Talk:I Heard It Through the Grapevine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Peer review

Peer review from November 2005

Infobox

An infobox for The Slits' 1978 recording of "I Heard I Through the Grapevine" was requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/7.

No. 2?

Where is No. 2? A bit of a glaring hole, if this is what it is. Harro5 07:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

No. 1 (Miracles) and No. 2 (Isley Bros.) share a header. --FuriousFreddy 16:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed {{cleanup-date|March 2006}} from the article as there is no discussion here of what needs to be cleaned up. Hyacinth 08:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"References"

Why did you rename the references section? I thought cited references should be listred under "footnotes", and more general references (I own both of those books, and used several sections of them extensively to create this article) should be listed under "References". --FuriousFreddy 01:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As you can read in my edit summary I renamed the section because the books are not references because they are not cited. If you or another user used them as references please feel free to cited the information in the article that is sourced in those books. Looking at them again, I don't feel they are specific enough and have removed them. Hyacinth 09:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cited sources and general references are not the same thing, nor do they have to be. Anyone who's done extensive scholarly writing in school or professionally should know this. If this wasn't the case, I'd've flunked English comp back in school instead of finishing early. From Wikipedia:Cite your sources:

Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below.

Now, if there's anything in general in this article you feel has to be directly cited using a specific page from one of those two sources, point it out and I will do so. Otherwise, don't change things based upon your personal opinion of whether you think a references is specific enough or not. I made the references more specific, and added others that I had used to write the article. Now, before you do another revert, you'll have to explain why, and with better criteria than your personal feelings. --FuriousFreddy 12:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Citing sources:

"An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed at the end of an article after the References section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article."

Hyacinth 12:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that, but didn't I just say that I used them as sources? "Source" and "citation" are not synonymous. The Posner book tells the story from Whitfield's point of view, while Knight's tells her own. I know Divided Soul covers Gaye's side, but I haven't had a chance to access it yet (now that would be useful in a "Further reading" section). I fished both up to directly annotate the pages which discuss "I Heard It Through the Grapevine", and if I remembered which page was used for the Billboard Numer-One Hits book, I'd do the same for that. --FuriousFreddy 13:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you knew that, then you also knew I used criteria other than my "personal feelings". Hyacinth 16:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Looking at them again, I don't feel they are specific enough and have removed them.". That's what I'm referring to. Unless I am mistaken, you've never cracked open neither of those books a day in your life. Therefore, how can you determine what is covered in them, how specific they are, and what information they provide; so that you can pass judgment as to whether they should be removed or not? That's why we're supposed to discuss things like this before jumping the gun and changing or removing things. --FuriousFreddy 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that discussion is important, and in most cases I choose discussion. I apologize. Luckily we have avoided having to apply the three revert rule and you have improved the article. Hyacinth 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I still feel the burden of proof should, if doesn't, lie on the person who asserts that a reference is appropriate. Readers should not have to waste time reading entire books only to realize that they were listed erroneously. A simple indication such as, "song discussed on pages X through Z" would be fine. Hyacinth 10:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

The multiple infoboxes look bad. On this monitor the lead doesn't start till the second box does. Hyacinth 09:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What browser are you using? We really don't have a choice in the matter of using multiple infoboxes. --FuriousFreddy 11:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

At work we have Internet Explorer. Hyacinth 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

IE has CSS "float" rendering problems; I ran into them when I did my old company's website. I moved the boxes, so that should fix the rendering errors. --FuriousFreddy 13:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Lower case "through"

I was wondering why the word "through" doesn't have an upper case first letter. Flowerparty changed it, citing WP:NC#Album titles and band names as the reason. While that policy states that prepositions (like "through") should be lower case it also states that words over five characters in length are usually capitalized regardless of the part of speech.--Lairor 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

use of notable as a qualitative

I have deleted three uses of "notable" from the text. Wikipedia as such does not have opinions. Does it? 83.180.128.192 23:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elton John cover version

i found this one youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u5yTJYu2sc), where Elton John covered this song in 1977. shouldnt this be mentioned in the article?

Levi's Version

I'm certain Levi's used a sound-a-like cover version for the Nick Kamen launderette ad. Skimping on royalties. Nevertheless it sparked new interest in the original. In subsequent commercials with other songs Levi's did use the originals. Chris Longley (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

another cover version

I Heard It Through the Grapevine was covered in a novelty version by Spontaneous Combustion in their album BlueRock in a bluegrass/rock fusion version. This song is so popular and so widely covered that a list all cover versions could grow longer than the article itself. I suggest that minor covers be mentioned in Talk, not in the article itself. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)