Template:Archive box collapsible

Saw the discussion and posted a brief comment. What you outlined is pretty clear and accurate, so hopefully this will lead to some sort of resolution. Thanks. freshacconci talktalk 16:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The main thing about your edits to the article is that the 1985 Shanghai release is a pirated record, and shouldn't really be part of the article at all, likewise the Varrick release. The Castle releases are, at best, dubious. All of the other releases of the Feb 1970 concerts are unofficial (Live in Boston, Cerulean, Boston Tea Party etc etc), and only the Snapper release is semi-official. In my opinion, it is the only notable release of this audio and the others should just be mentioned as a relative footnote. Similarly, all the various versions of the "London '68" concerts are pirated, like the majority of Fleetwood Mac's 1967-80 live material. Bootlegged and pirate recordings are not usually considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles, and now the article is based almost completely on a very hard-to-find, illegal, non-notable release. In fact, the 1985 release was not the first release of this concert audio anyway, there being a number of earlier (also illegal) vinyl releases. The fleetwoodmac.net discography (which I partially wrote myself) is not really a reliable source and includes bootlegs. I was not aware that review info is no longer included in the infobox, but it wouldn't have been too difficult to just create a "Reception" section rather than delete it and ask me to do it. Certainly, deleting reviews from more popular albums without relocating them just starts edit wars. I'll do that for the other album articles when I get time - I wrote most of them anyway. The album chronologies should always stick to either studio or live albums as far as I know, and not mix them, and never should they include unofficial or pirated releases. I agree with your edits for the date linking though. Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I with you that I'm not a fan of including reviews at all - I never add them myself and I'm not convinced they're encyclopedic. I didn't mean to seem abrupt, by the way.

I didn't say that "Live in Boston" was a bootleg, but I still believe it to be a pirated release, in that the tapes were not intentionally released for the production of records in the 80s, because the identity of the true rights holder was under debate. This is why they're such appalling quality, and why a lot of the songs never appeared until the Snapper release - because not all the tapes were leaked. I know the band have no control over any Green-era live material, or archival releases bar the BBC stuff, and that the members receive no royalties, but even so, the early Boston records were even less officially sanctioned than most. They may have been legitimately available, but were not legitimately produced. In any case, I think the article is misleading now because it promotes an album that is very hard to find, and information on the full version produced from properly-licensed master recordings has been removed, and it's this version which is more relevant. I propose at least to reintroduce all the info on the 3CD version. I realise that there is no doubt some over-strict infobox guidelines that prohibits this information being put in the infobox, but it should be somewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. We definitely don't need any other track listings, but we could probably mention some of the other releases. There are a lot of different covers, but I think maybe adding a scan of the Snapper cover might be an idea, in the "alternate cover" field of the infobox, since this is the cover many people will be familiar with today, and it's a legitimate use of that field as far as I understand. If the guidelines want the original version's timing / label info in the infobox, I guess that means the 1985 release in this case, although I'm not ecstatic about it.

The earlier versions are certainly pirated - for example I have one somewhere called "Boston Live" dated 1978 with eight tracks on it (if memory serves). I have another 70s LP of part of one of the gigs, clearly recorded from the crowd, an obvious bootleg, though it's better quality than some of the later versions. There's no reason why Dopson would have known about these, since there were certainly not legitimately available. I agree that the 1985 version was the first release available in shops, even if its provenance was shaky.

I'll have a think about what could be said about the earlier versions, though reliably sourcing it might be hard. About the only freely available info about those amounts to little more than the fact that they exist. A lot of what I know came directly from Mac's sound engineer at the time, also from Jeremy Spencer (who's still mad about it), and an interview with Mike Vernon which I'll be lucky to find again, to be honest - but I'll have a look for it anyway. There could certainly be extended prose on the Snapper release though, and it might be easier to say that's an officially licensed version, being careful not to imply too strongly that the previous versions were improperly licensed, if I can't find a good reference for that. Technically, that might lay us open to a complaint from someone, if Shanghai Records still exist. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good, I'll add the Snapper cover to the infobox - I have it scanned though I don't have the CD with me at the moment. It's interesting about the current cover in the infobox, because I'm not actually sure what cover that is - it might well be the European one. I don't have an album with that cover, but the British cover is much like the Snapper cover but with "Fleetwood Mac: Live in Boston" in small print at top left and the Native American is more in the centre of the sleeve. Most of the sleeves are much like that, or with a live photo, like the "Looking Back on Fleetwood Mac" album, for example - another Boston show LP. I agree about careful referencing and using the Snapper notes as much as is useful.

The Snapper release is not official in as much as it's not an "official Fleetwood Mac-controlled release" - in fact there are no Fleetwood Mac-controlled archival releases. But it's at least with the permission and assistance of whoever owns the rights to the audio these days. It may well be that Mick Fleetwood was either aware of the Snapper release or OK'd it, but I don't know for sure. He was party to the release of Live at the BBC so it may be a similar thing. Clifford Davis was supposed to have owned the audio for a long time, but he either didn't care enough to control its use, colluded in its "release", or sold it without the permission of the band he had managed. I'm not sure who owns it now. I think that's how a lot of this stuff left the control of the band, amid the court case in 1974, and also Green, Kirwan and Spencer being elsewhere (not least mentally elsewhere) in the 70s and 80s, and Fleetwood & McVie being busy with superstardom. I'll expand the info on the Snapper release when I get home and dig out the CDs, or you can do it if you want to and have time. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree about that - we may have had to wait a lot longer for the tapes to be released officially, or even semi-officially. As it was, fans had years of enjoyment out of them, despite it being a bit shady. At the time, it was the only Green-era live stuff available, apart from the bootleg tapes floating around. I'd also agree that whoever decided which songs would be on the 1985 album, they made a good choice. About the Snapper discs, they are excellent, but I find they're best taken one disc at a time, basically as if you were present at the gig - unless you're really in the mood for all three discs of course :)

Yes, I'd agree that the cover that someone put in the infobox is probably the European/American cover, and therefore is likely to be the most common. It might also explain why I've never found that cover in my record shop-trawling days - when record shops were more common :( - and yes, Castle albums covers were usually pretty awful! Let's be glad that's not in the infobox ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I've seen you're a learned person and also an enthusiastic reader of comic books, so I think you have an acute vision of what is right or wrong and know that with (great) power comes (great) responsibility. My name is Claudi Balaguer and I've come here asking you to help a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. The X-Men, Spider-man and the Fantastic Four would support our cause if they could, actually the only ones who wouldn't are the Green Goblin and Galactus. Don't let Lord Sauron win the battle, please! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see the talk page on The Yellow Princess re: the release date. Join in. I don't know why the Fahey files (official site?) shows 1969 on the album page but the song notes state 1968. Thanks. Airproofing (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is I sigh with you. I'm powerless to interfere after our earlier run-in over at Alan Vega. You'll note there at the end of the discussion she promised to add extensively to the article. I'm still waiting. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For improving articles with others within the Dylan project. Richhoncho (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the change and will eventually get around to adding reception sections to all of Mellencamp's articles. However, I think that the reviews should stay, in some form or another, until that time.BillyJack193 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edition I use is the first, ISBN 1-84353-139-9, so this is p. 268 of the first edition. I only own the first edition, so if you see me citing this book again, assume it is the first edition. Thanks.BootleggerWill (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I recently created the article telling about the band Dantalian's Chariot. And, today the notability tag was added on top of the article. I'm not sure which steps to follow, but I sure know that the article fits the at least one of the criteria, "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Would you mind taking a look at the article and help me deal with the situation? Thanks in advance. Elitropia (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fast reply, Paul. While creating the article I did dig all over the internet and couldn't find much but the individuals' blog entries which wouldn't be the reliable sources. Please feel free to edit the article and add references (especially books if you know any). Elitropia (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easily passes WP BAND #6 "contains two or more independently notable musicians". I've removed the tag. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, thank you for your edits on the article! Feel free to do it again, anytime. Also, thank you Wwwhatsup, for your contribution. Elitropia (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, when you have time would you also look at the references that I used in the article July to avoid the same happening? I have no music related books. Thanks in advance. Elitropia (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dandelion seeds" and "You missed it all" are great tracks, too. But again, unfortunately there is not much information available on the internet about them. They were a short term band. Thank you once more, Paul. Elitropia (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cirt (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For your significant and helpful contributions to the music articles, without seeking recognition for your work. Elitropia (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I noticed that earlier, too. But, in the Jade Warrior page it is actually unclear, after returning to England in 1966, the Tomcats were re-named July, it doesn't state they were re-named as July exactly in 1966. And, no I don't have the CD. Elitropia (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Paul. Please, don't hesitate to ask more. Elitropia (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul! If I must say, when I read articles I mostly prefer to read few lines of lead then the history. If I'm really interested in the topic, I go read the whole. So, it'll be useful to keep the few lines of lead, methinks. Having a short history section shouldn't be a problem with all those references. Also, I was looking up more about the band, and stumbled into this page [1] which isn't a reliable source, but you might want to see. Elitropia (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Paul. the article in your sandbox looks great but one line there puzzled me, "the Playboys .. changed their name to The Thoughts and then The Tomcats".Well, here is the inlay I figured, The Thoughts were formed via the merge of the The Second of Thoughts and The Tomcats;

The Second of Thoughts - P.Campbell-Lyons, T.Duhig, J.Field, ..

The Playboys - T. Newman, A.James, P.Cook, C.Jackson >> changed their name to The Tomcats

The Second of Thoughts and The Tomcats merged >> The Thoughts - T. Newman, J.Field, T.Duhig..

The Thoughts merged with other members of The Second of Thoughts >> went to Spain with the name Los Tomcats - A.James, C.Jackson, T.Duhig, T. Newman, J.Field, .. >> the five members I wrote the names were the remaining members and they changed their name to July.

In the Facebook page Peter Cook is the current member, it never tells that he was in July back then. If you look at one of the posts in their wall, they posted a photo telling that it was the original July and there is no Peter Cook listed. But, I'm not sure if that page is official. Also, the citation needed part of the article, I looked it up all over and couldn't find anything. Elitropia (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, my mistake, it's the Second Thoughts. I've been looking, reading more about it. About the inlay I wrote earlier (please correct me if I'm wrong);

Jon Field and Tony Duhig formed the band called Second Thoughts with Patrick Lyons.[2][3]

>>The Second Thoughts - P.Campbell-Lyons, T.Duhig, J.Field, ..

You say "the Playboys were Tom Newman's skiffle band which formed in the late 50s, and which evolved into an R&B group called The Thoughts (see the Newman biography on Allmusic), and then finally became The Tomcats," but according to Jade Warrior it's like this; Tom Newman Alan James, Pete Cook and Chris Jackson had formed the first incarnation of the "Tomcats".[4]

>>The Playboys - T. Newman, A.James, P.Cook, C.Jackson >> changed their name to The Tomcats

According to this article "Jon Field and Tony Duhig put together in their first bands The Thoughts and The Second Thoughts." [5] Which means Jon Field and Tony Duhig went onto the Thoughts. So, that the Second Thoughts and the Tomcats formed the band The Thoughts.

>>The Second Thoughts and The Tomcats merged >> The Thoughts - T. Newman, J.Field, T.Duhig.

Later, T. Duhig (again from the Second Thoughts) joined to the Thoughts to create a re-formed line-up of The Tomcats (Los Tomcats).[6]

>>The Thoughts merged with other members of The Second of Thoughts >> went to Spain with the name Los Tomcats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elitropia (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Elitropia (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Paul. Facebook page lines up the first incarnation of the Tomcats.[7] with Pete Cook in it. We know Playboys came before the Tomcats, but you're right, this doesn't make it sure that the exact members were also in the Playboys. On the other hand, we sure then have to use the reliable references as you mentioned, which tells us that the Thoughts came between the Playboys and the first incarnation of The Tomcats until I come up with a reliable reference that shows the first incarnation of the Tomcats came in between the Playboys and the Thoughts. Meanwhile looking out there more, I also figured John Speedy Keen was also in the Tomcats at some point as a drummer [8] that we can use in the article. Elitropia (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think that there was the early Tomcats in between The Playboys and the Thoughts, I will look it up more when I have enough time for that but I don't think proving this is important now especially where all the other sources we use wouldn't mention about it all. By the way, I just found another fact that July were managed by Spencer Davis.[9]. This page shows the The Tapestry of Delights as a source. Maybe you might want to see. Elitropia (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you make a google image search for the CD, it gives some results and even you can see the two pages of booklet. And, thank you for your contributions, Paul. Have a nice day. Elitropia (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But, then Epic Records should be deleted from the infobox? Elitropia (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I'm guessing, we are done with the article for now(?). Thank you, Paul. Elitropia (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Kohoutek1138 - Just to let you know I've just removed an item you tweaked at List of songs banned by the BBC. I realise you were just wikifying the reference, but it's a primary source, so out it goes. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul. I've been trying to improve the Tintern Abbey article. For the EP Do What You Must, Disocgs and Rate Your Music pages gives so different years. And, Allmusic doesn't even give the correct album. I for now used the Discogs page as a reference. How to make sure? Are there any other reliable sources that you know? Thank in advance. ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And, I didn't know about 45cat. Bookmarked. ~ Elitropia (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the additional info, then. But when I create the discography sections, I don't get stuck with one page anyway, check them all, in any page I can find. Recently I created the discography for the Dutch band The Outsiders, but it was really not easy since any source available was telling different dates, and labels (which is mostly the same story with any other '60s). If you like take a look at it? ~ Elitropia (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I placed a warning on the IP's talk page and further reverted Cher's albums and singles discographies, as it appears the vandalism has been going on for some time. Eric444 (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they keep it up, I would suggest taking it to WP:AIV. Eric444 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your contributions !

in February I had added the story of the EDP, I do not know why I was not identified. I only realized now that my text was gone, beause Kim Flint died.

being the developer of the EDP, I am biased and being swiss, my english is not so nice, but still, I think my text contained deeper information than the one Sean added recently (thank you Sean!):

"1994 Gibson released the Echoplex Digital Pro, a digital live looping tool, not intended to be similar to the tape Echoplex. The design was licensed from Matthias Grob who had created the LOOP delay in 1992 and without his consent, Gibson placed their brand Echoplex on his invention in order to achieve bigger sales. While the tape Echoplex was made to create short delays and echo, the Echoplex Digital Pro, also called EDP, was the first design dedicated to the use of live recording for instant composition and sound layering. Its Record function finally allowed to define the delay time while recording the phrase to be repeated and Multiply made rhythmically precise changes of this delay time possible, all while playing. another 25 functions made the EDP a standard and its interface was imitated by many other looping tools. Since Gibson resisted to create a more modern model as proposed by Matthias and his partner Kim Flint at Aurisis Research, the EDP was built without changes until 2008. Although its 68000 processor (same as in the Macintosh Plus) was completely driven to its limits with the 2002 software upgrade LOOP IV and the hardware was mono and slightly noisy, the EDP keeps on being sold for over 500 US$ on eBay due to its musical user interface and some unique functions due to its tape like memory structure. All newer LiveLooping tools and even the EDP imitations like Mobius and SooperLooper use a Sample oriented memory structure which is easier to program but make the intuitive flow over the loop start point more difficult."

the relevance of the EDP is hard to question, if you search on Ebay, you will probably find that, by making live looping popular, it has a bigger influence on music history than the tape machine had. We could consider starting a new page for it though. I find especially important that its the only digital looping tool that maintained the memory characteristic of tape

I would really appreciate to see your fix for this situation! Thank you Matthias Grob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matigrob (talk • contribs) 05:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your interest in improving this article. I believe a primary source was Warburton, but please give me a day or so to get my mind back to this article. I have the Valley of The Moon album, but believe that I was using other sources--would have to be, in terms of referencing the second album, which I do not own.

Again, many thanks for your concern with respect to this page and the H.P. Lovecraft page.

Dreadarthur (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]