Talk:Aja (album)

Wayne Shorter
Hey this is cool. Someone should incorporate this. I have school tomorrow I can't. Burnedfaceless (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * done Philly jawn (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Cover
The article on Sayoko Yamaguchi says that she was the person pictured on the cover, photographed by Hideki Fujii. Should this be added? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings - thanks for that information and the links. If it can be referenced from a reliable source, then it can be added to this article. The fact that it is mentioned - and even highlighted - on Yamaguchi's article page isn't enough because it should also be referenced there. No one doubts the truth of it, it just has to be referenced according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fight Song?
I haven't missed a football game at the University of Alabama in over 15 years, and I've yet to hear Alabama play the song as a fight song. Anyone else want to stand with me to dispute this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.119.197 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. I've been to every Auburn-Alabama game since 1975, and I don't recall ever hearing "Deacon Blues" played even once. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Most sophisticated?
While I certainly won't dispute the excellence of this record or the claim that it is ambitious, I'm not so sure I'd go so far to say its their most sophisticated. Is this really the common critical opinion? Any thoughts? User:Havardj 22:30, 8 January 2006‎ UTC


 * How about a quote from the official Steely Dan web site?


 * From... http://steelydan.com/faq.html


 * After the release of 'Gaucho' Fagen and Becker felt exhausted both musically and personally. In their minds, they reached their creative peak with 'Aja' which made the recording of 'Gaucho' an arduous challenge.


 * (above quote appears to lack copyright)


 * Personally, I would tend to agree. Watch the interviews with Fagen and Becker in VH1's Classic Album series, and when you realize what went into this work, you'll agree, too. 71.164.41.126 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC) artglick

Phil Hartman (of SNL fame)
According to the Phil Hartman entry, he was the artist who did the cover art for this album. its worth mentioning in this entry if its true. Can someone confirm it and add it? --133.5.122.54 04:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He's not mentioned in the Aja liner notes. I'm removing the claim from the article, in absence of some verification.  See also Archive 1#artwork photos. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed attribution of cover to Phil Hartman: Phil Hartman's brother John Hartman states in the Phil Hartman Facebook group "Yes he did 48 album covers. He however did not do the Steely Dan Ajia cover. He designed the Crosby Stills and Nash logo, but never did a cover for them he many Poco covers. Two America covers." July 23, 2017
 * Plook~enwiki (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A Facebook page is not a reliable source. You'll have to find something better than that. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Then how about this: "As a graphic designer, Westen designed the album cover for Steely Dan's album, Aja."
 * Plook~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Six hundred dollars
The article mentions a $600 reward for the return of the multi-track master tapes of the title track. This seems oddly small. The source - which is a transcription of the liner notes - renders this as "$600.00". Can anyone with an original copy of the reissued CD confirm that this isn't a typo for $60,000? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not have a source for this info, but I would imagine (being familiar with Becker & Fagen's sense of humor) that the small amount was intentional and meant to be self-deprecating. Patricia Meadows (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, preferably by using the Allmusic template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links: --CactusBot (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

SACD?
The article says that the SACD version was canceled, but on eBay there are some Japaneese SACDs, released June 30, 2010. Is that correct? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Personnel
There are a lot of performers on this album. Does anyone know of a source out there (anywhere) of a track-by-track personnel listing for this album? Or, any Steely Dan album, for that matter? Dan Hewins (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The album's inner sleeve was the first SD album to list musicians on individual tracks, a practice the band followed with Gaucho. I think some of the CD box sets might have this information as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source note under Personnel currently gives this: ", also the liner notes to the digitally remastered edition. And . The last two references have no difference whatsoever in describing the personnel". However, the broberg source says this:
 * Saxes/Flutes: Jim Horn, Bill Perkins, Wayne Shorter, Pete Christlieb, Plas Johnson, Tom Scott, Jackie Kelso.
 * Brass: Chuck Findlay, Lou McCreary, Slyde Hyde.
 * So I'd assume the other musicians (Horn, Perkins, Johnson, Kelso, Findlay, McCreary and Hyde) might appear on any or all of the tracks that Scott, Shorter and Christlieb don't appear on. Or maybe they are on the those same tracks as well. Currently they are not mentioned at all. I think they should be. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Title pronunciation
Why do we have it as a soft j sound when Fagen is clearly using the hard j in the title track? Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In the documentary Classic Albums: Steely Dan - Aja (2000) Donald Fagen says the name comes from a Korean woman who married the brother of a high-school friend of his...Perhaps that's the way the woman pronounces her own name.Minusminority (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Should this album be in Wikiproject Jazz?
I say no, but an editor reverted my removal of the Wikiproject Jazz template with the reason, "there are connections to jazz littered throughout the article, and to the topic" Now that's true. There are "connections". But "connections" to jazz doesn't make something identical to jazz, anymore than jazzercise has anything to do with jazz because it has the word "jazz" in it. Queen made an album called Jazz that had no jazz on it. I've been listening to Steely Dan (and reading about it) for a long time, longer than many of you have been alive. A couple weeks ago I finished reading the biography of Steely Dan by Brian Sweet. Walter Becker and Donald Fagen, the members of Steely Dan, always denied that they were a jazz band or that there were making jazz albums. They called themselves a rock band and campaigned to get themselves into the Rock and Roll of Fame, which happened. They are jazz fans. They did admit to sneaking jazz chords into their songs and of hiring jazz musicians for their albums. But this is different from recording a jazz album. Becker and Fagen did produce a jazz album, Apogee, for Warne Marsh and Pete Christlieb. I encourage people to listen to real jazz albums and compare them to Steely Dan. If you click my username, you'll see a list of jazz books. We do everyone a disservice if we continue to perpetuate the fraud that Steely Dan was a jazz band that made jazz albums, contrary to the repeated claims by Becker and Fagen. If we are not going to listen to the band members themselves, who are we listening to? Who knows better than they do? No one. The members of Wikiproject Jazz are free to decide what albums or musicians to include in Wikiproject Jazz. Let's restrict it to jazz. That's the whole point of the project. –Vmavanti (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

–Vmavanti (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC) –Vmavanti (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are false equivalencies, and a puritanical outlook; this article demonstrates Aja has stronger connections to jazz than the Queen album or whatever jazzercise is.
 * We are here as editors first, not as researchers. Even your own research shows jazz is in the conversation of this topic, which makes it jazz-related, albeit not as much as a jazz record in the strictest sense, thus the "low" importance. As editors, we're responsible to have it reflected.
 * WikiProject_Jazz: "Project banner … should be placed at or near the top of all talk pages on jazz-related articles". [My emphasis] Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa. Puritanical? Easy on the personal attacks, okay? I'm not arguing for purity. Can you show me where I did? I am arguing for a proper understanding of jazz. I think you would be surprised at some of the albums and musicians that are in Wikiproject Jazz; many people would find it absurd to call some of them jazz. So I'm dealing with a broad definition already. I have had this argument many times on Wikipedia. When people say to me "You are narrow minded" what they really mean is "You should see things my way". But they never have good arguments about why. There are over 25,000 articles in Wikiproject Jazz. You may have missed the point of my comparisons. My point was something can contain the word jazz and in your words "connected" to it without being classified as a jazz. An album can be 80 percent rock and 20 percent jazz, but a music critic or journalist will create the term "jazz rock" and smash the two together. That doesn't make it jazz. You have not addressed the particulars of my points. Calling me names, aside from being against the rules, doesn't work as an argument. When you point the finger at someone else, you have four fingers pointing back at yourself. If you really believe this is a jazz album, contrary to what Becker and Fagen themselves have said, you don't know what jazz is. But you can learn.
 * "jazz is in the conversation" Talking about jazz doesn't make something jazz. That's obvious.
 * It's not a personal attack. And your response is still puritanical. Your point is irrelevant, and you have not addressed my citation of the project-banner guideline. So I'll highlight it for you again: "Should be placed at or near the top of all talk pages on jazz-related articles". This is the only point that matters, unless you can find something in the guidelines that'll support your position. Dan56 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is calling someone puritanical a compliment? Of course not. So it must be an insult, right? More to the point, please address the many points I have made. I have been patient and tolerant with you and I respectfully request the same courtesy. I have written a lot, but you have addressed almost none of it, and when you have addressed the subject you haven't done much better than "Nuh uh no it isn't". Come on, man. Don't drag this out. It's really very simple.
 * It is more of an observation than an insult or a compliment, unlike your reasoning, which insults my intelligence. Another observation: being patronizing, or projecting your insecurities about content discussion onto me, will not expedite your desired change. Your comments are way too long, complicated (rather than "simple"), and rely more on anecdotal or personal observation rather than specific Wikipedia guidelines or policy, which only I've cited. I'm sorry I am not responding the way you want me to, seeing it your way, or acquiescing to something I don't agree with. If you want your change to be enforced without my objection getting in the way, perhaps you should see a third opinion or an RfC. Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood what "jazz related" means. In Wikiproject Jazz "jazz related" refers not to genres of music but to articles about subjects other than people and albums. That's why there are articles about venues like Carnegie Hall, record labels such as Columbia and Sony, instruments like trombone and saxophone, festivals, bars, clubs, restaurants. That is what "jazz related" means. Other kinds of articles. My reasoning isn't an insult unless you are fundamentally against changing your mind, your habits, and learning something new. Show me where my reason is faulty. Don't just make an assertion or claim without backing it up. This isn't about winning. It's about accuracy. For example, why you do think it's OK to ignore what Becker and Fagen say about their own music? That is a very important point. If we are going to have a debate, you must address the points I made, otherwise it's one person gives a speech, then another gives a speech. That's not debate or discussion. That's a political campaign.
 * Because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be rely on third-party sources, and Steely Dan is not a third-party? Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the only one giving speeches and personal essays, not having once cited a guideline or policy to back up your point. I don't see anything at WP:JAZZ that says what you are saying. Central point of using a talk page, from WP:TALK: "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." No one is obligated to spend energy and time engaging your points if they are baseless. Dan56 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of us is obligated to be swayed by the other. It is normal for two editors in a content dispute to reach a stalemate. That is why dispute resolution alternatives like third opinion and RFC exist. Dan56 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a policy against refusing to discuss. I have seen that many times on WP when people are unable to answer my questions. They either say nothing or they change the subject. That is not honest or civil debate. It strikes me as the height of arrogance to presume to know better than Becker and Fagen how to describe their music when they are the ones who wrote it, recorded it, and performed it. That's obvious. We do rely on primary sources sometimes, as when we use a musician's official site. We can use the official site for basic facts as long as we don't include promotional material. So dismissing the primary source in this case is against policy. Regardless, you will find few or no third-party sources that say "Steely Dan is a jazz band" or "Aja is a jazz album", which presumably is the argument you are making.
 * I have discussed. I am not dismissing any source. I am giving equal weight to third-party sources, which you do not want to do, which is against policy. (WP:INDEPENDENT: "Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an axe to grind." No one but you -- no policy or guideline -- advocates for restricting the use of the WP:JAZZ project banner on articles that cover recordings that in your mind are considered only jazz. Don't tell me I misunderstand the meaning of the word "related" when you seem to have a competence problem understanding you have to argue points with a basis in (and citation of) guidelines and policy that can be referred to. Dan56 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have neither given a speech nor written an essay, so I reject those accusations. I consider the use of exaggeration and insults contrary to Wikipedia policy and inconsistent with mature, rational debate.
 * Speech. Dan56 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Go through WP:Third opinion or WP:RFC, and see what impartial editors think. Dan56 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Dan, did you perhaps mean purist above (and not puritanical)? I agree that this album can belong to the Wikipedia Project Jazz, and that it doesn't mean we're saying Aja is a jazz album. I also think this discussion got started on the wrong foot, and I hope it's due to writing a different word than intended. ---Sluzzelin talk  16:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's too late to make nice; he has completely turned me off with his incessant, myopic bloviating, anal rigidity and condescending, hypocritical remarks from the get-go, all of which I suspect are products of his obsession with removing a superficial project banner (that seems incredibly precious to him) and have blinded him from comprehending the basics of guidelines and policy-based arguments; one simply should not argue in the manner he has; it is unreadable and off-putting. I'm glad I'm not alone anymore to be driven crazy by his behavior, but I have no more patience for him on this matter. Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Psychologists call this projection. You are lucky I haven't referred you to an administrator for all the times you have insulted me. I feel sorry for your inability to address this subject. Good luck, mate. You'll need it. If you are interested in learning about jazz, feel free to click on my username. Contrary to your assertion, I have not "turned you off". If you want to learn, I'm here to help.
 * In the simplest, most obvious sense, Wikiproject Jazz is about jazz. Hence the name. I don't know how to make that clearer. EddieHugh made clear on the Wikiproject Jazz page that he doesn't want to favor one kind of jazz over another. That's why there are articles in the project about dixieland, swing, bebop, and avant-garde. I have worked on all of them. But the subject is still jazz, defined very very broadly. Is that determination subjective? To some degree, yes. But if lines were not drawn, decisions couldn't be made, and nothing would ever get accomplished. If you want to help, there is plenty to do. Complaining doesn't help. Always things your way doesn't help.

Vmavanti, what is the downside of having a project's tag on an article that's related to that project's scope, if not fully in it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A response was given by an admin at for anyone who wants to read it. The conclusion was "you are both at fault", which of course I disagree with (for the most part), though I respect the person who gave it. I'm dropping my participation in this article. Wikipedia is the loser here, not me.
 * The problem you complained about there was not so much this article as all the other ones where he objected to you removing the jazz project tags. Please consider my question above: what's the downside in leaving the tags?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tags aren't merely decoration. They collect information, and the information goes somewhere, such as to the Cleanup Listing. Every Tuesday the Cleanup Listing for Wikiproject Jazz is released. This listing contains articles which need work. As of this writing, nearly 4000 need work. A lot of work. Most of the others, if not all the others, need some kind of work. Who is going to do it? Santa Claus? The fictional Good Samaritan? God? The listing grows every day despite the efforts of a small group of people playing whack a mole. For most of the project's life, two of us have done most of the work. For all the people who thoughtlessly add tags because it's fun, or because they are bored, or because they have OCD, or because they are know-it-alls, whatever the reason, there are two people on Earth who actually do the real work of improving the articles, and a handful of others here and there who I'm grateful for. There are always consequences, right? Adults should have learned that by now. The internet encourages thoughtlessness. When I try to debate people, I find I'm talking to someone who is incapable of debate and of seeing past their noses.

I can definitely see past my own nose. How else would I be capable of typing this sentence? isento (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Chaw chaw.

Why is yacht rock being removed from the infobox?
An IP removed it with no explanation, then - gasp - a veteran editor! Citing a claim it's an "outlier opinion", when there's an entire subsection in the article documenting its connection to yacht rock, including at least two reliable sources that explicitly define it as such. Funny thing - the outlier opinion is actually "jazz fusion", which is attributed to only one source! I know the country's upside down right now, but .... Thoughts? ,, isento (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've no knowledge of this band or the album, but yes, there's a subsection here devoted to yacht rock so I can't see any reason in the genre not appearing. Like soft rock (and heavy metal, for that matter), the term can be used ironically – disparagingly – by critics, and it's good to be discerning in those instances, but that's not the case here.
 * Not so long ago I was somewhat taken aback, let's say, when hard rock was rejected at the Beatles' "Back in the U.S.S.R." – Talk:Back in the U.S.S.R.. I suppose my take on that was informed by seeing how editors add any old genre to a music article, with a source, and how that seems to be the end of the matter, however self-contradictory the infobox list might end up being. Some commonsense on this issue is welcome (I'm relieved to see it applied, rather than Wikipedia just parroting misinformed rubbish), but again, I don't a problem with yacht rock being applied to Aja.
 * Quick aside: my beef is with the way psychedelic rock has superseded psychedelia as a description, when to many writers, and certainly with regard to historical accuracy, psychedelia was the term for this music in 1966–67. Of course it was psychedelic + rock, but it wasn't Psychedelic rock, at least not necessarily. We had a comprehensive article titled Psychedelic music that made GA in 2013; now it's pretty much been gutted as far as the '60s movement goes, and everything's gone to Psyche rock. Which is simply rewriting history. JG66 (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"Yacht rock" as a genre
I would never use an offensive term like "yacht rock." Not many people do. Who does? Losers who need to tear people down to build up their own fragile egos. Narcissistic, would-be know-it-alls who prefer sarcasm to fact, the kind of people Wikipedia attracts like a magnet. You can find reliable sources using this term. So what? You can find reliable sources making mistakes every day. In America, we have a tradition of common sense that supercedes submission to authority. But it's impossible to make the argument for thinking for yourself among people who don't know how to think for themselves, people who are drawn to Wikipedia because they believe it means, "I will do your thinking for you", I will pick winners and losers for you, I will tell you what's what. This paternalism isn't merely un-American, it has no place in a reference work which claims to revere facts above all. I have argued about this article in the past, without success. The bully, the idiot, and the lunatic usually win out in the end. Vmavanti (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Forgiveness and compassion don't seem to be too American either... isento (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment manages to both dumb and offensive. Wikipedia is an American creation. Remember that.

Dude, go out and get laid. 🙄 isento (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Or find a real job where you can actually make a difference. It's not the end of the world, or your world (i.e. America), if yacht rock stays in the infobox of a Steely Dan album article. isento (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In all your hostility and insults, you missed the point.

I don't care. No one cares. No one cares about what you think because you're belittling anyone who disagrees with your point of view. isento (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect you won't be editing Wikipedia for much longer. Bye-ya.


 * (WP:GWAR)
 * (WP:BRD)
 * (WP:TALKNO)

Now that I've highlighted those guidelines for-ya, and with them in mind, we can talk about this as proper Wikipedians. isento (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

Still up to the same old tricks, eh Dan? You changed your name but not your M.O. Same old push/pull. You've had a long run, but all things come to an end. Vmavanti (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, either follow the same guidelines we all have to follow -- and justifiably so -- or get over this and move on. All your doing with comments like that one are creeping me out and embarrassing yourself. isento (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let us all now pause to reflect, turn to each other and paraphrase the good word of Yacht King Mellencamp, who (more or less) said: When one fights authority, the lunatics always win. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Attempting to be clever takes precedence over reality again, eh limey? If you had put one second of analysis into the situation, you would know Dan cares nothing for guidelines. If there is a problem with authority, it's his hangup, not mine. Your dismissive remarks prove what's wrong with this dismissive term. But you know, all things come to an end.
 * I'm Canadian, ya presumptuous demon. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was half-right. I used "eh...", ya presumptuous demon...
 * You were a third right, Father Evans caught it at 13:05, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Only post here, don't bother responding: 1) One can discuss the legitimacy of categorizing this particular work as yacht rock, but that label itself has transformed into somehing positive, perhaps tongue-in-cheek positive, but not prima facie negative anymore. See numerous articles and blogs on this; as none of you see the need of adding referenced sources, nor do I. 2) Vmavanti and isento need to take a more relaxed position toward each other; this is not the first time I'm seeing them lashing out at each other on this talk page, for no apparent reason. 3) Despite the humorous interventions regarding this thread, here and elsewhere, I won't add anymore punniness as that ship has sailed a long time ago. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "label itself has transformed into somehing positive, perhaps tongue-in-cheek positive, but not prima facie negative anymore". This is wrong, self-serving, and contradicts your "only post". It's your opinion and not a very thoughtful one. You keep posting, offering nothing of substance. Dan's incompetence has been proven repeatedly, thus there is no point in trying to engage him in rational conversation. My comments need to be seen in that context.

Who is this Dan he keeps talking about? This guy might have dementia. isento (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

1) have you bothered to read this article? I created a subsection titled "yacht rock" dedicated to reliable sources discussing this album in connection to the genre. 2) Vmavanti repeatedly dismisses the relevance of reliable sources and removes the genre from the infobox. How exactly should this be handled next time? isento (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have, but you're right in pointing that out. I'm not criticizing your edits to the article at all. It's the edits on this talk page I'm referring to. In this very thread. no sources to back arguments, but plenty of insults instead. That's not how it should be handled next time. Discuss, on topic, and gain consensus here. There are enough people watching this article and talk page. If an editor's behaviour is problematic, that can be discussed elsewhere (though I don't necessarily recommend you take it to one of those boards). In any event, the discussions on this talk page should be about content and sources, not about editors. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How do you argue the relevance of reliable sourcing to someone who opens the discussion by refuting the idea that they even matter to begin with? And if you don't engage with them, they continue to remove the content? Your response is the equivalent of slactivism. isento (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You're just another preacher crowding the pulpit bro. isento (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol. Sounds like intent. All for a prosodicaly deficient clone of the legit Kraut-rock tag. Isn't that because somehow SD dared Pretzel Logic? Or a revenge for Kid Charoline? Wood rots. It's not even pinkies. --Askedonty (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Damn man, what dialect of English is this? 😂 isento (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe not this time, Vmavanti I believe. Do You know why "it's not a Dan?". --Askedonty (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Personnel structure
Hi everyone! I admit I got a little heated about the Aja personnel edit, so my apologies to the two editors I got in a tiff/edit war with. Please allow me to start over and explain my reasoning for why I think the Personnel section is better formatted as a track-by-track basis. Let me know what you guys think.D1119 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Each song has its own distinct set of musicians. This is the most obvious reason for why the personnel section should be organized like this. The simple list format barely reflects this--it's incredibly annoying to look for a song's musicians and have to find each name that has a "2" next to it (or whatever number, that is just an example).
 * 2) The Manual of Style suggests it. From WP:PERSONNEL: "In some instances, an album will have a wide variety of performers from track to track. In these cases, it is helpful to list which tracks feature which performers. This can be done in one of two ways: by listing the track's name and then giving a list of performers, or by providing a single list of performers which notes parenthetically which tracks feature this artist...if a single list is likely to be less confusing, then use it; if a track-by-track breakdown is helpful, use that. Different styles will be employed on different articles for their individual needs...". I think a track-by-track breakdown is far more helpful than a list that spreads out each song's credits across a list of names. It's cleaner and much more understandable.
 * 3) Every copy of Aja's liner notes have them sectioned like this. Check the Discogs master page or the first CD issue, the liner notes (if there are any) write them out like this. Since the personnel section is being sourced from the liner notes, reflecting its exact format is much more understandable than lumping everyone together.
 * 4) "We don't do this for other albums" This reason was brought up by a user--I don't remember, and I don't want to "name names" or whatever. I'm not here to get in a fight or anything lol but I thought this point was important to bring up. Just because we don't do it for other albums, doesn't mean we shouldn't for this one. This format works a lot better for albums with complicated lineups, and Aja is exactly that. Plus, if need be, I'd be more than willing to go through each of SD's albums and format it like this, if consistency is the issue. I think it's much more legible and cleaner.
 * We need to be consistent throughout the site. If we do it your way, then people will want to start doing for "their favorite album" too, just as you are. Every editor is supposed to practice impartiality. I love this album and I love Steely Dan. But I don't give out special favors to feed my biases. Liner notes don't matter. It isn't the job of Wikipedia to copy every liner note ever written. This information is easy to obtain. Adding this information merely clutters the page and opens the door to many others to do the same. I already play enough whack a mile already.

We actually don't need to be consistent throughout the site, since WP:MOS advocates consistency within an article. And WP:PERSONNEL says Considering these two ideas, my only issue is reconciling the short list of musicians - Steely Dan and additional personnel - being presented in a different style than the track-by-track that follows in your revision,. isento (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Vmavanti I really urge you to reconsider which version is more cluttered. I am not trying to argue, I simply think the way it's presented on the liner notes/listed out by song is much clearer. I love this album but it has nothing to do with that, it's simply a matter of clarity. More "data" (1000 bytes or whatever) but a lot more visually intelligible. Isento, to your point, the liner notes have the horn section/arrangement sectioned off and Fagen/Becker listed within each song (rather than separately as "Steely Dan"). Maybe we can just do it that way? D1119 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would accept that. isento (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does aim for consistency of form from article to article. The jazz project aims for consistency. But I figured out a way for you to get what your little heart desires. Find a way to remove it from the jazz project, and I don't care what you do to it. Be warned. I tried that in the past and it led to rage. It's not a jazz album but there were people who insisted it remain in the jazz project. Oddly, none of those people actually work on the jazz project.

Or you could remove yourself from the jazz project. isento (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, Dan. You are always so cooperative, so generous, so understanding. What a pleasure it is to communicate with such a wonderful person.

Isento, let's not stoop to being nasty. I want to make this right. Vmavanti, please don't use petty attacks ("for you to get what your little heart desires", really?). Instead of helping, you have resorted to pedantry and scorn. I understand that consistency is paramount, but when consistency leads to a section that is difficult to read, then it becomes an issue. Each song on Aja has a different set of musicians, so it's much clearer to see the personnel split up by song. It retains accurate information, does not clutter the page as you mentioned (I'm still not sure what you meant by this?), is closer to the liner notes of the original (and continued) packaging, and is, above all else, clearer than how it reads now. Isento and I agreed to a compromise, so I'm going to change it to that. You have not come up with a solid argument as to why it should remain as it is other than "it's like that for other albums". What about Bitches Brew? It's formatted the same way. You also haven't offered a reasonable solution: your "offer" was for me to somehow remove an apt category for the album, a clearly impossible task as proven by your previous attempt. In fact, with this suggestion, you've proven that your entire stance on this stems from a past argument that you have become bitter and obstinate about. D1119 (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You're not gonna unstick him from the past. He's still calling me by my username from three years ago. It's not going his way, he knows it, so he's being a dick, etc. I'm still in support of your proposed edit, given your reasoning. isento (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see you two have a history... Well, anywho, I reconciled both your recent undo edit with both of our suggestions. If you're happy with it, I'm happy with it. Vmavanti, I hope you are happy with it, too. D1119 (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Dan started the personal attacks, which is very much against the rules here and he knows it. I stick by my point, though you called it insulting: What we are talking about is personal desire, your special interest versus the public interest, the interests of the encyclopedia as opposed to yours and Dan's own desires. You want. That doesn't govern Wikipedia. I have shelves of books about jazz. Show me one that calls Aja a jazz album or that calls Steely Dan a jazz band. In fact, Dan insists it's not a jazz band—it's a "yacht rock" band and a "yacht rock" album. That's an interesting attempt to square a circle. Steely Dan is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In Brian Sweet's biography, Becker and Fagen deny being a jazz band. "References" to jazz in the article doesn't mean it's a jazz album or that it belongs in the jazz project. If that were true, we would include "jazzercise", "jazz hands", and Jazz by Queen. I've given you many reasons here to remove this album from the jazz project. That was the deal I offered in order to allow you to change the personnel page, but Dan has been engaging in edit warring, which is also against the rules here and he knows it.

Vmavanti (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't call it "insulting". This is not about personal desire. I started this with four unbiased reasons why the personnel section should be listed the way I had it. You haven't responded to most of my reasonings or counterarguments, instead bringing up a completely different argument that you had that was shelved. You even quote a previous post from that argument in your "rebuttal". Jazz album personnel sections are not consistent, as proven with Bitches Brew. Whether this is in the jazz project or not has little bearing on how the personnel section should look. You are simply being obstinate for obstinacy's sake. I don't care for how long you've been listening to Steely Dan or reading about jazz. You (and Dan) are making this more personal than I have. Your latest revision has also removed positive edits elsewhere in the article, so I'm going to revert your edit. D1119 (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly did respond to your points, but you failed to consider them thoughtfully. Instead you chose to call me a "supervillian" who is making "too big a deal" out of this, then to claim that I was the one being insulting. That's really something. Personal attacks are against the rules here—and disagreeing with you by following the rules doesn't make me a "supervillain". Insults reveal how weak your "arguments" are. Here's another: "You are simply being obstinate for obstinacy's sake". That doesn't describe me. Obviously this subject is a big deal to you, otherwise you wouldn't have made the change, right? And repeatedly reverted my edits. So who is being obstinate? We are supposed to discuss without making reverts, something neither your nor Dan has obeyed. So who is being obstinate? The one making the insults and breaking the rules? Or the one who can see past his own desires and follows the rules for the good of the readers and the encyclopedia? When you bring up Bitches Brew, you are using a common tactic among IP editors: "The rest of the kids are doing it, so why can't I?" I have heard this many times. I told you, there are two of us doing most of the work on the jazz project. Do you think I have time to play whack a mole on 30,000 articles? Do you think that if one article is wrong, therefore all articles ought to be wrong? Why not look at all the jazz articles and how those personnel sections are done rather than cherrypick one article so you can say, "Aha! That article does it, so I can do it, too." No, you can't. It doesn't work that way. You don't make the rules. I refer you to the essay "It's not about YOU." As for the charge that I brought a "completely irrelevant" point, what I offered was a deal for you to get your way, and you rejected that deal very quickly without much consideration. If it's in the jazz project, it's relevant to me. If you want to get your way, or try to, then remove it from the jazz project. I tried to do that, per our deal, but Dan reverted it. So who is being obstinate and uncooperative here? Instead of looking for tactics to get your way, you should try a little more honesty. As for the charge that it doesn't matter what I know about jazz or Steely Dan, it certainly does matter because that's the subject of the article It's the difference between knowledge and ignorance. You don't know what you don't know. How much you do you know about jazz? How much do you know about Wikipedia? How long have you been editing? How much of the documentation have you read?

Wow. I woke up in the mood to masturbate, but seeing this just killed my morning woodie like a sexually frustrated lumberjack. isento (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, now, just call me Steely Dan, because I'm not gonna let this get me down! isento (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, kid. I didn't realize you answer for other people, too. You really are a genius. Comments like this are why you will be be banned. Keep it up.

Yeah yeah, good luck with that forecast (WP:BOOMERANG) isento (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

PDAB
Is this a WP:PDAB with Aja!? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, could be. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * After reading some policy, I'm not sure. WP:SMALLDIFF could imply that there's no ambiguity between the two. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)