Talk:Giant Steps

Different versions
The article needs to take into account and discuss the different versions of the album that have been released over the years. The current page is based on the inital CD release, which is not current with newer re-releases by Rhino. --Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Rhino? The only special thing that release has is additional alternate takes. I think it's more important to establish the contents of the original LP release, and the subsequent Atlantic CD release. I'll get around to it. - mako 22:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing the importance of such an addition. Simply put, this is a request for content on version history.  The history should include mention of the original release; the standard, remastered CD release (Atlantic, October 25, 1990) which includes five bonus tracks, currently listed in the article; Giant Steps - Gold (Mobile Fidelity, July 12, 1994); remastered, new liner notes, total of five bonus tracks, two additional alternate takes of "Giant Steps" and a second alternate take of "Naima" on Giant Steps - Deluxe Edition (Rhino Records, March 3, 1998); two versions (possibly identical as limited edition reissues) of The Heavyweight Champion: The Complete Atlantic Recordings of John Coltrane - Box Set (Rhino Records, August 15, 1995 and Year 2000 Second Edition Box Set); three-disc pack (appears to be deluxe edition), Legendary Jazz (Rhino, 1998). --Viriditas  | Talk 04:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * With all those different releases, I see your point. It might take quite a bit of digging around for info. - mako 05:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since The Heavyweight Champion is one of those "complete Atlantic recordings" type box sets, it doesn't belong in the versions. Anyway it's given a mention in the tracks. The Legendary Jazz doesn't belong either, as it's a compilation containing what appears to be the standard CD release, along with Mingus and Roland Kirk albums and a Rhino sampler. The Mobile Fidelity cover suggests it's the standard CD release, but as a Gold CD it should be mentioned. - mako 06:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Genre
Despite the year it came out, this song is not hard bop. It's bebop. In fact, it's unmistakable bebop. Considering that many people take Wikipedia to be canonical, this really needs to get fixed -- in fact, this might be a canonical bebop tune. Sliver (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

removal
Hey I removed this, I'm not coming back here I was a jazz major I disagree with this sentence and the citation hasn't been added for years.

The ability to play over the Giant Steps cycle remains to this day one of the benchmark standards by which a jazz musician's improvising skill is measured.

If anything needs to be done email me. Burnedfaceless (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2019

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is clear consensus against the proposed move. bd2412 T 16:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

– Giant Steps is well known in jazz circles as a composition. Therefore there lacks a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case. --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk about my  contributions ) 22:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Giant Steps → Giant Steps (album)
 * Giant Steps (disambiguation) → Giant Steps


 * The article about the composition is at Giant Steps (composition) and should probably stay there. --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk about my  contributions ) 22:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to oppose this, since I don't think it's helpful for readers. The composition and album are both well known, definitely. However, the composition wasn't "released as a single" or anything like that–it first appeared on the album. Thus I think the current setup, with the composition/recording as a subtopic of the album, is ideal. If readers want to read about the composition, they should not be either astonished or unhappy to arrive at an article on the album that contains the composition's recording. Dekimasu よ! 23:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Since the fairly common expression and title "Giant Steps" represents both the album and the composition, the seven entries at the Giant Steps (disambiguation) page should be evaluated on their own individual merits without the indication of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as individual merits, the Coltrane entries have over 12 times the hits of the others combined. In terms of both long-term significance and page views, John Coltrane is the clear primary topic here. Dekimasu よ! 02:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dekimasu. There is a PT here and readers are best served with the album at the base name. Srnec (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The title composition from the Coltrane album seems to be the only thing that comes close to competing with the album for PTOPIC, but the two things are obviously very closely related. Someone searching for information about the composition who lands at Giant Steps won't be too unhappy. If we want to make their life even easier, we could add a for hatnote linking to the article on the composition. Or, better yet, just include a link to the composition in prose in the intro. e.g. "The title track is known for its blah blah and has been blahed by several blahs". Colin M (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is that the album and composition are the two most important topics here, and one should not be considered primary over the other. --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk about my  contributions ) 00:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect use of author tags and unnecessary string parameters
If you wish to make changes to the author tags and string formatting, please discuss here first. There is no requirement for or value to the changes made, and they have been reverted to the status quo prior to those edits. In addition, the use of a last name tag for a complete author name is not correct, and can lead to errors for microformatting; bots etc. Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They are not incorrect. Stop reverting the correct application of them and removal of unused parameters. It is disruptive to do so.
 * In HTML, the ref name should be quoted.
 * In the templates, the unused parameters are just that: unused.
 * The author issue has been fixed, which is what you should have done instead of restoring incorrect formatting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rather than continuing to edit war, you should indicate where you think your proposed changes are justified. Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rather than continuing to edit war, you should indicate where you think your proposed reverts are justified. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what I did above. Are you a native English speaker? Are you familiar with HTML? Do you understand citation styles? Do you see any problems now that I fixed the one error? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your tone is rude. The system is bold revert discuss, not revert again and wait for other person to open discussion. My initial revert did not change your removal of unused tags. Quotes are optional, and add to clutter; your personal preference on a page which you have otherwise not edited is not a justification. To be abundantly clear, you need to indicate where in policy you think the making of your change is justified. Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Walter's edits are correct, please leave them alone and move on. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour was WP:BATTLEFIELD and not in any way constructive. BRD is correct. I was bold and added the corrections. You reverted them but failed to discuss. I simply applied the changes again. The one error was when the one citation was added the  parameter was used and the clean-up script converts that to a   and adds a  . My error was that I did not check if it was unpopulated at that point. Otherwise, everything was correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)