing by incorporating Lennon/McCartney as a songwriting entity, and it's not for us layman WP editors to comment that, for instance, "Yesterday" was probably written in entirety by McCartney. Who doesn't know that Lennon wrote not a bit of that particular song? Yet, it will always (and must always) be listed as a Lennon/McCartney composition, and we can do nothing about it. That's how songwriting credits work, and I'm not about to second-guess how Paul and John hashed it out.

If "Morrissey/Marr" were one-one millionth as influential a songwriting partnership as Lennon/McCartney, perhaps they would have a special place. Unfortunately for them, they couldn't hold Ringo's jockstrap on their best day. Sorry - that's just the way it is... Doc9871 (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty well-established that "Yesterday" is a solo McCartney composition. Just sayin'. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If by "established" you mean he's the only one who sings on it, references can be found to back up the fact he wrote it alone, and everyone on earth intrinsically just knows it's a McCartney song - you are correct, sir. For No One is similar in this respect, obviously. But, if by "established' you mean that it can be credited to Paul McCartney alone and not to Lennon/McCartney, (buzzer sound) you are incorrect, good sir. Again, John and Paul wanted their songs to be ambiguously credited to the pair, and they set up that arrangement long ago. Only towards the end of The Beatles and after was there "fussing and fighting" about it, mostly on Paul's part in later years. WP cannot, in good conscience, credit Lennon alone for (e.g.) Across the Universe, or Paul alone for (e.g.) I Will in the Infoboxes. Because despite what we all know about who really wrote what, in their baffling wisdom, Paul and John credited all their joint compositions during The Beatles' immaculate reign as "Lennon/McCartney" (well, "McCartney/Lennon" in the very beginning). So, yes, it's "established" that Paul wrote "Yesterday" (references should be cited in the body), and no, we can't rightly credit him alone for the song, because of his prior arrangement with John. Weird, huh? Cheers...  :> Doc9871 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what the songwriting credit should be. I mean there's plenty of sources where Paul says he wrote it alone. And I'm pretty sure John confirmed it, too. That's a simple verifiable detail. That's where Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy comes into play. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Gacy and crime articles

I often remove the article subject's name from captions. It isn't at all necessary (which may be what I said). As for the retirement. I still monitor some of the articles on my watchlist, mostly because the ones I watch are prime targets for vandalism, or to tidy something up. Other than that, I've quit actively working on the articles outside of that. You might have noticed the health issues notice and that is why I'm not working actively on the articles - it's just too stressful right now. I've also been very active in WP:CRIME as a project and by being "retired", it keeps me from getting questions or comments from that project. I'm currently busily working on a couple actor articles to soon nominate them for good article status. I find that relaxing. In any case, I hope I soon feel more like tackling crime articles besides watching for vandals. How's that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)