Elitropia

We The People (band)

Hi Elitropia! You did a good job of starting the We The People (band) article, there really wasn't much wrong with it. There were a few small things...like formatting of album/song titles, overlinking of well known geographical locations (like Florida for instance), and I also removed a lot of red links for the individual members of the band. It’s fine to have red links in an article but only if the subject of a red link is notable enough to deserve their own Wikipedia article (see WP:REDLINK). Unfortunately, I don't believe that any of the individual members of We The People are notable enough. If you haven't already, you might want to take a look at WP:MUSTARD and WP:MOSMUSIC to see how things like song titles/album titles and music articles in general should be formatted.

As for the article being deleted, I really wouldn't worry about it. There's no way this article should be deleted. It meets several of the notability criteria as listed at WP:BAND and is now fully referenced. I, for one, would certainly fight to stop this article from being deleted but I really don't think that will happen. The band is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia.

I tried to keep as much of your original text as possible (only changing stuff that was factually incorrect) but I got a bit carried away as I was searching for reliable inline references and ended up writing a lot more than I meant to. I hope you don't mind me contributing this much. Still, I think that the article looks better now and is certainly more informative. Feel free to add anything else that you feel is relevant to the article but be aware that you should always try to back up any information that is likely to be challenged with an inline reference. Congratulations on your first article! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, We The People (band) should be listed on the We the People (disambiguation) page, under the "In music" section. However, your mention of the "capital T" in the band name has made me realise something - this article has actually been titled incorrectly! It should be titled We the People (band), with a small "t", as outlined in the naming guidelines for band articles here. I should've noticed this naming error earlier but I didn't I'm afraid. So what we'll have to do first is move the entire article to We the People (band) and turn We The People (band) into a redirect page (you can't delete pages on Wikipedia once they're created). I can do this if you'd like me to or you can do it yourself if you feel confident enough. Just let me know.

This is a very easy mistake to make...I did a similar thing myself with one of my first articles. I initially created an article for The Charlatans (U.S. band album) but soon realised that it should've been titled The Charlatans (1969 album) - you differentiate between albums of the same name by the year of release and there's another album called The Charlatans from 1995. Still, this kind of incorrect naming can be a good thing in some ways because redirect pages make finding an article easier for people. WP:MUSTARD even recommends that once you've created an article, you should go an create redirect pages with slightly different names, like Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers should have a redirect page named Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Two ways to do it. Anyone can revert changes by opening up the last good version of the article - in that case, this one - and saving it, so removing all the later edits. Or, you can do what I did and use WP:rollback - you would need to apply for rollback rights here. In my experience, any editor with a good record, no blocks etc. and reasonable experience would be granted the rights without any problem. It provides you with an extra tag (next to "undo") on the Revision history page, for undoing multiple edits by the same user. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dantalian's Chariot

Hiya Elitropia! Don't worry, the band definitely meet Wikipedia notability criteria for music...specifically points #1, #5, and #6 of the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (music). I think the problem may be the lack of reliable sources. The band are fairly obscure and it may be that the Wikipedian who added the notability tag hadn't heard of them. Perhaps when this user saw that there was a lack of reliable sources they just assumed that the band weren't as well known as they are (at least to us connoisseurs of obscure UK psych).

While Allmusic is a reliable source, you really should have a variety of different reliable sources in any article, to make sure it provides an unbiased viewpoint. Rate Your Music features info that is submitted by members of the general public and therefore does not meet Wikipedia verifiability guidelines and really shouldn't be used as a ref on Wikipedia. Frieze magazine is borderline...it may be considered a reliable source but then again, it might not. So, what you've got here is an article with only one unequivocally reliable source.

I think what you need to do, is introduce more trustworthy refs if possible. The best thing would be to add some refs from published books. If there were multiple reliable sources in the article and just one from Frieze, no-one would bat an eyelid, but at the moment the refs do make this band's notability look a bit shaky. Once you've added a good range of different reliable sources, the notability tag can be removed. I don't mind helping you out with sourcing reliable inline refs...just let me know if you need a hand. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, there was a big article on them in Record Collector magazine a month or so ago - I'll dig it out and help with the article, if you like. Good one! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to having a look at the July article over the next few days. They're a pretty good band...I only know "Friendly Man" and "I See" but I like both of those tracks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the Barnstar Elitropia. That's really nice of you and it is very much appreciated. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

July

Hi Elitropia! Listen, I've just had a look at the July article and after making a few small cosmetic changes, I've come across some conflicting information straight away. According to the Jade Warrior history page used as a reference, The Tomcats became July in 1966, after returning from Spain. However, the Allmusic website states that The Tomcats changed their name to July in 1968. The group's entry in Vernon Joynson's UK psych bible The Tapestry of Delights book also suggests that it was 1968 when they changed their name. Now, I'm not an expert on this band at all, but I would say that Allmusic and The Tapestry of Delights both constitute reliable sources, whereas the Jade Warrior site is borderline. However, that doesn't mean that Allmusic and The Tapestry of Delights can't both be wrong in this instance. I wonder if you have any of their CDs? Perhaps the liner notes in the CD booklet (if there are any) can shed some light on this? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK...in that case I guess we can go with what Allmusic and Vernon Joynson's book say. I'll try to get around to doing some more work on this article a bit later on. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little bit more work on the article but I'm thinking that it's so short that we should do away with the "History" section header. I mean, so far, the entire article consists of three paragraphs and to be honest, there's really not much more to add because there's just not enough info out there at our disposal. I mean, it's not like anyone's gonna find the article difficult to navigate due to its length. I'm gonna have a go at blending the lead and the "History" sections together. If you dislike how it looks, feel free to revert my edits. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I'll retain a History section then, with a lead that summarizes the whole article. Actually, the work I've been doing will cause the article to expand somewhat anyway, so it's probably best to keep a separate lead section. Please take a look at the article in my sandbox if you like...I haven't spell-checked it yet and I may do a little bit of tweaking to the prose but this is basically what I plan to do to the article. Let me know if you have any problems with it.

As for the Facebook link, that's very interesting...not least because it states that July reformed last year! We can definitely use that in the article and in lieu of a better ref, we'll have to use Facebook. However, I've also come across another conflict among the different sources. There's a pivotal member of the band who isn't mentioned on the Allmusic site or in the Tapestry of Delights book and is only mentioned in passing on the Jade Warrior site. The person I'm referring to is guitarist Pete Cook, who (according to the Facebook page) was a founding member and chief songwriter, along with Newman. I'm not sure what to do about this but I'll sleep on it and see what I can come up with. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the band's history is rather convoluted, not least due to the presence of two similarly named bands - The Thoughts and Second Thoughts (not sure I've ever seen them referred to as The Second of Thoughts...where are you getting this info?). As I understand it, 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, who broke up in 1965 (see the Jade Warrior page). By the time that the band broke up, The Tomcats consisted of Alan James, Pete Cook, Chris Jackson and Newman (see the Jade warrior page).

Meanwhile, Jon Field and Tony Duhig had formed an entirely separate band called Second Thoughts with Patrick Lyons, but this band also broke up in 1965 (see the Jade Warrior page). Then Field and Duhig joined up with the remnants of The Tomcats to create a re-formed line-up of The Tomcats, who went on to success in Spain in 1966 (see Jade Warrior page and the July Allmusic biography). Indeed, the Allmusic biography for July corroborates this sequence of events somewhat by stating "The final Tomcats lineup, which evolved out of an unrecorded band known as the Second Thoughts, found some success in Spain when they went to play a series of gigs in Madrid in 1966." Of course, this later line-up of The Tomcats was the band that in 1968 became July.

This is how I interpret the chain of events....I believe that The Thoughts predated the first line-up of The Tomcats and the Second Thoughts were an entirely separate band that merged with some ex-members of The Tomcats to form the second version of The Tomcats (aka Los Tomcats). The Facebook bio lends some support to this suggestion because it doesn't mention The Thougts at all but does say that The Tomcats and Second Thoughts "merged and went to Spain under the name of 'Los Tomcats'." It doesn't mention this almagamation ever being called The Thoughts. Unfortunately, the Tapestry of Delights band history gives a rather over simplified version of the formation of July, it doesn't even mention The Thoughts or Second Thoughts—so we’ve only really got the Allmusic and Jade Warrior sites to go by.

As for Pete Cook...perhaps I'm mistaken and he was just a songwriter for July, in a similar way to how Robert Hunter wrote for the Grateful Dead, but wasn't actually a member of the band. The Facebook page states that after The Tomcats came back from Spain "Pete Cook and Tom Newman got together and they began a prolific song-writing spree and from the chrysalis of R&B emerged the butterfly of Psychedelia." However, the Facebook page never actually says that Cook was a member of July, despite having been a member of the first incarnation of The Tomcats. As previously stated, Allmusic and Tapestry of Delights also don’t list Cook as being a member of July. However, Cook did write about half the songs on the July album, including both of the tracks that I know, "Friendly Man" and "I See". --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should discount the "News from Jon Field" post on that message board. It's definitely not a reliable source by Wiki standards and the message's author Dave Platt even prefaces one of his claims with "if I understood Jon correctly", which obviously casts doubt on the accuracy of his statements. There's no evidence in any of the sources we've thus far used to suggest that Duhig and Field were in The Thoughts. This Dave Platt is the same guy who co-wrote the Jade Warrior bio but as far as I can tell, neither Platt nor his co-writer Charles Wilkinson are notable in any way. The other thing to bear in mind is that the Jade Warrior article is only really concerned with Duhig and Field, and only mentions July and their origins in passing, with a focus very much on Duhig and Field because they both ended up in Jade Warrior.

The Playboys were definitely Newman's band. You list a line-up for the Playboys but where are you getting this info? The Jade Warrior page doesn't list a line-up for the Playboys or even mention them, and the only person Allmusic states as being in the band is Newman. Maybe James, Cook, and Jackson were in the Playboys but we don't know that for sure. The Playboys definitely became The Thoughts before they became The Tomcats though. The Allmusic website states that the Playboys "turned to rock & roll and R&B during the early '60s and took the new name, first the Thoughts and then the Tomcats". This is pretty clear and straight forward I would say. The Jade Warrior page makes no mention of The Thoughts at all, which does make sense, since its focus is Duhig and Field, and they weren't in The Thoughts.

As for The Tomcats, Allmusic doesn't mention the fact that there were two line-ups of The Tomcats, the first without Field and Duhig and the second with them. This is made plain by the Jade Warrior page, however, which says "during the same period, Tom Newman, Alan James, Pete Cook and Chris Jackson had formed the first incarnation of the Tomcats", and then it later says "The Tomcats re-formed with a new line-up: Tom Newman, Alan James, Chris Jackson, Jon Field and Tony Duhig."

Going by Allmusic and the Jade Warrior page, it seems obvious to me that The Thoughts came between the Playboys and the first incarnation of The Tomcats and did not feature Duhig and Field. Just to be clear about this, the only reliable source for this pre-July period it Allmusic and as such, I'm taking that as the primary source in lieu of any other reliable sources. The Jade Warrior page is dubious because its authors are not notable (as previously mentioned) but it is given some authority because it appears on the official Jade Warrior site and as such, you would assume that Field approved it. So I'm willing to use the Jade Warrior page to fill in the gaps, like the existence of two line-ups of The Tomcats—something that is corroborated by the Facebook bio, which again you would have to assume has been OK'd by Jon Field. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we have to go with what the sources say. It would be interesting to know what the CD liner notes of the various July CDs say about the Playboys, The Thoughts, Second Thoughts, and The Tomcats. Based on the reliable evidence that we’ve so far got, I firmly believe that The Thoughts came straight after the Playboys. However, I will admit that the similarity between the name of The Thoughts and Second Thoughts would suggest that there may be members in common between both groups but as I say, the reliable sources don't seem to support this. As for John "Speedy" Keen, yes...good call. We should definitely add him to the article. I'll try to update the main article with the version in my sandbox, plus a few edits as we've discussed, at some point today. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I'll add the Spencer Davies info as well. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm pretty much done with the article now...at least until other reliable sources are discovered or other info comes to light. I removed the re-issue record labels listed in the article's infobox because according to Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Label, the label field should only include labels that the band were actually signed to. This presumably means that reissue labels should not be included, since they only license the recordings, not sign the band. Also, the Discography style guide indicates that only original releases of albums should be listed and "not re-releases or differing packages released in foreign territories." With this in mind, I think that listing all of those different reissues of the original July album is a bit over the top. I feel that the "Albums" section should consist of just three items: the original 1968 UK release of July (Major Minor SMLP 29), the Dandelion Seeds compilation, and the original 1995 release of The Second of July compilation. That's my take on it but I'll leave it up to you whether or not you want to do this. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that Epic can stay because it was Epic who released the band's stuff in the U.S. and Canada while the band still existed and as such, July would've almost certainly signed some kind of contract with them. For a comparison example, look at The Beatles infobox and how it lists Vee-Jay and Swan, two lables that handled the band's earliest releases in the U.S. before Capitol took over. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem! It's my pleasure. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tintern Abbey

Sorry, but I couldn't find anything of use in this matter. The trouble is, the EP is a private pressing done by the members of the band and not by a record company, so a lot of official channels wouldn't even recognise it. Perhaps this is why Allmusic don't list it. There does seem to be a bit of confusion as to when it came out though - I saw two eBay sellers stating it was released in 2004 and 2005! There are good scans of the sleeve and record labels at 45cat.com but unfortunately they don't specify a year of release. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the Tintern Abbey article was added in by Paul Brett, who was in the band, from his personal recollections - I guess he just found the article in a Google search one day. I have used all of the third-party sources I'm aware of. Chubbles (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

With regards 45cat.com, something I've just realised is that this website is only concerned with UK releases. So, it's fine for obscure releases by UK bands but for U.S. bands it will only list the singles that they issued in the UK...and that's often very different to the singles they released in the States. Not that this site could be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes anyway, but I just wanted to point this out. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Elitropia. You have new messages at Ghmyrtle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My changes to Ramones

Sorry, i was just trying to fix a few things, some of it i did on accident, i re-did what i was trying to improve, and if i'm ruining the article or something sorry, i'm really trying as hard as i can to be a good editor. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles by quality

Thank you for immediate reply to my question on the help page (article by quality). The page you've suggested is about assessments. But two articles with the same class and importance may have very different scores. It seems other factors also play a part on the scores.(maybe time, no of references, no of edits or watchers etc.) I tried in vain to find a page about the methods in scoring. I am sure scoring is done by a bot; but on which bases ? If possible can you direct me to a more specific page on the topic ? Thanks.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a detailed description about the bot generating a score in WP:MBOT article that you can reach from the main article that is WP:1.0. Hope this helps. Cheers! ~ Elitropia (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

May Blitz

I happened to come across this band while doing a routine search. I added info that I found with this search. Please don't make false accusations of unconstructive editing anymore. 76.189.162.7 (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Diddy Wah Diddy

Hi Elitropia! My understanding of it has always been that it was written by both Willie Dixon and Bo Diddly (credited under the pseudonym of Ellas McDaniel). A glance at the writing credits on a Captain Beefheart CD that features the song, which I just happen to have handy confirms this. Now, how much of a hand Bo Diddly actually had in its writing is another matter...it may even be that he received a writing credit as part of a royalty deal that he struck with Dixon. It certainly wasn't uncommon in the 1940s and 1950s for artists to insist on a writing credit in return for recording a songwriter's song and therefore popularising it. So, as far as the official writing credits go, yes...it is credited to them both, but there may be more to the story than that. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping by .... Have you seen this page, which gives some more info (and sound clips). My sense is the other way round to Kohoutek's - Dixon was the one with the greater business acumen, and seems to have been willing to add his name as co-writer to songs that he ..umm.. developed (?) from other people's ideas. Anyway, the BMI site lists both Dixon and McDaniel (Bo Diddley's real name, not a pseudonym), which certainly shows the "official" authorship. There are also three other songs at BMI called "Diddy Wah Diddy" which you might want to look into. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll post here so you can both see at the same time. Paul, thanks for the info. Guy, you are very welcome, thank you for the further references. I already used the Denver Eye article. I also mentioned about the Blind Blakes' Diddie Wa Diddie in the upcoming article but I don't know about the third one you are mentioning. And, speaking of which, the sources [1], [2] I used and the source also Guy pointed out above tells that Captain Beefheart's cover was released in 1966 but Captain Beefheart discography lists the single in 1965 as well as the reference that they used in that article. Any further references to make sure about the release date? ~ Elitropia (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... This site, and others which are usually authoritative, say 1966, but there does seem to be some disagreement. By the way, have you seen this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I used that site to show that the track was credited to A. Christensen, and found about that site via this one. Also, now looked it up, the other three same titled songs and don't know about them. And.. awesome video!! Thanks ; ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is more specific re recording dates - January and May/June 1966 for those sessions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been few hours now the article is on. I supported the release date with three different sources. Feel free to add anything you think that is relevant. ~ Elitropia (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the article on Willie "Big Eyes" Smith, he played harmonica on the Bo Diddley version. Any confirmation or otherwise from your sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I used the Discogs page to name the musicians played the song, there it credits "Little Willie Smith" for track 9, 10, 12 where 12 is "I Am Looking For A Woman", the B-side of "Diddy Wah Diddy". Plus, according to Severn records, he played drums in "Diddy Wah Diddy". Lotsa contradictions there. ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK - I'll add a tag to his article and see if anyone comes up with anything. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If we call a single with its A-side song title (believe this is the case for calling a single), maybe the sources would tell that he played in the single. Many sources would say that he played harmonica in Bo Diddley's single/hit/classic "Diddy Wah Diddy", other than the Severn Records and few more pages, see for instance Chicago Reader. Maybe, this caused the confusion? His official homepage wouldn't mention about it. ~ Elitropia (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly a harmonica on the track, but I'm not enough of an expert to know who it is. I suggest we leave things as they are for now, and see if anyone else comes up with an answer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Guy. You think this article could be nominated to DYK? You seem to be expert on these hooks. I thought of one but first I wanted to get your advise. ~ Elitropia (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It would be good if the hook mentioned Beefheart, as he's in the news now, unfortunately. I saw him perform in a small hall in 1973 when I was a student, with about 200 others - the best gig I have ever been to in my life, no question. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucky, you! And sure, he will be mentioned in the hook. I wanted this page as a tribute to him and I love the song. Here it goes;

"..Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band's first released single was a blues rock cover of Bo Diddley's Diddy Wah Diddy?"

Sounds cool? This is for sure well known among the fans but maybe not to everyone. ~ Elitropia (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looks good - go for it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! That template is what folks use when they create a new article and they want it looked at by more experienced Wikipedians on the Requests for feedback page. It's normally added by the article creator themselves and usually reserved for articles that are only a day or two old, so I've absolutely no idea why that Bot added this template. Anyway, I've gone through the article and made some small changes, including adding two additional references. It looks absolutely fine to me, so I've removed the template (I can do this because I wasn’t involved in the article's creation). I've also added a paragraph on the mythical nature of Diddy Wah Diddy because I felt that this was an important point and absolutely key to understanding the song's lyric. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The lower case "h" in the Beefheart band name is probably all to do with Wikipedia capitalization guidelines, although I couldn't see anything at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) or Manual of Style page. Strangely, I see that the album style guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums specifically state that pronouns like "His" should be capitalized in album titles. Not sure why it wouldn't be the same for bands.

However, just to be clear, how the band's name is capitalized on various album covers is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia...the capitalization guidelines come first with both band names and album titles. Sorry I can't be more help...maybe you should leave a message on the talk page of the editor who made that change, and ask him why he did it? Although I notice that the band name is capitalized with a small "h" in the main Captain Beefheart article too.

As an aside, I've just seen the edit summary that Snotbot left regarding that "unreviewed article" template. There are certain Wikipedians who like to work on new article patrol, keeping an eye on newly created articles to make sure they're notable and Wiki-like etc, etc. When one of these patrolers checks a newly created article, they mark it as checked. Looks like the Diddy Wah Diddy article slipped through the net and remained unchecked for over 30 days. That's what alerted the bot and why it added the template. It's not a biggie, just a bit of bad luck that it didn't get checked straight away...must have been a shortage of people on new article patrol that day, I guess. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The capitalising or non-capitalising of "The" in band names is outlined at the Manual of Style for Music, under the "Names (definite article)" sub-section. The inclusion of the leading article in a band name all depends on whether definitive sources can establish that the word "the" is really part of a group's name or not. Nonetheless, this is a contentious issue and one that largely boils down to editor consensus among those regularly editing a band's articles. For example, you'll notice that in The Byrds-related articles, the "T" in "the" is capitalised at all times because "The" is part of the band name, and not simply a prefix to a singular or plural noun...the same goes for "The Beatles". In the case of The Byrds, the name is also trademarked and should, therefore, be written with capitalisation on both words at all times, as per WP:MOSTM.

On the other hand, there are those who would disagree with me and point out that The Byrds is the group's formal name and therefore, once it's established in an article or book, common usage with such names is to use the familiar "the" in subsequent references, except, for example, at the beginnings of sentences and in formal titles. I run into this capitalization issue with other editors every few months and as I say, as far as I can tell, it's largely down to the consensus of editors working on any given band's articles.

Much more clean cut, however, is whether the word "the" should be used as part of a band name at all. You should look to definitive sources such as biographies, official websites and album covers to determine this. It's like the Grateful Dead, for example...I for one always refer to them as "The Grateful Dead" but actually, if you look at their album covers it soon becomes apparent that "The" is not actually part of the band's name.

As for an article about "I See You", yes, I think notability would be the issue here, along with a lack of reliable third party sources. Although the Fifth Dimension album and a handful of its more famous songs have their own articles, "I See You" is a slightly more obscure album track...although personally, it's always been one of my favourites on the album. Still, your suggestion has given me food for thought. Hmmmm... --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, just as an aside, obviously the capilaizing of "the" in band names only applies if "the" is a leading article. If it appears in the middle of a band's name, then it should normally be non-capitalized, as per the MoS...just as it is in We the People.

DYK for Diddy Wah Diddy

Merry Christmas and thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

...and a Happy New Year from me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

...and a Happy New Year to you too!

No problem, Elitropia...it was my pleasure. Hope you have a happy new year too. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Elitropia. You have new messages at Ghmyrtle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nice coffee - could do with some biscuits

Hiya Elitropia! I've just had a read through the Irish Coffee article and it seems very good already. I have made one or two minor changes to slightly improve the clarity or syntax of particular sentences, but nothing too drastic. I've also added some wikilinks, and in the case of "8-track recording", changed the wikilink because 8-track tape is an obsolete domestic playback format (it was a forerunner of the compact cassette), whereas the "8-track" that Irish Coffee would've recorded their debut single on refers to a studio based multitrack recording, utilizing 8 individual tracks of tape. Also, in the "Original line-up" section, I've specified the singles by name that Luc De Clus and Raf Lenssens played on, based on the singles discography you provided (you better check to make sure my additions are correct). The only other thing I would mention regarding improving this article is that it would be great if you could actually find out what number "Masterpiece" got to on the Belgian charts because that information seems like a glaring omission to me. Other than that, great article and not a band I was familiar with, so thanks! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm....vegan oatmeal cranberry cookies sound just the ticket! :-) As for what number the "Masterpiece" single got to, that "Belgian Metal" link you provided in your last reply states that "Masterpiece" got to number 7 on HUMO magazine's ttt-list (should that be hit-list???). I think in leiu of any other info, I'd go with that and change the relevant sentence to - "Masterpiece" achieved success on the Belgian charts, reaching number 7 on HUMO magazine's ttt-list, and was played during concerts and on televison shows across Belgium and France. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this link is fine for accertaing the number that "Masterpiece" got to on the Begian charts and since it's from a published magazine, it actually meets Wikipedia's critera on reliable sources a little more than that Belgian Metal site does. As far as it being the HUMO chart and not the Belgian chart, they may in fact be one and the same. It's not that unusual for a high-profile music magazine to compile the national pop charts in its country of origin; just look at the Billboard charts in the U.S., and even here in the UK, the NME compiled the national record charts in the 1950s and early 1960s, before the creation of the official UK charts company. So I wouldn't be surprised to find that the HUMO chart is, or was at that time, the official Belgian chart—especially since that chart cutting you linked to says "Single national".

If it was me, I think I'd go with that until such time as better info turns up. I don't suppose that any of the bands CD reissues have liner notes that might help in this matter do they? Oh, by the way, here's the official Belgian chart website, but although "Masterpiece" by Irish Coffee is listed in their archive, it helpfully fails to specify what number the single reached (see here). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I did just capitalise the word National because Single National is the title of the chart, just like Hot 100 is the name of the Billboard chart. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool vintage clips there Elitropia. I don't think I'd even heard of the band before you asked me to pitch in with the Wikipedia article. I have to say that their music, at least on the evidence of those two clips you linked to, is a little bit too "rawk" for my taste but they were clearly all good musicians. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "they" replaced the edit link though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I like most types of music too - including garage punk, psych rock and freakbeat (although I wouldn't call Irish Coffee any of those). But I must admit that early 1970s rock is not really a genre that I'm particularly into, although I do like Led Zeppelin. But then, Zeppelin had a much folkier bent than the likes of Black Sabbath, Free or Deep Purple, which is what made them special in my opinion. Irish Coffee just smack a little too much of that early 70s rock genre for my tastes but as I say, they're clearly a talented band.

I also totally agree with you about the state of most 1960s band's articles on Wikipedia. My personal theory on that is that it's due to most editors who work on Wikipedia's music articles being into music from the late 1970s onwards. There are relatively few serious wikipedians on here whose particular area of knowledge is sixties bands (with the obvious exceptions of The Beatles, The Stones and Bob Dylan, all of which have their own dedicated taskforce of wikipedians working to improve their articles). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...a Wikiproject 1960s music sounds like an interesting proposition but I have absolutely no idea how you would go about starting one. Other wikiprojects seem to be concerned with wide ranging genres or specific artists rather than set decades, like Wikiproject jazz, Wikiproject indie music or Wikiproject Bob Dylan for example. I think that the problem with a 1960s music Wikiproject would be its sheer scope (covering such disparate artists as the Blue Cheer, Cilla Black, Sgt. Barry Sadler and Hermans Hermits) and its overlap with other Wikiprojects: for example, would Fleetwood Mac come under Wikiproject blues or Wikiproject 1960s music, and the likes of The Beatles would fall under Wikiproject The Beatles etc. Maybe a Wikiproject Psychedelic Rock would be a better idea? As for non-notability, I think it's probably true that for the most part the most notable 1960s bands already have an article, so part of the task would be to properly reference those, rather than creating a lot of new articles. I mean, obviously their are a load of obscure '60s pysch bands that are just not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Anyway, I don't mean to discourage you...I'm just pointing out a few potential stumbling blocks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elitropia. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 19:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sparkles

Hi Elitropia! I've taken a look at the article for The Sparkles and it looks very good -- well sourced and well laid out. I have made a few tweaks here and there -- just wikifying things, making small grammar fixes and adding paragraph breaks to make the article easier to read. The most obvious change I've made is probably to the second sentence of the article, because I knew what you were trying to say, but I just couldn't make it work without almost completely rewriting it, I'm afraid. I've also rearranged the list of compilation appearances, just to make them flow a bit better (you had better check that the refs for this paragraph are all in the right place). One last thing, I've attributed the statement about the 1965-1967 line-up being the most famous to author Jeff Jarema (based on the references you've used), but if this is incorrect, you better change it. Good work and a great article though -- have a barnstar! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Music Barnstar
		For a great job on articles including The Sparkles, We the People, and July, and for your contributions to various other psychedelic, garage rock and rhythm and blues-related articles. Keep up the good work! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I would say something like "A number of commentators, including author Jeff Jarema, have noted that during the band's almost fifteen years of existence..." etc. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tis done. :-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that users who have contributed to a new article shouldn't then "patrol" it themselves, so it's probably best to ask another editor to do that. Besides, I really have no experience of patroling pages in that way. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that "Diddy Wah Diddy" was tagged as a new article and I did review it and remove said tag, but I don't think I'd had any part in the creation of the article up until that point. Besides, that's not the same thing as a new page not having being patrolled (I think they're two seperate, although similar, processes). Anyway, yeah...see if you can find another editor to do it for you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well! Let's hope it's a good one, without any fear (to quote John Lennon) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I see you working in the same branch of music as me. I haven't found many people covering such a topic, but those I've talked to who also enjoy 1960s have turned-out to be kind people. If you ever want to discuss music or collaborate on a project, I'd be happy to help. After a while, I have written on quite a few bands, albums, songs etc. so I know a thing or two, but I am always eager to learn more!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet another sixties music lover. Keep in touch! Elitropia (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Elitropia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Elitropia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)