Talk:New York Dolls (album)

MusicHound quote
I would like to restore this quote to the article body:

"Writing in MusicHound Rock: The Essential Album Guide (1999), authors Gary Graff and Daniel Durcholz credit the album with "perfectly captur[ing] the group's tongue-in-cheek mix of glam guitar swagger and bleak NYC realism"."

Dan56 has already reverted me once, but I wonder if there are there any objections from anyone other than Dan56? Harmelodix (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Instead of asking an obviously provocative question and starting an edit war over a Featured article, why don't you explain how you think including this quote is better than the one already in the article? And why you can't be bothered to learn the article's footnote system? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be provocative and I used a template so I thought it would be okay. Harmelodix (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, instead of seeking to poll editors for permission, why don't you address my rationale from the revision you cited above? You could also comment on my revision here, where I restored Graff's (it was the original edition of the book by Graff, not Graff and Ducholz) commentary where it's actually relevant rather than disrupting the prose quality of the section you originally added it in. Dan56 (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But, the copy I have is from 1999, and the Library of Congress entry list both Graff and Durcholz as editors. What edition do you have where Graff is listed as an author, versus a co-editor with Durcholz? Harmelodix (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I cited it with this edit on 21 June. This is its entry on GoogleBooks. Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the Google books entry is more reliable than my hardcopy? I have the actual book in my hand, and it lists Graff and Durcholz as co-editors in its Library of Congress entry at the front of the book. Is it your position that Wikipedia should use the information supplied by Google books, or the information that the actual book lists in its Library of Congress entry? Harmelodix (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, my position is that I cited a previous edition published in 1996 with the ISBN 0787610372, which can be looked up at Wikipedia's BookSources, where GoogleBooks is just one of the online databases for looking up this type of information (BookSources#Online text) Dan56 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why did you make it sound like my content addition was flawed because I used a newer edition than you did? You are being intentionally exhausting. Harmelodix (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I did no such thing. I devoted a small parenthetical note to this edition nonsense in my remark here, which addressed a much larger concern. Your decision to indulge in and scrutinize that instead is on you. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on New York Dolls (album). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6599122/213_new_york_dolls
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6596112/personality_crisis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on New York Dolls (album). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6599122/213_new_york_dolls
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6596112/personality_crisis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on New York Dolls (album). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6599122/213_new_york_dolls
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6596112/personality_crisis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on New York Dolls (album). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6599122/213_new_york_dolls
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6596112/personality_crisis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
, "Recording and production" is a new section. It does not matter that the Dolls are referenced at earlier points. They should be referenced at the start of each new paragraph and especially new section. Definitions of "book" (on Google, and on Merriam) show that it should be phrased as booking a name (of the subject). As for the recording date, it is verified by the second footnote in that citation, to The Mojo Collection. isento (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about the band - it's about the album. Readers do not need to reminded that the New York Dolls made New York Dolls. In "The record company booked the studio", the subject would be the one who was doing the booking. The record company (subject) booked (transitive verb) the studio (object). Or the record company (subject) booked (transitive verb) the band (object). The Mojo Collection says the recording was done in April 1973. It also says that it was released in August 1973, which makes it a questionable source at best. You obviously own this article so I won't bother trying to edit it anymore, but I hope I don't encounter you on an article that I care about. Mo Billings (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The sentence doesn't say the New York Dolls made New York Dolls. It says Mercury booked them at the studio. The previous paragraph (in the preceding section) is all about Rundgren. The next sentence references him with the ambiguous "they". The examples I cited from Google and Merriam support my phrasing, which identifies the Dolls for a new section and helps more than it hurts readers. My phrasing is informed by countless nominations and reviews and the reviewers' advice over the years, nothing more.


 * The album was released in the early 1970s. Conflicting dates happen as such among sources, even in the case of Sgt. Pepper. Robert Christgau and Guitar World also state a date of August 1973, but they are not questionable sources in and of themselves either.


 * If you did not care about this article to begin with, I don't understand why you bothered editing it at all. If this is the attitude you show when your changes are met with a little resistance, then perhaps this place is not for you. isento (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I improved the readability of one sentence which stuck out while reading that section. That was too much for you. That's fine - I'll move on and do something else. You stay here and defend your article. Mo Billings (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You discredited a source and made a bad faith accusation after I properly followed WP:BRD (after enough reverts had happened at the article), encouraged discussion here, and simply disagreed with your position while explaining mine. I defend my phrasing and the source with counterexamples, to which you had no response. You suggested you don't care about this article, yet you were reading it and you're still here responding. You said in your edit summary that this article is about the band (to justify your edit), while here you say . Perhaps what was too much for me was knowing I took the time and patience to respond to a fellow editor's concerns with consideration and civility, only to have it insulted. Yes, incivility, condescension, and ego-preserving hypocrisy were a little too much for me. Please review WP:TALK on how to effectively communicate your concerns moving forward. Thank you. isento (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip about WP:TALK. I'm glad we were able to work this out. Mo Billings (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And pardon the intensity. Happy editing. isento (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Alex Spyropoulos – piano!?
I have the original album and this so-called Alex Spyropoulos does not appear in the credits of personnel at all! Only the Fantastic Buddy Bowser and Todd Rundgren do. So if you don't mind I would like to edit the additional personnel section. Thank-you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:43BF:AA00:24CE:F1F7:A43C:A30F (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)