Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck the Millennium

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Fuck the Millennium edit

This is an article about the 1997 comeback of The KLF, when they released a song of the same name as 2K and undertook various other pre-millennial activities as K2 Plant Hire. I believe the article complies with the FA requirements and is very well written. It uses a small number of fair use images to which the proper rationales have been applied. I would like to acknowledge my friend Vinoir as the main author of this piece, with which I have assisted him. --kingboyk 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to mention: this article has been passed as a Good Article and has undergone a peer review. --kingboyk 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, of course, as nominator and co-author. --kingboyk 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good for prose style, format, references. Stilgar135 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The lead is too short and there is no mention of the cultural significance of the song (since the song came out nine years ago, there should be some books or articles which now place it in a proper cultural and historic framework). In addition, the article needs a criticism section b/c as it is now, the article reads as merely a promotional piece for the song and group.--Alabamaboy 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments.
      • I'm aware of WP:LEAD but I think in this case the lead is an adequate summation of the article. Can you tell me what themes you'd like to see added to it? With that information I can attempt to expand it.
      • The song and the Barbican performance are hard to separate. The song itself didn't get much press attention separate from the Barbican show and only reached #28 in the UK singles chart. That, indeed, Drummond later claimed was the whole point - it was a vacuous, crappy comeback that was in concept an art piece. Cultural significance of the song? None?? :)
      • You're right that we don't have more recent critical commentary. I'm not sure there is any, but I will search the Library of Mu and my own archive of recent press clippings and see if I can come up with anything. Will post back on this point.
      • "The article reads as merely a promotional piece for the song and group." This is an objection we had regarding The KLF also, and one which is a little cutting. We try to reference every statement we make, and we don't shop for quotes that present the group in a favourable light. As I've said when this issue has been raised previously, the British press love The KLF and barely write a word against them ever. In this case, we have quotes saying that in the show they did "too many things at the same time" (The Observer), "the strongest point in its favour was its brevity" - a statement of crapness if ever I saw one (The Times), "the anticlimactic aftertaste left by 40-year-old men miming to a seven-year-old song.... 2K was unquestionably a failure" (Select Magazine). Indeed the only reference which praises them is from Select Magazine again: "It is quite brilliant". I think one positive review out of 4 is hardly fawning :)
    • --kingboyk 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've expanded the lead to mention "The People's Pyramid". I believe it now mentions all salient points and is a good summary of the article. --kingboyk 14:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've located a couple of more recent references (1999 and 2001) and have worked them into the article diff. I don't think they add a huge amount, but it's nice to finish with Drummond's summation of how 2K's failure was a success in itself. I trust this answers your objections and hope you will feel moved enough to support. --kingboyk 16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As comprehensive an article as it is possible to achieve. Given that it is a fairly insignificant single/event there are plenty of refs and probably forms the most complete central source for such info on the web.Me677 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, doesn't seem to be a very significant work. I've heard of KLF, but I've never heard of this song. --M@rēino 22:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are opinions here actually divided?
    • As exhaustively researched as can be fathomed — aided by the size of the subject and the readily available material, of course, but FA is equal opportunity when it comes to subject size. The despairing reliance on online material that's seen sometimes here is overcome by virtual librarians, culling material out of ephemeral print matter so that they can arrive at the last place on earth where they will ever see the light of day. (People — get out your old Melody Makers, your Rolling Stones — what have you. Make them live again, as they will never do otherwise!)
    • Can't think of any other major sides of this subject one could cover, either. This thing is really like a time capsule — I can almost smell England in the mid-1990s, something I will never experience in person. And the idea of a shallow event, a self-admitted blunder, making FA and the possibility of that gracing the Front Page — can you say one last, ultimate practical joke?
    • Okay, one thing. Under what circumstances did they land on Mute Records? I just happen to be intrigued by various things Mute, so I happened to notice that little bit. You know, the sheer amount of archival work Mute has done with their website is also really worthy of...
    • Ahem. Support. –Unint 04:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I'm not sure off the top of my head how they landed on Mute - I think it may have been Acid Brass' label? However, you've certainly raised the curiousity in me too so I will endeavour to find out! If I can find the answer in a reliable source it will be added to the article :) Thanks again. --kingboyk 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I've been unable to find an answer to that question. mutelib.com doesn't say, nor does a search for Mute at the Library of Mu or in my KLF archive from ProQuest Newspapers. --kingboyk 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think it is inapporpriate for the home page! Flymeoutofhere 12:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, not an actionable objection. I am not asking for this article to be placed on the front page. It won't be. I know that. I'm asking for it to be recognised as one of Wikipedia's best articles in this genre, which I fully believe it is. If you disagree, please tell me specifically why and I will endeavour to fix it! --kingboyk 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Why shouldn't it be placed on the main page? Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for the sake of minors. --Oldak Quill 17:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the comment. I thought that "bad language" was generally kept off the main page, but I might be wrong. It's not an issue though because deciding what goes on the front page is - as I'm sure you know - a separate process. (And, note to self, we have The KLF to try and get on the front page before worrying about this one getting there :)). Thanks again for the comment. --kingboyk 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is well-written, the research done seems first-class (I love the Times quote!). Clearly FA standard. Walkerma 03:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good. The Wookieepedian 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good prose, well-sourced, seems to meet all requirements. Its "famous"-ness or whether or not you've heard of it is criteria for FAs. FAs are simply excellent articles and make no claims regarding relative cultural relevance. Wickethewok 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just make sure it never reaches the front page. Felixboy 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — It seems to meet all criteria (I fixed a small typo I noticed, by the way): good prose, good use of references, presents the subject comprehensively, I believe, etc. I also don't see any issues with this reaching the front page. Ryu Kaze 13:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards Oppose. I'm not a music expert, but comparing the article to Cool (song), I noticed that the Gwen Stefani single has a great description about its musical structure, what the nominated article lacks of. And also, even if it didn't have much attention but this single was released in UK, japan , france and elswhere. A small paragraph about its mediocre (sorry for the word :-) chart performance would be great. CG 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. This is very very different from Cool (song). The latter is an article on a new pop song; this is an article about a remixing and reworking of an old song and the attendant events. "Cool" is a piece of music, "Fuck the Millennium" was a campaign which just happened to have a theme tune :). This article has plenty of information that Cool doesn't have, and should be judged on its own merits. Is it comprehensive/brilliantly written/well referenced? Is it a standout piece on Wikipedia? I think yes, and I hope you will reconsider because we were dangerously close to a support consensus I feel :)
  • We have a "composition" section, and we provide a sample of the song. I believe any more detailed analaysis of the composition would be better placed in What Time Is Love? upon which the song FTM is based. As for reaction in France and Japan, I don't speak either of those languages and don't have any reference material from them. This was a British event - including a show at the Barbican and the plans for the Peoples Pyramid somewhere in the UK. Cool (song) is not terribly international either (just look at the notes & references, all web-based and none from non-English speaking countries). The only difference is that is has some overseas chart data. I'm not aware that FTM charted anywhere outside the UK, but if anyone is able to provide a reliable source with some overseas chart data I'd be delighted to include it. --kingboyk 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you convinced me. I tryed to search from some French websites (since I speak French) with no results. CG 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last comment. The lead should summarize the article, and should not contain information not mentioned in the article. Therefore, could you add a sentence about the single's mediocre performance in the article (maybe in the "Reception and Aftermath" section). Thank you. CG 07:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing. I'll take a look at that, probably tommorow now as I'm exhausted from WikiProject work. Thanks again for the comments. --kingboyk 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Thanks for pointing that out. --kingboyk 09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Object Support, the audio sample provided is too long per Wikipedia:Music samples; 30 seconds is the maximum. It must also be of lower quality. Teemu08 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll look into this later today, thanks. --kingboyk 10:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Objection dealt with, thanks. I've trimmed the sample to just under 30 seconds, and have saved it at Ogg Vorbis quality level 0 per Wikipedia:Music samples. --kingboyk 09:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was my only gripe. Looks good now. Teemu08 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't forget to delete the old version ;) CG 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Object - looks like a good article but I didn't like the use of 'miserable' in 'peaking at a miserable #28 in the UK Singles Chart'. Was it really miserable? Especially as they wanted it to do badly. JMiall 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. Is this FAC ever going to end? Anyway! That was added in response to another point above (hence the sigh :)). I'm not sure if they really wanted it to stiff or if they'd have been delighted at a number one - who knows? Drummond's comments came well after the event but I have no reason not to take his word for it :) "Miserable" was my attempt at a little poetic licence, because by their standards it was a total and utter flop. Feel free to remove or change it - it's only one word and this is a wiki after all :) Thanks for the comment. --kingboyk 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thought about this overnight, and I'll change the word to "lowly". --kingboyk 06:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fuck_the_Millennium&oldid=1138461218"