Revision as of 20:24, 8 April 2020 editKingboyk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users57,425 edits →The KLF: ++← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:28, 8 April 2020 edit undoKingboyk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users57,425 edits →Current business: doneNext edit → | ||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
What needs to be done: | What needs to be done: | ||
*And DJ report for LTT Pure Trance https://img.discogs.com/YWLqQUTTOl75qCnEIF6mTlzkph8=/fit-in/600x856/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-37802-1104642993.jpg.jpg ; might then be able to better use or give better context to the Record Mirror review | *And DJ report for LTT Pure Trance https://img.discogs.com/YWLqQUTTOl75qCnEIF6mTlzkph8=/fit-in/600x856/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-37802-1104642993.jpg.jpg ; might then be able to better use or give better context to the Record Mirror review | ||
* reorder list/see if is now time for a break/move on to off-wiki duties | * reorder list/possible focus on one article (])/see if is now time for a break/move on to off-wiki duties | ||
* <s>cat Top-importance KLF ref formatting, done as far as Cauty section "Ambient house". Be careful (i.e. check formatting and reliability) of references in Arts section and other new stuff... idk if added by an insider or somebody who hasn't quite mastered the cite templates but either way they will need attention (as one I wanted to add was already there but formatted ''slighty'' sub-par)</s> | |||
**Given up on this, there is too much to do for one person. I will repair Library of Mu refs, and clean up smaller articles, then it is time to concentrate on just one article (]) or leave Misplaced Pages or go back to doing admin duties and cleanup | |||
* ] has some easy citation opportunities (AV media in places), and some sources on the talk page which would make for nice additions | * ] has some easy citation opportunities (AV media in places), and some sources on the talk page which would make for nice additions | ||
* If not already used, this ref from the LTTT article ''might'' be useful in career overviews or elsewhere {{cite web|last1=Ewing|first1=Tom|title=42. KLF – "Last Train To Transcentral"|url=http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/1999/10/42-klf-last-train-to-transcentral/|work=]|accessdate=24 March 2020|date=28 October 1999}} (although it's arguably already used more an as career summary than a review of the song in LTTT, so may want to adjust tjhat if use in KLF too) Alsohttps://web.archive.org/web/20160916113500/http://www.libraryofmu.net/display-resource.php?id=445 possibly of use for career retros, if not already used and provided we don't already have too many positive reviews | * If not already used, this ref from the LTTT article ''might'' be useful in career overviews or elsewhere {{cite web|last1=Ewing|first1=Tom|title=42. KLF – "Last Train To Transcentral"|url=http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/1999/10/42-klf-last-train-to-transcentral/|work=]|accessdate=24 March 2020|date=28 October 1999}} (although it's arguably already used more an as career summary than a review of the song in LTTT, so may want to adjust tjhat if use in KLF too) Alsohttps://web.archive.org/web/20160916113500/http://www.libraryofmu.net/display-resource.php?id=445 possibly of use for career retros, if not already used and provided we don't already have too many positive reviews | ||
Line 14: | Line 12: | ||
*] formatted all refs in the Context section, but then it gets difficult as there are lots of ''passims'' which should probably become inline citations | *] formatted all refs in the Context section, but then it gets difficult as there are lots of ''passims'' which should probably become inline citations | ||
* I saw in ] that there is a 'new' way of grouping all the refs together as named refs in a parameter to reflist, which would might make maintaining them much easier (as can just edit the references section). I wonder if there is a script modify to this format and if not how hard would it be to write one?: Pros, cons (harder to ADD a new ref, for example) and a script are at ] | * I saw in ] that there is a 'new' way of grouping all the refs together as named refs in a parameter to reflist, which would might make maintaining them much easier (as can just edit the references section). I wonder if there is a script modify to this format and if not how hard would it be to write one?: Pros, cons (harder to ADD a new ref, for example) and a script are at ] | ||
* I need to attend to business on ] <s>to avoid it going to FAR</s>: Just waiting for final feedback | |||
*If possible, dig out my copies of ''45'' and ''Disco 2000''. The latter's ] either contradicts or expands on FTM, with a mention of grinding down the ] which would fit in nicely with their reported attempts to buy them. Also, either the same story is in ''45'' or Bill writes about writing it. Are there any news articles about B&J trying to buy the stones? ] about material being needed from ''45'', although it may be that other sources have told the same story] | *If possible, dig out my copies of ''45'' and ''Disco 2000''. The latter's ] either contradicts or expands on FTM, with a mention of grinding down the ] which would fit in nicely with their reported attempts to buy them. Also, either the same story is in ''45'' or Bill writes about writing it. Are there any news articles about B&J trying to buy the stones? ] about material being needed from ''45'', although it may be that other sources have told the same story] | ||
* Properly format references in the other remaining FAs: | * Properly format references in the other remaining FAs: |
Revision as of 20:28, 8 April 2020
Current businessWhat needs to be done:
Longer termThe KLF
Other
Possible Talk KLF reply{{ping|John}} (or anyone else) If you come back, please ping me and maybe we can work together. Whilst my head has been saying "no", the heart says I'd like to see this cleaned up. In my humble opinion that needs at least 2 people. If you're not a fan, more the better. Whether or not to remove content is something which really needs to be bounced off a collaborator rather than done unilaterally. In the meantime, I've done some copy-editing, brought the article up to date with coverage of the 2017 return of The JAMs, removed a little cruft, and probably added some too. I think the 2017 section is perhaps too long but doesn't warrant a separate article other than about the book (I won't be doing one anyway). --~~~~ -- before send this, I want to compare FA version with current; also I should bear in mind that the Bill reviews were in the FA version (doesn't mean they shouldn't go of course) Links |