Talk:Ian Dury

Split The Blockheads
Hello,

It seems to me it would make sense to split the Blockheads and make that a seperate artical and then contain a section of that artictle within the main Dury artical.

Reasons for this:


 * The Blockheads have written and recorded two of their own albums.
 * They are still touring and very much an act in their own right.
 * Even when Dury was alive they worked on seperate projects but as the same unit and sometimes still under The Blockheads name.

What do people think ...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazzquire (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC) --144.32.152.155 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed!! A word of winter warning though; I tried to do this, but they called it a "rather pointless content fork" and "better as redirect". Sheled (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The Blockheads really need their own page, particularly as they're still going without Dury.Cavie78 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support For reasons as above - Dury died in 2000, but the Blockheads still perform, so are a band in their own right.
 * Support---Rothorpe (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly tautological phrasing
Under the section "Blockheads" there is a reference to their "vivid, earthy sexual humour". I think the term "sexual" is probably redundant as "earthy" implies "sexual", amongst other things. Does anybody agree or disagree? Full disclosure: I originally inserted the phrase "vivid, earthy humour" a few years back so I am suggesting a return to my own text -- therefore I might be biased.  --Emmenjay (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "earthy" can be taken to also cover other bodily functions. But it is generally used as a euphemism for sexual, so that does look a bit tautologous. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC) ... Not to mention Earthy Kitt, of course.


 * That was the intention. The examples underneath reflect a wider meaning of "Earthy".
 * --Emmenjay (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect chronology?
According to the article:


 * They built up a dedicated following in the UK and other countries and made several hit singles, including "What a Waste", "Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick" (which was a UK number one at the beginning of 1979, selling just short of a million copies), "Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 3" (number three in the UK in 1979), and "Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll", which marked Dury's Stiff debut. Although it was banned by the BBC it was named Single of the Week by NME on its release.[12] It was soon followed by the album New Boots and Panties!!, which achieved platinum status.


 * In October 1977 Dury and his band started performing as Ian Dury & the Blockheads, ...

The mention of events of October 1977 should come before the events of 1979, and also, this makes it sound like "New Boots and Panties!!" was released after the singles mentioned, whereas was it not actually released before?? I would prefer someone with a better knowledge of the subject than myself to fix whatever needs fixing here. 31.52.148.214 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Those paragraphs were a bit muddled. Have now re-arranged and hopefully it now all makes a bit more sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ian Dury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090124074954/http://leicestersquaretheatre.com:80/events.asp?eventid=111 to http://leicestersquaretheatre.com/events.asp?eventid=111

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Quotations
No, this isn't Wikiquote, but Dury doesn't have any entries at Wikiquote. So I don't see a huge problem with having two small quotes here. Surely, they illustrate his view of the world rather succinctly? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree - if the removing editor had added them to Wikiquote, and provided a linking template on this page, that would be fair enough. They were not disproportionate, they were sourced and have now been "lost" - agree to their reinstatement. - Arjayay (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps User:IllaZilla would care to comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed them for a couple of reasons: 1) They were formatted as pull quotes (which is what cquote is for) when they weren't actually pull quotes. 2) They seemed random, just sitting in a section labeled "quotations" without any context. If I'd thought they had some relevance or supported the article's prose in any way, I'd have moved them inline into an appropriate section...but they didn't seem to be relevant, just appended at the bottom of the article because they sounded colorful. I don't see how they "illustrate his view of the world rather succinctly", especially since the article makes no mention of his "view of the world" whatsoever. Do the quotes have something to do with his political or social views? His attitude toward music, performing, or his audience? Without any other prose to provide context, they just seemed randomly placed. If you think the quotes are significant, I recommend incorporating them into the article in a section about Dury's personality and/or opinions, which should of course involve drawing from some secondary sources. If all you want is to show off colorful quotations, start an entry at Wikiquote; this isn't the place. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Valid reasons. Your edit summary just said "this isn't Wikiquote". I really don't think the article needs to construct Dury's "view of the world" to be able to use quotes such as those. I found them useful in giving a little snapshot into his personality, his "attitude to life" if you like. I thought the fact they were reported in WP:RS made them notable. It's unfortunate if you think this is just "showing off colorful quotations". But an entry at Wikiquote might be the best solution. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But as previously stated - the onus is upon the person who thinks they should be in Wikiquote to put them there first, and than add a link to them, before removing them from the article, - Arjayay (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm, no...there is no onus on anyone to move anything over to another project. I've never edited Wikiquote, and I don't care one way or the other whether those quotations end up there. They don't belong at the bottom of this article, slapped on without context. If you feel they have value and ought to be preserved, the onus is on you to put them somewhere appropriate, whether that be Wikiquote or in a section in this article explaining Dury's views. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be right as far as policy goes, IllaZilla. But those quotes have probably been searched out and added in perfectly good faith and not just "slapped on without context" as you put it. Some editors, like myself and Arjayay don't see them as problematic, even without context. You seem to be currently "on a mission" with quotes and I think you might get a lot of negative reaction. I'm sure you don't want to appear as a "mindless robotic policy wonk", do you. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Decorative" might have been a more tactful way to put it, but the point is the same. Yeah, they're amusing, and I'm not questioning the good faith of whoever put them there, but they don't add anything substantive to the article when presented that way. Not being problematic ≠ having value. Something like that wouldn't survive a GA or FA review in that form. --IllaZilla (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You have now made your point very eloquently. Thanks for taking time to expand. Edit summaries can be a little misleading sometimes, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Captions
Is there a MoS guideline about a venue not being pertinent to a caption, especially if you can't see anything of the venue in the image? That seems to conflict with this guideline. I would have thought the The Roundhouse in London would have been a typical venue for Dury in 1978 and that the reader might benefit for knowing he performed there. Why not trim the caption to "Performing at London's The Roundhouse in 1978" instead of removing the venue altogether? Martinevans123 (talk)


 * Of course there isn't such a narrowly specific guideline. For infobox purposes, the caption should be succinct. Why does a reader glancing at the infobox need to know the name of the venue he's performing at in that particular picture? The infobox image is a visual identifier; all the caption needs to explain is what he's doing in the picture and when it was taken. The specifics of the image (venue, city, etc.) are on the image description page. Not to mention that there are two other images in the article body that appear to be from the same concert and both mention/link the Roundhouse. I think two mentions of the concert hall are plenty. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's diffiult to judge what any particular reader "needs to know" or to judge whether they "glance" at a info box or "read it thoroughly". I found your edit summary a little perplexing - how often can one ever "see anything of the venue in the image" of a performer on stage? Quite happy if the venue remains in one or more of the captions for later images. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, it read as though the caption was more about the venue than it was about Dury. In the photo, you can't see anything but Dury and a microphone, so the venue doesn't seem to matter. In an infobox, which is already pretty stuffed with text, brevity in the caption looks better in my opinion. For the other images which are outside the infobox, a slightly longer caption is fine. If you feel it's worth mentioning in the infobox, though, feel free to change it. I don't feel that strongly about it. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think you are right. Looks ok to me, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Dury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203020714/http://www.milstricevic.net/pages/reasons.html to http://www.milstricevic.net/pages/reasons.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ian Dury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831002659/http://www.uel.ac.uk/about/history.htm to http://www.uel.ac.uk/about/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015000518/http://www.demonmusicgroup.co.uk/Product.aspx?ProductID=4314 to http://www.demonmusicgroup.co.uk/Product.aspx?ProductID=4314
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509084204/http://www.theblockheads.com/biog.php to http://www.theblockheads.com/biog.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204220436/http://www.royalparks.org.uk/press/factsheets-on-the-royal-parks/monuments/monuments-in-richmond-park to http://www.royalparks.org.uk/press/factsheets-on-the-royal-parks/monuments/monuments-in-richmond-park
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509084204/http://www.theblockheads.com/biog.php to http://www.theblockheads.com/biog.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Dury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060430135317/http://www.theblockheads.com/discog.php to http://www.theblockheads.com/discog.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Inspiration
I just watched a video on YouTube (titled 'Exploring Ian Dury, The Blockheads & HIT ME WITH YOUR RHYTHM STICK | New British Canon' by Trash Theory) in which the narrator says Dury admired and was influenced by Gene_Vincent. I don't have any evidence to back this up but if true, could be added to this article. Billtubbs (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. I am astonished that it has not been mentioned in the article, given that (I thought) it was common knowledge, and there are certainly many sources for it. I have a friend who, as a child in hospital, had met Gene Vincent when he was touring England, and as soon as Dury appeared on the scene, got us all hooked on him! I'll add a bit to the article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Laterthanyouthink check your email re this.. JarrahTree 03:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I found some refs but then got called away and have been busy all day. If not later, I'll get back to it tomorrow. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)