User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 34

The Signpost: 04 July 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nationalism in the UK. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Article title mistake
I recently created an article called Euphorics Id; however, it needs to be called Euphoria's Id. I'm limited by my use of an iPhone so I do not have the ability to move the article. If you have spare time, could you switch it for me? Help us greatly appreciated as always.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No prob. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ancestors and likelihood
Hi. For what it's worth, "ancestor" is actually a fairly standard term in this context. For example, Proto-Germanic is the ancestor of English, Dutch, Swedish, German etc., and they are its descendants. Similarly, Welsh is a descendant of Brythonic dialects. The term "predecessor" is OK, but more ambiguous. Brythonic is also a predecessor of English in Britain, for example, though obviously not its ancestor. I take your point about "likely". In practice, we actually don't know for sure that they were spoken well before Caesar's arrival, but it is so likely that stating it as bald fact is hardly misleading. Garik (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the clear difference in meaning between "ancestor" and "predecessor". I still find "ancestor" an odd word to use in the context - unless it is the term used in academic sources.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is:, , , . In fact I'm surprised to learn you find it odd. Garik (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed it back. Just put it down to ignorance on my part.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I salute your readiness to admit ignorance — I'm frequently surprised by what I discover I don't know. Have a nice day! Garik (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle and, you've both overlooked the fact that the nomenclature is "ancestor language", not a living entity passing on its DNA. I've fixed the relevant passage to reflect this. Mind you, dependent on the situation, precursor language may be more apt. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid I disagree with your point. It's entirely normal and standard to refer to an "ancestor" of Welsh (or any other language). "Ancestor language" is fine, but it's simply not the case that that's somehow more correct in this context than "ancestor" alone; nor (as the foregoing implies) is it the case that "ancestor" alone necessarily implies a biological entity with DNA. Garik (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See, for example:, , , , ,  and so on. (Several of the examples concern ancestors of specific linguistic constructions, rather than of the language as a whole, but that's really more grist to the mill.) Garik (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the tardy response, . Agreed. Once you'd reverted it to the simpler 'ancestor' version it hit me (as in ) that further elaboration was unnecessarily convoluted. 'Precursor' language seems to be a valid alternative but, as 'ancestor' is being used for other articles, I'd prefer parity of usage across the board. A pleasure to meet you both, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"One Monkey Don't Stop No Show"
Now I ain't monkeying around here, but there seems to be some confusion over authorship of this song. I am assuming it is the same song !? For example, Stick McGhee in one source, Joe Tex in another, General Johnson and Greg Perry have dibs on it in another, A. Johnson, R. Cobb making a claim here. Big Maybelle's version has songwriting credits given to Singleton/Stapleton, McCoy ? I am half tempted to say I wrote the damn thing ! Any thoughts ?

Also can you verify from your venerable book, or otherwise, the R&B chart position claims for the various versions given in the article ?

No rush - I am travelling down to The Oval tomorrow on the train. I will be away until... when I get back home again.

Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting.... I shall investigate. Whitburn has the Joe Tex and Honey Cone songs as different songs, for a start, but further research is clearly required....    Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: I've made a modest attempt at improvement, but finding good sources is a problem.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for that. I bet it sent you ape. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hereford page
Why do you keep changing the Media info on the hereford page. Do you live in Hereford, and know anything about hereford. please leave the info about the admag in as we are a big part of Hereford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobydog12345 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hereford
While you say, i Quote "You are removing relevant information about an established newspaper, and replacing it with information about a commercial advertising venture of no apparent notability" I do believe you have never seen an admag, we have free editorial and news have been established since 1978, promote a lot of charities and donate to a lot of good causes in Hereford. We have over 300 local Business's who do use our paper, and for them to hear you say "We have No apparent notability" is quite frankly insulting. Sunshine radio and free radio only survive by advertising. 195.224.8.36 (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that none of that is relevant. We only publish material that is notable and independently verifiable.  We are an encyclopedia.  No insult was intended, but we have clear guidance on what content is sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned, and local commercial advertising journals are not.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

big jay
hello - why is this poorly sourced? everybody knows the collaboration of big jay and detroit gary wiggins and the source ist the venue where this concert happens - if you google both names you finde videos and tours, flyers and posters about their collaboration - even on the website of "the blues hall of fame" there is their video where they play together - on big jays OWN WEBSITE is the videos - so the "poor" source is the article that is mentioned now, as THIS article fortgot to mention this collaboration. so the archiv of quasimodo is a PROOF they played that night!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaniekoenig (talk • contribs) 12:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS. The tag relates to the entire article, not only the part that you changed.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge
I presume you have heard about The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at: or other articles relating to the area.
 * Core articles
 * Missing article hotlist
 * Missing photograph hotlist

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:
 * Bristol (Day 1-3)
 * Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
 * Devon (Day 7-9)
 * Dorset (Day 10-12)
 * Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
 * Somerset (Day 16-18)
 * Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.&mdash; Rod talk 16:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Additions to Regions section in G.R.
I made some additions to the Regional scenes section in the Garage rock article. I superimposed all of the new text from California on down--due to the complexity of the edits, it was the best way--I'm sure you'll understand. You can see my Sandbox #1 for edit history. I made improvements in the pre-existing sections. In some cases I moved acts who had previously been in certain paragraphs to new places. For instance, I moved the Spiders from the California section down to where the Southwest bands are now located. So, everything is still there that was there before, but in some cases has been moved. I changed the names of some of the sub-sections to cohere with the new text. I hope that you will like the additions. I think that finally, at last, the article reflects the broad geographical spectrum and diversity. We now have a lot of mentions from the South and other regions that were previously lacking. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I just converted the book citations into Harvard Style (I left the McFarland citations in the Australian section the same as they were, because of they have helpful web. links). I've attempted to get all of the book sources into the Bibliography--hopefully they're all there now.  I was thinking that we could add a few biographical details about some of the Freakbeat groups.  I meant to do that last year, but I have to admit that by the time I got to the British section, I was out of gas and beginning to rush a bit--the whole thing seemed so overwhelming then.  But, now that there is some time, we could go back add a few tidbits about some of the Freakbeat songs and band biographies. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Victor Talking Machine Company edits and reversions
Do you really not see that the little-known names of the conductors of the small orchestras accompanying Caruso, or the matrix number of an early puzzle record and other such minutiae, although they might be perfectly appropriate and valuable information in a book-length history of Victor, are a grossly disproportionate level of detail in a six-paragraph summary of the company's first twenty-five years? The average reader of this article is likely to be only dimly aware of who Caruso was, let alone interested in the names of Victor's faceless house musicians. Such tangential details will only succeed in providing "WTF?" moments for all but the most phono-geeky readers. They stop the narrative dead in its tracks. IIRC, you reverted a similar attempt to excise some of this disruptive detail a few years ago, and IMO you are therefore effectively obstructing the improvement of the article. All sorts of things can be called "encyclopedic", but that does not mean they should be shoehorned into every article to which they have some connection. I suppose at some point this will have to be hashed out on the article's talk page; I have little doubt what the consensus will be. 66.81.221.28 (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discuss it on the article talk page, not here. But I don't see why your opinion on what is encyclopedic content should outweigh mine, or anyone else's.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have copied my comments above to the article's talk page and invited discussion. A resolution of this impasse is long overdue. Regarding your last comment, it is a two-way street: why should my opinion carry any less weight than yours, or anyone else's? As noted somewhere in the pages of the Corpus Juris Wikipedium, just because something can be included in Wikipedia ("encyclopedic content") does not mean that it should be included. 66.81.221.28 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The PENISS Prize
* To present this award to others, simply type   on their talk page, and then sign and date your post.

Well deserved, boyo. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Blow me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)  (On second thoughts......)

Allan Barnes
His Wiki article gives his age at death as 66, but the obituary reference you posted on the Deaths in 2016 page stated 67. Apart from the obvious that both can not be correct, have you any thoughts ? Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I know. My guess is that the website saw his birth year as 1949 and worked out his age as 67 on that basis, but I'm AGFing on the September birth date.  I was hoping that no-one would notice the discrepancy until it resolved itself, but someone already has - as well as you.   Drat.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrecking Crew
I added some new sub-sections on the various groupings of musicians in the Wrecking Crew article. I changed the name of the Post 60s section to Post Wrecking Crew (because their story really doesn't end until about 1975/1976) and took some text about stuff in the 70s, which had earlier been up in the Musicians section, and moved it down into Post Wrecking Crew where it is now in more logical sequence. I'm sure that you will like the new changes. But, there might be a couple of little things to tidy up, so you may like to take a look. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

DJs
is a subcategory of, not , and the parent category is a subcategory of  (which, in turn, is a subcategory of ) and , not of. There doesn't have to have been a discussion to decide on the scope of a category that's already defined itself as having a particular scope. Bearcat (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, but there is now clearly a need to create a new for the ones you are removing.  Are you going to do that?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This need "exists" because, what, isn't adequate? Bearcat (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought so. "Radio personalities" surely covers a much wider variety of roles than people who simply played records - news journalists, sports commentators, etc. etc.. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now recategorised all those affected by Bearcat's changes as, as a subset of .  Hopefully without too much collateral damage. .... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The sound of silence
No, not the Simon and Garfunkel song, but it has gone quiet. No arguments over Jonathan King's article for over a week. Maybe, just maybe, we are doing something right.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I continue to be astounded at the amount of interest that article generates - not only from those "closely associated" with him, but others as well. I'd still like to get rid of at least one of the almost identical  and redundant 1969 photos of him.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: You may have spoken too soon.....    Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge
Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in with whatever area of the British Isles or subject that they work on. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Charts of Du Droppers songs
I would look over your latest edit. According to Allmusic and the CD booklet I used, their second hit was a pop hit, not R&B. That was my fault because I did not use the Allmusic source to specify that in the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Allmusic is wrong on this (which happens quite frequently), and I guess so is the CD booklet. For pre-1955 pop charts I use Joel Whitburn's Pop Memories 1890-1954, which makes no mention of the Du-Droppers or that song.  It's a pretty reliable source, at least in recording what was actually published in Billboard (the information in earlier years is much more dubious).  The original Billboard magazines are probably online, so I guess we could check.  If you want to reinstate the pop chart reference, I think you should add "According to Allmusic...." - but, I don't think it's accurate in this case!   Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I stand corrected because I found this source saying that both songs hit the R&B charts without a mention of the pop charts. My mistake, thanks for the fix!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing that article, by the way - it was one I meant to get round to, but never quite did. Good work!! (as usual, of course).     Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Harmonica Fats
Speaking of charts, do you have a book that mentions 1960s chart action? I am writing about the musician Harmonica Fats, and sources say he had big success with "Tore Up", which was released in 1962. It does not however elaborate on how the record was successful by mentioning Billboard or any chart for that matter.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've seen this reference - but, according to Whitburn, "Tore Up" did not make either the Billboard R&B or pop charts.  However, this site - which again is usually pretty reliable but by no means infallible - says that it made #103 on the pop chart in 1963 - that is, it would have been "bubbling under" the Hot 100.  I don't have Whitburn's Bubbling Under book so can't check that - I'm sure the MusicVf reference is reliable enough to be used.  There was also a Cash Box R&B chart (and pop chart), but they are much more difficult to access, so it may have appeared there.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week [10 September 2016]
User:Martinevans123 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate to be Editor of the Week for a number of reasons. Coming up to 10 years editing at Wikipedia and has created 888 articles and is ranked 572 on on the list of Wikipedians by number of edits - a significant contribution in anyone's book. A stalwart at music articles, particularly R&B, pop and soul - both US and UK. Often hunting out less well known artists. Always adding good material and consistently avoiding any kind of drama. He's also made thousands of careful contributions to geographical articles and has a very good eye for detail. A patient editor, he's always more willing to suggest and help than to fight - he's never been blocked, which is more than I can claim. I don't know if he's ever been nominated for this award before, but he certainly deserves a nomination.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations - well deserved. I enjoyed your recent contribution at Wyndcliff. Robevans123 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to give the kiss of death to your editing reputation, Ghm, but all in a good cause, eh? I think these things would be much better awarded anonymously, but the process can't cope with that. If you see me on a Talk Page somewhere, feel free to look the other way. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well done, Guy. Richly deserved. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I just checked in and noticed the award. I think that everyone around here would agree that it went to the right person.  Congratulations! Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you think?
I noticed that a new editor made some not-so-great additions to the Milieu and Stylistic features sections of the Garage rock article, so I reverted them. His statements seemed rather off-base. His added statement in the Milieu section, "While the style was initially thought to emulate blue collar labor, it actually represented a rejection of musical and social norms", which seemed off-base. His citation referred to pg. 524-525 in Hicks' book--but Hicks' book only has 162 pages! (Hoax?) Then, in the Stylistic features section, he inserted "...changing the once technical mistake into a staple of the style..." making it sound like 60s garage bands invented distortion. It looks like he lifted statements from a book on early electric blues. So, I reverted the changes. But, I thought I'd let you know--just in case he tries to add these out-of-place statements again. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Brexit article
Today I replaced (unnecessary) speculation in the Brexit article with (less speculative) information.

Thank you for stating that this is "no improvement" and undoing my edit. It is a little bit hard to follow your thoughts why the specultion should remain as you didn't give any reasoning.

Concerning your wording in your comment, if you are having a bad day, maybe you should edit later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereisnofreename (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)