User talk:WesleyDodds/Archive 12

Watchmen
Last time I read through W properly, I would absolutely say that Veidt's bullet-catching was shown as a superpower. Having built him up as little more than a hyper-intelligent clever-dick, he's suddenly revealed to not only be impossibly fast, but can catch a bullet - and not to one side, but in front of him. It's a surprise reveal and subversion of what the reader is expecting - Manhattan has been, as noted, the only visible "super," the others just "heroes," and suddely Veidt steps forward.

As noted above, Wylie's Gladiator gives a subtle prod towards a possible origin for Veidt, reminding the reader that his Batman-esque origin need not be the truth (and after all, Nite Owl could be said to be the Batman-stand-in). Hence the stress of "obvious" and "apparent" not of "only."

The link to registration acts (and I mildly agree that it's an odd idea, but it's also quite a good one, bringing them together like that) is a simple stand-in. Yes, a reader should find the salient points in the W article, so that means that the Keane Act should have a section/paragraph/deliberate mention. Until then, I linked it - considering the length, it seemed less controversial than writing about the fictional act, but if that's what's preferable.

I'm still not convinced that the alien invasion is required, and certainly not for 'context' - he has a plan, he puts it into effect. It doesn't need to be described - the reader who wants to know the plan reads the book! ;o) There are dozens of instances where someone might want more in-depth information about the plot (hence the bloated description in most articles), but that's frowned on. (Why did he go to Mars? What did Laurie learn? Why was the Comedian killed? Why did Rorschach investigate? Who tried to kill Veidt?, etc., etc.) Plus, any cases where something doesn't need to be revealed (and this doesn't) allows a new reader to still be shocked/surprised, etc. Also, that is a succinct summation - for someone who's read it. Otherwise it's not difficult to see someone more bemused about HOW that would get the US and USSR to stop fighting - something like "Veidt has a plan to bring peace." is much more succinct and simple.

I haven't looked at the most recent revisions as yet (I've been ill), but I will shortly, and no doubt comment/complain/congratulate..! I think quotes should take precedence in almost all cases over concise summations, bowever, simply because there can then be no accusation of misrepresentation; it's the best kind of primary-secondary source merging; it's interesting to read precisely rather than roughly what was written; it breaks up the page, etc.

Let me know if there's anything that needs sourcing from the Graphitti book, or if there's anything else I can try and hunt out. ntnon (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't say Ozymandias' bullet-catching ability is a superpower unless another source says so, and the sources I've read so far single out Dr. Manhattan as the sole super-powered being. He's the game changer whose abilities are the catalyst formost of the develeopments in the Watchmen milieu. Yes, mentioning that Veidt's plan is to fake an alien invasion is important for context; oddly enough, most of the other things you mentioned ("Why did he go to Mars? What did Laurie learn? Why was the Comedian killed? Why did Rorschach investigate? Who tried to kill Veidt?, etc., etc.") are already mentioned in the plot summary. Saying "Veidt has a plan to bring peace" is too vague when the next paragraph mentions all this destruction with no context. It's just bad writing to exclude it. I'm not one for long plot synopsis, so I wouldn't be arguing for this detail's inclusion if I didn't think it was absolutely essential from a reading comprehension point of view. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm now looking for that quote (bullet-catching as superpower), but fruitlessly thus far..! Similarly, I saw you've finally weeded out the (bizarre) citation to Mr David's forum - for re-sourcing, I know I've seen recently a quote about this, but I don't whether there's specific mention of the badges, or if its just a strong implication. Would that matter? I think I remember that it was the badges/buttons, but it may be tough to source that - even though it's a pretty vital point, and must stay somehow.
 * Likewise, you're probably not wrong to weed out my wordy tangent on TPBs - however, that (currently) leaves it with Moore saying "I like this deal." That's not accurate - it's "I like this deal because there's no precedence for things to stay in print for the next twenty years," since there were no other (DC) TPBs before Dark Knight Returns and the Miller/Chaykin/Moore 'adult/intelligent' comics series was perceived to have started.
 * I assume "deconstruction" will return when someone can dig up some sources on that front..?
 * Also, what is the criteria for how cited allusory-pictures must be? Clearly the shadow of Rorschach walking through the snow, the (cover image) of Veidt's window through the snow, and the fade-to-white destruction-echo of human forms are all in the shape of the blood spatter. The symmetary/assonance of those images ought to be mentioned, even if the radar screen cover isn't (and I think it should - although the TCJ cover should get the point across, even if the point is not now covered in the text).
 * The Doomsday clock needs to be re-incorporated in some form - it's an integral part of the covers, and is echoed by the blood-spatter. Similarly, Veidt's plan echoing Reagan's speech is very notable. Plus Osterman-as-watchmaker and the Einstein quote should probably be worked in somewhere.
 * The Mayfair Games books absolutely need to be mentioned - the cross-over into another medium (RPGs) would be notable enough were it not also another element of the over-marketing of Watchmen. One of - I think the - first time there was such a marketing push. Plus, the Mayfair 'Heroes' books were all, I understand, DC U -proper - except the Watchmen one(s). That's enhanced notability! ;o) ntnon (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you might as well attack it in earnest. I might potter about, but I'll take it elsewhere and then see what results from you rewrite and offer opinions then. (Or do you want/mind comments as you work...?) ntnon (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Answers
The Stewart quote is from an article, yes. It's really the first and last lines that are the useful ones. They could be incorporated elsewhere - the first could stick around as a critic's reception; the last can go into Tales. Or it could go, I suppose... ntnon (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. No rush..! What do you feel needs completely overhauling with 'themes' and 'structure'... or do you mean simply in light of the stuff I just piled in..?! ntnon (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. :o)
 * Klock, Geoff, How to Read Superhero Comics and Why (Continuum, 2002), ISBN 0-8264-1419-2
 * Salisbury, Mark (ed.), "Dave Gibbons" in Artists on Comics Art (Titan Books, 2000) ISBN 1-84023-186-6
 * Artists on Art is a collection of interviews, with questions (and some writing) by Mr Salisbury. The 'random quote' and info on the 'TPB' I sourced to Artists on Art is Salisbury; everything else is Mr Gibbons himself responsing to questions. So, essentially, yes, it is Gibbons' words, but not literally "written" by him. ntnon (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ...what would you like to know..?! I only have this one issue (at the moment, at least), but are you asking about the general look/feel/quality, or for start-dates, editor info, and that kind of thing? It helps talk about the notability of the Mayfair Games books/modules/booklets, with quotes from the folk involved, so I thought it worth a mention. :o) Ask away. ntnon (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Gateways I'll summarise for you tomorrow...)
 * Yes. :o) From TCJ #116 - [Bhob Stewart] "Joe Orlando said that you told him to just draw a page as if EC were still going today. Is that more or less the way you proposed his Tales of the Black Freighter "Blackbeard" page [page two of the back-up feature in Watchmen #5]"/[Moore] "Yes, this is what I was sort of aiming at, you know. It was just the idea: we thought that it would be nice to actually do a chapter from the Treasure Island Treasury of Comics as one of the back-up features in Watchmen in which we could create a fictional history of one particular comic that had gotten a sort of credibility. Apparently, there are people going into the Forbidden Planet in London and actually checking to see if they can get back issues of Tales of the Black Freighter, you know, which is perfect. I thought, well, if we were going to do this, it would be nice to show something that would give a little bit of verisimilitude to it, something that would make it seem even more credible. It struck me that if such a comic had been coming out of DC, if pirates were popular, if EC was popular, then it did sound conceivable that Julie Schwartz might have tried to lure Joe Orlando over to do a pirate book for DC, and Tales of the Black Freighter might very well have been the book. We just left the ting to Joe and said, "Have fun with it." [Laughs] He turned in this wonderful pirate page, which I think Dave Gibbons has managed to snap up for himself because he was knocked out with it as well."/(Caption) "Joe Orlando's Tales of the Black Freighter illustration from Watchmen #5" <Accompanies picture of Blackbeard's face inset in full-page Blackbeard action, with speech scrolls "This cabin-lad's grown... etc." and "I tread a lurching timber world... etc."
 * How's that..?!


 * By-the-by, I have another superb source - James van Hise's Critic's Choice: Watchmen #1-4, which is basically a printed, 1986/7/8 (I'll check tomorrow) on-the-spot, at-the-time sourceable, useable series of commentary/annotations. So if there were anything from the "Watchmen Annotations" that was useful but disallowed based on source alone... I might be able to re-source things. Or I can pull out some comments on specific things for you, if you'd like. Sadly, it was written for one of Hal Shuster's many companies that went under shortly afterwards, so #5-12 were never published, although I think it suggested they had been written... ntnon (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gateways: Right. Well. The copyright information has "Vol. II No. 4 June, 1987" implying it had had an earlier incarnation; published bi-monthly. "[W]elcomes free-lance submissions of reviews, articles, scenarios, play-aids, fiction, illustrations and other works." Distributed by "Comics Unlimited, Capital City, Crown, Cavco, Diamond, Heroes World, New England Comics, Multi-book and Periodical, and First Genesis" (a handy list for other reasons, that!) . Published by Jeffrey Gomez, edited by Laura Antoniou. The letters page says "[i]f you have something to tell us or to tell your fellow gamers ...", so it's primarily/completely an RPG magazine. BUT. #4 is ElfQuest, Watchmen and GURPS. The trailled #5 is set to include "Frank Miller & Lone Wolf and Cub," an interview with Gary Gygax and information on "Stephen King's lost epic The Dark Tower", so while RPG things are its focus, it seems to skew comics/fantasy.
 * It's printed up nicely, so magazine rather than mimeographed fanzine (not that that should be any kind of problem), and it clearly features interviews hand-in-hand with commentary and criticism. MileHighComics has it running for either 9 issues (the ninth dealing with "Willow, Speed Racer and Freddy Krueger"), or 11 (with #11 having features on the TMNT, Cyberpunk and Mike "Punisher" Baron), and gives the subtitle as "PROGRESSIVE MULTI-MEDIA GAMING AID."
 * Gateways ' publisher Gomez - who also wrote the Watchmen article - may well be the same Gomez who appears to be somehwat well-known in "Second Life" circles now; and co-wrote/edited books about various RPG games and things to do with Palladium Books and Robotech.
 * Any help? :o) ntnon (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional resources
This fansite has collected some useful links, including a Peter Sanderson essay. Hopefully you'll find something new. Alientraveller (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Were you able to get the information without any problem? Let me know if it will be useful! :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The draft is looking good so far, but I'm not sure about the state of the lead section. It seems like it is based on the original version, and I think that with the actual themes that have been explored with Watchmen, it could be revised. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, can you/anyone get hold of THIS: "Watchmen--The Nightmare and the Dream : a Literary Survey of Watchmen and Sandman" by (A.) David Lewis...? Apparantly it's 13pp, and was "[p]resented at San Diego Comic-Con 2000's Comic Arts Conferences; based on previous Brandeis University Senior Independent Project." ntnon (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also - sorry for jumping around a bit, trying to maintain some semblance of orderly commenting - do you have Reynolds' Super heroes to hand? Mine is AWOL, but my memory is that it's little more than an essay, and somewhat flawed in various parts, too (factually as well as theoretically). Geoff Klock, on the other hand, appears to be far more in the realm of high literary theory and criticism. But then, ultimately I've only dipped into both thus far, so I could be being very unfair. Plus my Reynolds has wandered off, so I can't refresh my opinions. ...hence the query. :o) ntnon (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was seeing it cited that made me track it down. When it resurfaces, I'll see what I think now... :o) ntnon (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Deconstruction"

 * Blurb from Squadron Supreme talks of it being 'deconstructionist' before Watchmen and Marvels
 * Geoff Klock talks about a "third movement" of superhero comic books, attempting to "avoid at all costs the temptation to refer to this movement as 'postmodern,' 'deconstructionist,' or something equally tedious."

Klock (How to read Superhero Comics (and why)) writes a lot about Watchmen: - where do want me to put quotes..?! I don't want to tread on your toes at the moment, so... ntnon (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly - and not deliberately! - most of the quotes I've pulled from a new book I've just got hold of fall neatly into three sections: 'deconstruction', nine-panel-grid and Moore's scripting (which was a minor section until reasonably recently, complimenting the art & color)... so I feel it would be as sensible to write about those three, drop them into "Misc." for you to revise, and then funnel off into "themes" (primary theme), and "composition" (with and before 'artwork').
 * Hence I mentioned some/most/all of those points at the review page as being highly relevant.
 * I've also got a bit of quotation about it being collected and getting into bookstores - which is one of the two 'piltdown man'-ish link between "we're very happy with our deal" and (Moore's) anger at DC. The other is the badge/buttons debacle... ntnon (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There you go. I filtered about 50 dense pages into a couple of dozen-or-so salient points. If "deconstruction" isn't liked for whatever reason, Klock suggests "revisionary superhero narrative." I've excerpted some quotes with the hidden-wikipedia-text, and elipsised some others where appropriate. I'll give you full citation information shortly, for all these.
 * The deconstruction, artistic information, TPB stuff and script quotes are vital. The third-party descriptions of the main characters underline (with source) the similarities between the cast and the icons; underpinning the fact that they were newly created resonant characterisations. There's also some extra stuff on the Freighter - and see below for another thought.
 * When do you think you'll be done, (to see what everyone else thinks of the revisions) ..? ntnon (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Freighter thought
Here's a thought: Can you do a fantastic summary of the very brief plot and purpose of Tales of the Black Freighter, and then section it off into its own page ...? (I think you can sub-page pages, can't you?) It's possibly not 'notable' enough to stand on its own - although it probably is - and that way it would relieve a little of the length of the Watchmen article. There's clearly enough information to do a fair-to-decent job on Tales (and I'm just about to add more - prepare yourself for these bonus quotes..!) as its own discrete unit.

What do you think? It's clearly integral to Watchmen the book, but could also be swiftly summarised on the main page, but given the space and text it deserves on its own. ntnon (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates
I just realised you haven't used citation templates for the article. I'm rather lost without them. Would you mind if I cut and paste those from the article? Alientraveller (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lemme just remember, who's going to be mentioned first? Snyder, or the failed projects? Alientraveller (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit is not going to be an apocalyptic slammer on the film's release. All that'll happen is WB is losing a bit of money from the domestic gross and maybe Fox getting their fanfare on the opening, which is why I didn't include it: this financial rubbish doesn't belong in an article focusing on the original work of art. I look forward to seeing what images are in the article: when it's the mainspace, can I add a comparison of Jon Osterman exploding in the comic and film? Alientraveller (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comics Journal
It is/was mentioned now; it's obviously directly related to the subject - cover by Gibbons; cover is Watchmen (one of the few images created for another source - note also that the 'main' cast image isn't from the comic); not only the primary interviews for the topic, main/major source for the rewrite, etc. but (unsourced at the minute, but could be shortly) may have been the basis for the Graphitti extra material, too. It ably demonstrates that the smiley face is a repeated and major icon for the series (and that it was even then), and also highlights the composite nature of some of the artwork in creating other images. It clearly belongs there, below the Mayfair Games image, and I'm not really sure why you would think otherwise, really! :o) I'm open to having other people comment on it, though, if you insist.

I'll suggest a page or two, too, if you like. It might not be a bad idea to place two pages from #5 side-by-side to underline that point; also, TCJ #116 reprints the page with Rorschach jumping out of a window to evade capture; contrasting it with a scene from an EC comic that was the likely inspiration. ntnon (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. I can mostly see your point, but since it might be "original research" to insert the cover to #10 to show that the smiley face became very quickly the most crucial visual element. Also - the script, art supplies and artwork come together to make the whole: the Comics Journal image says that Watchmen IS the smiley face..! ntnon (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * N.B. I've located TCJ #123, which you mentioned on the FAR page should have some information - what precisely were you after? Is it citations for awards, or was this thought to be the issue that reviews W and DKR...? (Because it's not the latter, and I haven't been able to re-find the issue number of that perhaps-mythical issue..) ntnon (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Tip
I carried out your suggestion on the film's article. Now, I just realised: why isn't "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" mentioned in the novel's article? Alientraveller (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It was, certainly... how odd. ntnon (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So what's left for the article? We definitely need to start citing information from Gibbons' recent book. I'm interested in uploading an image of the abandoned 2000 toy line, but I believe information about that is only in the Absolute Edition, which is very expensive and certainly not easy to find in a local library. Are you done citing all your books? Alientraveller (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The impossible is possible tonight
Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness charts updated and citations added. I've also updated the sales certs table. Don't ever worry about asking me to help out like this, I think it's fair to say you've probably done more for the alt-rock wikiproject than the rest of us put together. Cheers --JD554 (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded :) indopug (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember you were involved with Siouxsie & the Banshees article when Carliertwo kept trying to remove an image of Siouxsie without consensus. You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Siouxsie_%26_the_Banshees. --JD554 (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Echo & the Bunnymen could certainly do with some work, but I believe McCulloch has an autobiography due out sometime in the New Year that I was going to wait for. In McCulloch's own self-deprecating way he has said it will be "better than the bible". Having just got List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie to FL, I'm trying to get David Bowie discography up there, which is a far larger task than I originally thought it would be! But I'll gladly help out on Unknown Pleasures. I don't have too many sources for it: The charts I can certainly help get sorted, but apart from that I've only got access to a Melody Maker review from July 79, a Factory Records overview by Mary Harron (who clearly doesn't like the album) in September 79 and a Joy Division retrospective from July 94's Mojo which has some useful info on the album. --JD554 (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've got the UK version of Touching From a Distance at home. I'll have scan through it tonight to see what's mentioned about the album. The '79 Factory article is on rocksbackpages at http://www.rocksbackpages.com/article.html?ArticleID=12992. I've not had a read through yet so don't know if it'll be of any use. --JD554 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure The band initially disliked the "spacious, atmospheric sound" of the album, which did not reflect their more aggressive live sound. from Joy Division is right. Reading the booklet from the 2007 remastered CD and Touching from a Distance it seems the band were split 50/50 with Hook (although he later changed his mind) and Barney not liking it and Curtis and Morris liking it. So I'll stick with a 50/50 split for the album article but Joy Division might need tweaking. Also, do you have a reliable source that would back up what I've written in the first paragraph of the Releases section? I'm pretty sure that's how it went and I can find some fan websites that back it up, but nothing reliable. --JD554 (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there's a few. I would have to say for that for all their early popularity (this side of the pond too) I never "got" The Associates. But Category:New Wave groups throws up a few names that still make me shiver, Kajagoogoo, The Knack (one that the US gave back to us!), A Flock of Seagulls and Haysi Fantayzee to name just a few. Another I never "got" was Scritti Politti. But the biggest disappointment, for all his solo success, Feargal Sharkey ... what was he thinking? --JD554 (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychedelic Furs almost totally passed me by, not deliberately, it's just I have no recollection of hearing anything by them until the 86 version of "Pretty in Pink" (which I had no idea was re-recorded) and I never checked out their back catalogue. I liked "Pretty in Pink" at first, but it was (and is still is) played to death. A shocking hole in my listening history (just one of many I suspect) that I should rectify. --JD554 (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, although I don't have anything by them apart from what's on compilations; inevitably "Rip It Up", but I think I might have "Felicity" and "L O V E ... Love" somewhere. XTC are another band worthy of a listen: Go 2 and Drums and Wires I've got, but I should get Black Sea and English Settlement if only for "Generals and Majors" and "Senses Working Overtime". --JD554 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an open mind and check out that YouTube link tonight at home (YouTube's blocked at work). --JD554 (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll see if I can get a copy too. Talking of Mojo they have an interview with Kim Gordon about her paintings here. --JD554 (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, your Scritti Politti link left me cold. But I'll raise you a gloriously batty man --JD554 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally got the chart references in for Morrissey. I tried yesterday but got an edit conflict with TheColdDick and the same again today. It looks like he just added the same as yesterday so I simply reverted him, hope that's OK. --JD554 (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * *sigh* --JD554 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In Utero charts done. --JD554 (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I don't suppose you've got access to a source which might have the director(s) of the last four singles do you? I'm really struggling to find out who did them.
 * Went to see this in Liverpool last week, I was a bit worred as I know Mac has a habit of crooning even more than he used to, but the worries were unfounded, they were awesome. --JD554 (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tried both those suggestions with no luck. I guess I'll have to leave them blank for the time-being. Cheers anyway, --JD554 (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Paranoid Android
Pretty close; I've been working on it all night (and not a bit of homework done... tsk tsk) and Giggy's been writing as well. Just need to finish up that covers section and I think it'll be ready. By the way, I noticed that the number of days you have Exit Music for is dwindling. If you can, it'd be great if you could put up anything the book mentions about "Karma Police" or "No Surprises". --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think OK Computer will be feature-ready by the end of the month. "Paranoid Android" probably will be too, for that matter. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Also, "Paranoid Android"'s now up at WP:GAN. And I need to get some sleep. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably this. Do you have a Rock's Back Pages subscription? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it anywhere on fan sites. I could maybe get a subscription and then copy-paste-save everything I see like crazy. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll start working on OK Computer right now. By the way, where do you think we should go with "Paranoid Android"? No one I contacted has responded back or made any comments on/edits to the article. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was (very slowly) copyediting it yesterday and will keep going. Some external eyes before an FAC would be better though. Giggy (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Findarticles
I don;t have access to findarticles, sorry. You might want to try Phil Sandifer though. I don't know what access he has, but he is connected. Hiding T 13:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I Should Coco
Hi.

Do you think I Should Coco should be nominated for a Good article? I believe it meets the good article criteria but I just want to make sure it does. So if you have an opinion on this, please let me know.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986   (talk)  16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, it is now at GAN. TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dookie
Look real close at the article infobox. Do you see a genre field there? The Real Libs-speak politely 00:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Distraction
Was watching that; euff. This is uncensored; this is amazing , and this is hot. What more could a young man need? Ceoil sláinte 08:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Dude that's dad rock. Pfff. Ceoil  sláinte 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better thanks. Mojo ran a 3 page feature on The Killing Moon last month; I recommed that you track it down, if only for Macs bambast; funny. Ceoil  sláinte
 * I'll watch the FAR. Ceoil  sláinte 09:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not everyday I say 'wow'; but 'wow' - great link. If you want I can post you the mag pages. I'm not that evil so dont worry. HA HA Ha ha ha HA HA. Ceoil  sláinte
 * Found a scanner and I can email them. Few days. Ceoil  sláinte 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

He's a twentieth-century boyyyyyyyyyy!
This is the third time I know when problems regarding music-related templates have cropped up--and they are always "Hey! I had no idea you had discussed this!!". I think the fundamental way we build consensus about templates has to be changed. Since article-editors rarely patrol template talkpages, first the change to the template should be implemented for a short while (as a test run) and only then consensus among the community can be built—after they are alerted to the change. Fantastic work on Watchmen by the way; makes me wanna re-read the thing. indopug (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just made my hands-down most productive single edit on Wikipedia. (On the way plagiarising wholesale your paragraph about "British Image 1" from the Blur article. Uh, sorry about that) As always, any help would be great; I'm particularly not clear on what happened during the recording. indopug (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think a Legacy section might be needed. In particular, it'd be great if you add comments from Moore's peers about how it influenced their work. Start moving the thing section-by-section to article space . . . that way more people (esp at FAR) would look at it, c-e it etc. indopug (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the articles you use as examples (like "Teen Spirit"), use permanent links . . . just in case. If you need Watchmen panel pictures, I think I can add some over weekend. Tell me exactly which panels you need. indopug (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Zep are a folksy band who've released nine studio albums (remember Coda?). Only on Wikipedia. Your commentshere are welcome; you've been name-checked too. For your genre guideline, you might want to define a music genre, especially how sometimes it isn't only about sound but also musical movement or scene (grunge, Britpop, New Wave) a band belongs to. indopug (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist on commas to separate genres? Line breaks allow a neat listing of genres while commas cause problems on my screen. I have a paragraph-text-justification option turned on, so the field looks like " Alternative (really big space)               country ". indopug (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't plan to start on the Zep until my Blur projects are over. Anyway, not sure if you've mentioned this too, but you should mention in your guideline that while adding a genre(s) to the template, editors shouldn't listen to the album and pick out what different styles are on the different songs. "this song is pop, that is folk rock, this one is heavy metal and that there is punk; now lets list all these in the infobox!". In fact, the album's genre is almost independent of the "sound" and exclusively relies on what sources classify it as. A lot of the other editors' comments on that Zep project discussion we were having were based on this misconception. indopug (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Modern Life. One more thing, could you check your NME Britpop book for the full date of the review I've used in the article? indopug (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the term "Britpop" first used to describe that scene a year (or two) after "Modern Life"? If that's the case the I was thinking of adding a Legacy section that mentions how it is retrospectively attributed as the first-ever Britpop album. Never heard of this Frischmann stuff before though . . . indopug (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What was at the root of the rivalry anyway? Only Justine? I've found that new sources that discuss Britpop mention very little about the Blur-Suede thing. Thanks to the Brothers Gallagher, Brett's one-time status as Albarn's least-favourite human being is often overlooked. Is there anything particularly worth mentioning that the two did to each other? indopug (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, that was hilarious, then again what about Britpop isn't? Best musical movement ever? Yes. I found this Select article reprint that has an insane amount of info about their music till Parklife. Goody goody. indopug (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Best section header ever
(Yours, not mine.)

I just found I still have wikiproject music on my watchlist, but clearly I tuned out when I realised many people were tolerating Wiki libs' approach. Meh.

Anyway, your suggestions (as always) make a heckuva lot of sense. So I commented there. Dunno if that'll help at all, but yeah.

Looking forward to your self-important essay; I imagine it'll be a good one. Giggy (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot a comments seem to get lost on the WPP:MUSIC page
I've watched many posts get lost in the shuffle on the WPP:MUSIC page in the last 2 days. I had added this further question/concern to you on the project talk page. Just hoped it wouldn't get lost in the mix. I will be traveling south to Seattle and Portland for the next few days. I expect that when I return this debate will still be going on. Hopefully cooler heads other than User:Journalist's prevail no matter what the outcome. Fair Deal (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the alternative rock project will give up their 'flag' of placing their particular love of the alternative style of the genre 'rock music' into the infobox field? Do you think the heavy metal project will enjoy putting 'rock music' in the genre field of all their project tagged pages? Do you feel your guidelines will halt the edit war that will ensue when the heavy metal project is told that they CAN'T put heavy metal in the infobox because it is a style of rock music and not really a genre? You'd be a miracle worker if you can pull that off. Fair Deal (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tragic Kingdom
Hi, can you do me and Escape Artist Swyer a favor, by giving Tragic Kingdom a GA review? I have been a significant contributor to it and thus cannot give the review, so I want you to. Even if you fail it, I will go and do what you say needs to be done. Thanks Tezkag72 (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"SATB discussion"
You can also read the posts I wrote to the 2 other users here [] Carliertwo (talk) 16:58, 15 september 2008 (UTC)

Blaber
I completely forgot to tell you about MBV; it was infuckingcredable. They were in tip-top shape. The entire band was like this giant fucking army of sound that hits you and knocks you down. It was probably the loudest concert I have ever heard. They played all the best songs; highlights were definitely "When You Sleep", "Soon" and "Sometimes". There was this one part of the concert where they just kept playing the same chord over and over and over for about twenty minutes. It started to hurt my ears after about 5. I don't think I've ever seen so many different Jaguars, either. I think they had a different one for each song in the set. And I never realized how beautiful Bilinda Butcher was; she's actually quite stunning. NSR 77 T C  23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your genre plan. What do you have in mind? NSR 77  T C  01:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to become a prominent voice in that discussion but it became such a pitiful mess that I decided against such. You've been quite busy lately, I can see. Makes me want to start a project, but whenever I look at Mother's Milk lately I don't know where to start. I would have helped out with OK Computer had I not thought another, better album deserved it more. NSR 77  T C  01:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Allmusic has it out for The Cure. 4:13 Dream really is not bad at all. "Underneath the Stars" is definitely the band's best song for quite some time. NSR 77  T C  20:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I haven't decided that either. So I met Billy Friday night (ended up being in New York so I bought the VIP for that date instead). He was really, really amazing. Absolutely humble and extremely personable. He explained that the plans for boxsets to be released of all their albums and subsequent tours are no longer in the works; D'arcy and James sued the Pumpkins' former record label and it ended any hopes. He revealed some interesting information, about how the "true chemistry" was between he and Jimmy, not he and James. He went on to say that although it's "fundamentally different" (now that D'arcy and James are gone) the Pumpkins are basically the same. Personally I disagree, because Zeitgeist sounds nothing like their older stuff. Billy also expressed a lot of anger for, basically, the state of today. He hates the music, the mind-set, etc. It's pretty obvious that he would give everything for it to be 1994 again. NSR 77 T C  03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He says he reads about himself on the internet, but was probably talking about message boards and fan sites and stuff like that. NSR 77  T C  11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot to bring my camera. It's still in LA. :( NSR 77  T C  11:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually about to leave for the airport. I will speak "wit chu" later. NSR 77  T C  11:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thinking of starting work on Mother's Milk soon. It's been almost one year since a Chili Peppers' album has been promoted to FA status; scares me a bit, because I never intended to fall that far behind. I thought they would all be done by this point. Oh well. How are your many-a-projects goin? NSR 77 T C  01:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess something Smashing Pumpkins related, since you haven't gone near them in quite some time and it may give you a fresh perspective on things. I'd rather see Siamese Dream promoted than Mellon Collie, though. NSR 77  T C  19:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm good right now, thanks. Getting the feel back for editing, so I'm starting with basic cleanups. I'll get to Mother's Milk soon. Also, not sure if you've heard or not, but Johnny Marr is on John Frusciante's new record. That's something I was surprised with, believe it or not. NSR 77  T C  23:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're joking right? I basically orgasmed the 12th when the information about the record was officially released, even though I had known about it for a couple months from fan websites and the like. I mean it's only been four effing years; no big deal. Good work on Watchmen by the way. Looks like it was a difficult project. NSR 77  T C  23:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you like using the BR's in The Cure article in terms of genre? NSR 77  T C  23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the infobox should list the most pertinent genres first, regardless of how things come chronologically. Plus most articles now neglect that spacing format. You want to change it? NSR 77 T 03:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * New Wave for sure, but I am always tentative with the entire genre of post-punk. Every band that was part of the post-punk movement is multifaceted and its hard to call them post-punk, except for maybe Joy Division because of their short existence. The Cure only have one post-punk record (Three Imaginary Boys) and Robert himself says it isn't even "them". He believes the band truly began with Seventeen Seconds, which is obviously a mixture of New Wave, gothic rock and alternative. NSR 77  T 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because post-punk is the least relevant to him? Artists seem to distance the genres that truly define them. Some don't, of course. In terms of post-punk, what I was trying to say was the name itself is vague; not that I don't know any post-punk bands. NSR 77  T 03:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Post-punk has quite few random genres, like those that you mentioned, that fit in. I do believe I have read it, but I might be wrong. Doubt it, but there's a chance. On that note, have you picked up Cobain Unseen? I saw it at my local bookstore the other day and its very cool. I'm going to get it through Amazon though since they sell it for about $12 cheaper. NSR 77  T 03:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That sentence is referring to the popularity of the respective genres, not when they were birthed. Grunge had been around since the Mother Love Bones' of the late 1980s, but it didn't gain widespread popularity until late 91/early 92. NSR 77  T 04:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I truly hope you were simply making a reference to Jimmy Eat World and that you don't actually listen to them. Haha. NSR 77  T 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just lost a little respect for you. :) On another note, I've started Mother's Milk. When it is ready I would be forever in debt to your priceless advice (didn't see that coming did you?) if you could basically GA-review it. I'm not going to put it through GA because the process is now completely broken and useless. I'll get you and a couple others to review it, instead, then just head directly for FA. Would you be so kind? NSR 77  T 22:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be interesting indeed. I don't live on campus, though. I can see if I can stop by, however. NSR 77  T 04:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How was your trip, by the way? NSR 77  T 03:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? How come? NSR 77  T 04:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as I agree with you, there's something special about LA that drew me in at the age of 5; before I knew up from down. Frisco is probably my second favorite city, followed by New York or possibly London/Manchester. There's so many amazing cities in the wrold, though. But I completely understand where you're coming from because the "So. Cal" mentality that developed in the last decade is ridiculous. NSR 77  T 22:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Took you long enough. That article isn't in that bad shape, either, so you won't really have too much work ahead of you. Are you on vacation? NSR 77  T 23:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember that was the original plan before he disappeared. I recently read over the Music section of Blood Sugar Sex Magik and find it imperative that I rewrite it. For some reason it seems like utter shit to me. After Mother's Milk I'm toying with the idea of working on Trout Mask Replica soon, with the 33 1/3 book written on it. I doubt anyone on Wikipedia would enjoy working with me since he's a pretty obscure artist. Oh, me. NSR 77  T 23:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

He's not as obscure as say The Residents, but I highly doubt there are many people on Wikipedia, say, that are interested in working on it. Also, I think one day Alternative rock can be Featured. The basic groundwork is laid already, you'd just need some more late 80s/early 90s magazines to reference. NSR 77 T 23:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.
Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

He's 62, he's 5 ft 2, he is Iggy pop
Downloaded this last weekend and its great. But not as great as this. O I do like iggy. Ceoil sláinte 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Im still going through them still, and what a great list. But, and some noise. Did I mention I am Irish? Ceoil  sláinte 04:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats five. And nothing to do with anything. More later. Ceoil sláinte 12:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wedding Present - Shatner
 * A pub in Altricham
 * A pub in Trees Lounge
 * The Bloke Out Of Keane
 * The bloke out of the FaLL
 * The bloke out of Coldplay - discussing sweatshops: "I prefer Indian; chineas dont know what there doing"

Smashing Pumpkins
Hey Wesley, I could use some help with this article. Users keep trying to change the genre to Rock, from Alternative rock. They keep siting this as the genre that was listed in the last "neutral version" of the article. I can't revert their edits anymore because I don't want to violate the 3RR rule. Is there any way you can help me with this issue? If you think the genre should be "Rock" instead of "Alternative rock", then I guess you can just leave the article as it is. But if --like myself-- you think "Rock" is far too general, then you may want to voice your opinion on the talk page (or simply revert the IP edit). Thanks. — Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 01:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. You already responded.  That was quick!  Thanks for resolving this issue.  —  Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 01:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll get on it. Once again, thanks for your help.  —  Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 01:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this is the same person ? — Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 02:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, it just seemed suspicious because it was made at the same time as the other two edits and it was the exact same type of edit (i.e. old genres were changed to "rock") and the edit summaries of all three edits were not capitalized. Hypothetically, if all three of these IPs are used by the same person, is there anything we can do about it?  —  Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 02:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello WesleyDodds. I feel you are the person to consult on this, most vexing of musical-related questions. I can't decide if "Yes! I Am a Long Way from Home" and "Tracy" are instrumentals (ie. musical pieces) or songs (musical pieces with lyrics). Lyrics are defined as "the words to a song"; and both of the (studio versions of the) tracks contain words; monologues to be specific. But when the tracks are performed live, it is usually entirely instrumentally, very rarely are recordings of the monologues ever actually played along with them. Taking this into account, does that make them instrumentals, despite the inclusion of words on their studio recordings? Thom (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I myself study music, though I don't know anyone else on here who does, d'you? "Instrumental song" is technically an oxymoron, which is why I tend to avoid using it. The Hawk is Howling does have some pretty cracking titles, though "Stupid Prick Gets Chased by the Police and Loses His Slut Girlfriend" from the Batcat EP tops them all I think. Thom (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Emegency relief kit
For when the brain starts to get melty.--Alf melmac 14:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

new guideline
Yay! Nice to see Ms. Jackson used as a reference. :) I like the new proposal you're working on. I think its great and it will help use weed out the "Genre Warriors". If you are interested... I've been meaning to try and adjust current guidelines as WP:BLP based on this discussion: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive51. I haven't gotten around to it yet but I could use help. Whenever you're free of course. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You may also want to mention dance music. I've had arguments on whether or not it should be considered a genre an artist can be listed as. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  07:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would love to tackle Madonna (entertainer) with you using your new guideline. Wikipedia has some obsessive Madonna fans that routinely create stumbling blocks to get the article to FA. The division between personal life and career is something I personally loath and there needs to be a musical style section, and reduction in excessive amounts of information. If you look at the talk page, there has also been discussion about records and achievements and how much importance should be placed on what. The Legacy on an artist with longevity in the industry may also be something you may want to expand on in your proposal. Same goes for Britney Spears. Pop music tends to attract some of the worst editors on wikipedia. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  09:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the honorifics article is legitimate. Countless secondary sources use them quite often, which I believe accounts for its notability. I'd devote more time to it, but with school and my recent war on prop 8, I haven't had any time to devote to wikipedia. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  11:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Watchmen FAR
Bang a note on the FAR page, ping the other commentators, cross your fingers and hope for the best. By the way, the rocksback pages thing should be back and running in a day or two. Ceoil sláinte 22:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be keeping it soon. We are moving to a system of regularly timed closings or else I'd close it today. Marskell (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Very nice work, Wesley. Besides that, I'm so relieved to see the size down, and I was quite pleased with myself when my son called from school to say he would be Dr. Manhattan for Halloween ("oh, but you won't know what that is, mom" :-) Yes, I did ! I hope his brief covers enough. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A new Dave Gibbons interview sheds some light on how he perceives Rorschach and Ozymandias The last quote was too awesome to cut up. Any ideas of how to incorporate? Alientraveller (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't mentioned the Doomsday Clock in the article. Isn't that a major theme of the comic? indopug (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Scarian Call me Pat!  17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore this person. Ceoil  sláinte 00:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What the fuck? Scarian  Call me Pat!  18:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wesley, if you are on line I would appreciate your input in AN/I; I'm being battered about the "What the fuck?" guy above. He is behaving both eratically and menecingly, and is an admin; and does anybody care? No of course not; nothing to see here, move along. Ceoil sláinte 21:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I do (get it, and care). But I know how to take a hint, so I'll stay out.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Batman-FAC
Thank you for recommending me to look at the archive pages at Time and The New York Times. I have found a lot of useful info from both search engines. However, I cannot seem to find that book you requested. Wildroot (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again, but do you mind if I strike out the part of your message that I have addressed? If not, then you could do it since it would probably be safer and I wouldn't get in trouble. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Flux Information Sciences
Having difficulty with this, it reads now like press release. Can you town it down. Ceoil sláinte 23:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, P retzels Talk! 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for October 2008
SoxBot II (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre proposal draft
Leave them hidden for now. Bring them back up once a few new people have commented. I'd rather keep the discussion centralized so others can comment on my remarks. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Maybe
I'd definitely like to start working on that again. I was going to suggest working on it again after all the OK Computer articles were done with, but I can start helping with Definitely Maybe any time. Plus I've been meaning to thank you for the contributions you've made to the OKC articles, especially because it's not a subject you have particular interest in. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Soon, I hope. It's pretty close. I have some more samples to add to the Music section and I'd like to expand the packaging section and add in some other little things before it's done. I haven't had much time lately for Wikipedia, but I can try and finish most of the finishing touches tonight. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Okayplayer
Hi Wes, someone has added reviews by Okayplayer to studio albums by Michael Jackson. "Off the Wall", "Thriller", "Bad" and Dangerous". I'm quite certain they shouldn't be used, they look like they were written by a 5 year old for a start. Can I just remove them? Cheers. — Realist  2  19:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, cheers. — Realist  2  23:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is why I tell people not to edit it?
You reverted my legitimate edits with "This is why I tell people not to edit it" comment. Those edits were improving and expanding the guideline, not alternating or misrepresenting it. I don't see what can be wrong with them. Don't you realize WP is all about collabortion? These edits are going to be added anyway when the page goes to WP namespace. Netrat (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think my edits could alter the meaning of your draft. I hope you agree with them; if so, feel free to re-phrase them and add your own form of said thoughts. Otherwise, please explain what's wrong with my two ideas. Also, please answer my comments at WikiProjectMusic page. Tnx. Netrat (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pride & Joy
Hey, thanks! I've got the article peer reviewed, and my reviewer helped a lot (article's talk page). But another opinion is always great; thanks! A talk  21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Punk music
Hello!

You may be interested to know that WikiProject Punk music has recently undergone a major revitalization. Please visit the project page to see our new look and check out some of our helpful new features, such as the Assessment Department and the Collaboration of the week. There are also a number of tasks on our Things to do page that you may be interested in helping with.

We are currently holding a roll call to help gauge how many active project members we have. Please visit the project's talk page and add your signature to the roll sheet to express your continued interest in the project. Also, if you have not already done so, please take a minute to add your name to the Participants page along with a brief summary of your punk-related interests, so that other project members will be better able to collaborate with you. If you do not add your signature to the roll sheet by November 30, 2008 your name will be moved to our list of inactive members. We may also take the liberty of removing the project userbox from your userpage if it appears there, to prevent you from automatically appearing in Category:WikiProject Punk music members. Of course you are free to rejoin the project and re-add the userbox at any time if you would like to become active in the project again.

Thank you and we hope you will continue to support WikiProject Punk music!

--IllaZilla (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Highly Evolved
You seem to be involved in an edit war with Garage kid at Highly Evolved. Please discuss the issue at Talk:Highly Evolved. Thank you. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So I'm thinking...
... that to celebrate the great success at today's (/yesterday's) MTV EMAs we get some people together and get "Never Gonna Give You Up" (or Rick Astley if you're feeling particularly ambitious) featured. What do you think? Giggy (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC) It's an excuse to rickroll each other daily, as... "research"!
 * Would have been even better if we could do it this year, in time with youtube, but for next year's sounds just as good. I'm up for it! Giggy (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Get Up Kids rating
Hey, thanks for rating The Get Up Kids. I just wanted to touch base with you to get the specifics of why it got the rating it did, and what can be done to improve it. Thanks! Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question
Just wondering why you made this edit here. I thought it was a relevant and rather informative paragraph. Any particular reason? — Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Thanks for the response.  —  Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 04:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In Rainbows
Hello Wesley, thank you for fixing my English; it is not my native language. Do you think there is a more appropriate place to put this kind of detail, or that it is superfluous in any article, anyway? Thanks, Alessa77 (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in your ceiling, watching you pick up on copyvios
Yeah - the history images, right? I'm thinking they should all go to WP:PUI. Giggy (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Art punk
Can you take a moment and weigh in on the talk page of this article? Some decision needs to be reached as to this article's future as Hoponpop69 keeps deleting most of the article's content and pushing for a merger with Art rock. Consensus needs to be reached. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lads
I forgotten how great this is. Ceoil sláinte 04:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kirby
Hi, Wesley. It's always good to see your name on an article, and I want to compliment you on the tightening and the corrections you've made to Jack Kirby. I need to change pretty much just one thing, and that's the lead sentence. One of the two things that the first sentence has to do, according to |Wikipedia: Lead section: First sentence content is to say why the subject is notable.

Since that's pretty standard, I didn't think to discuss it before, but I wanted to do so now mostly just to let you know that I agree with your other edits and respect your work, and wanted to explain the reasoning and give the policy cite for this one thing. With my regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And you might want to jump back into the Kirby article. Another editor is making what appear to be highly questionable edits. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, we could look at Will Eisner. I don't think anyone should cite their own articles as a way of saying, "This is how you write a lead." That's a solipsistic argument.


 * All your other edits in the article are OK to absolutely great. Objecting to someone changing even just one, especially after citing a valid Wikipedia policy, seems a bit proprietary. Maybe we could leave that one edit be.-- Tenebrae (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wesley. Just ran across your name at Talk:Jack Kirby, and it reminded me to ask if you'd like to join Ntnon and me on a Kirby kollaboration. I've got the first draft, with footnotes, for a section on the Kirby/Marvel art-return controversy on his talk page, here, and you've done so much good work on the Jack Kirby article, I know you'd add valuable facts and perspective.


 * I haven't heard from Ntnon in a bit, and I myself have been off Wiki for a while, but I think he'd welcome another such well-versed veteran editor. Why not give a read and see what you think? It'd be good to work with you. Who knows what sterling prose and encyclopedic excelsior-ness the three of us together might devise?  :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool &mdash; thanks for looking. I tried to keep it as plain, short and straightforward as I could, but if you can judiciously trim, by all means.


 * Ntnon said he could likely change the cites from the TCJ trade-paper collection to the original issues of RCJ.


 * I don't have my Tales to Astonish comics any more; my brother and I split our collection up years ago, and I got our Tales of Suspensees. (He got the Spideys, I got the FFs, etc.) I finally hauled the longboxes up from my parents' home, after more than a couple of decades! -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Major Events of the DC Universe
In response to your asking why this article exists: I originally started for the purpose of preventing entries on the "present" of the DC Universe to be posted in the Timeline article, because I was afraid it would cause the page to grow too large. Further, by titling it "major events" I hoped to avoid having people just post every little event that just happened to get a lot of press or was somebody's favorite. Unfortunately, such stuff has showed up in the timeline anyway. I agree we need to revise the DC Timeline, but I'm still figuring out how. I still feel "recent" events need to have their own page. I certainly agree it should be discussed. - Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Day & Age
Hi, i noticed you removed the flags from the charts table on the Day & Age article. I was just wondering where the guideline for this is? Because i'm sure you've done the correct thing. It's just that whilst editing both Black Ice (album) and Death Magnetic, i suffered a huuuuge array of editors taking it upon themselves to continually re-add the flags. So yes, a pointer in the right direction would be nice (i'm expecting similar for this page you see). Thanks. k-i-a-c ( hitmeup  -  the past ) 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

2010
What an odd thing to say on a meduim that has no memory past last friday! Anyway, I suppose, yeah; main page for Joy Division on the 30th aniversity of Curtis's death would be cool enough. I've started a petition at WP:God Sake Raul Wait Until 2010 Before Putting Joy Division On the Main Page (Short cut: WP:GSRWU2010BPJDOMP). There is a useful redirect at WP:GSSGWU2010BPJDOMP for up to date googlers. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Long time no link, Dodds. . Ceoil (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you know they still speak french in France? Weird. Myself and England are trying to talk them out of it, but they seem strangly resistant. Well, thats foreigners for you. Ceoil (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tragic Kingdom peer review
Um, Tragic Kingdom, which Escape Artist Swyer and I promoted to GA some time ago, is now on peer review (here.) But the only person who's made any comments is Giants2008. Can you make some comments and tell us what stands between Tragic Kingdom and an FA? Thanks. Tez kag72 15:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

VU and alt rock
I've asked twice on the talk page for the Timeline of alternative rock article for anyone to argue why the Velvet Underground shouldn't be included. Please answer there before changing it again. -- MQ Duck 21:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting pretty immature. Either take it to the talk page or I'll have to call for mediation. -- MQ Duck 14:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

T in the Park
This still amazes me. Brown still looks like a monkey though. Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Assistance I've You Would be willing....
Hi Wesley, I'm planning on getting HIStory and it's corresponding notable songs (Scream/Childhood, You Are Not Alone, Earth Song, They Don't Care About Us, Stranger in Moscow and D.S. (song)) all to GA so I can make a Good topic. That I can do. However I would like to turn it into a featured topic after that. The only problem is, the only ones I can see me having enough info on to get to FA, are the album and lead single "Scream/Childhood". I don't think the other singles will have enough detail for FA, I simply can't find more. Note that I haven't started looking for info on "They don't Care About Us" yet, but I doubt I would get it far beyond 25,000 bytes full text. So if 2 of the articles were featured and the remaining 5 GA, would that be enough for a featured topic? Assuming it is, would I be able to consult you for advise on getting them to FA? I know things have been a little quiet since you know what, but I still have great admiration for your dedication and writing abilities. Regards. — Realist  2  03:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken. Sorry for disturbing you. — Realist  2  14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will get back to you on this once all of them are at GA. Thinking about it, considering the backlog at GAN these days that alone could take some time. The next job would be to get HIStory and "Scream/Childhood" to FA and hope those two are enough to make it a featured topic. I have doubts that any of the other smaller articles would pass FA. — Realist  2  21:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at mine. — Realist  2  12:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Darn it! — Realist  2  18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A re-direct slipped through the cracks
Note this edit kinda goes against the consensus at Talk:Heavy metal music which leans on leaving as is... and yet it was re-directed anyway. I have restored the dab re-direct. But my presence on Wiki may be sporadic over the next few days. Can you monitor? Thanks! (note that the re-direct for Heavy Metal, all caps, was also re-directed against consensus) The Real Libs-speak politely 11:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Top Heatseekers
Top Heatseekers is a "real" chart in the U.S., see its main page on wiki or here. Billboard has a ton of charts, and all of them are "real". Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That information is stated in the article. Top Heatseekers is a legitimate chart as per Billboard. Since the group never charted on the Billboard 200, the only charting information for their albums in the U.S. that can be reported is via the Heatseekers chart. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely understand what you're saying and the thought of specifically stating the chart placements were for the Heatseekers chart had crossed my mind when I originally created the article, but I voted against it since I stated that fact in the article leading to the chart placements. I noticed you made the change to clarify. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rick
O very cool. Since we are getting down, lets "talk about it, talk about it". Or this, or this. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)