Archives

2016–2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

The article David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf for comments about the article, and Talk:David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Blueskiesdry -- Blueskiesdry (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably make for a really good DYK hook ngl. Blueskiesdry (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'll nominate it, thanks! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Born to Run you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tkbrett -- Tkbrett (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey zmbro, just a heads up that I will be quite busy over the next week. I am going to try to do as much of the review as I can on Friday and Monday, but after those two days I wont have free time for another week. I will do my best though. Tkbrett (✉) 14:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett No problem at all! Rome wan't built in a day. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Bowie narrated a version of Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf in 1978 as a gift for his seven-year-old son Duncan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, it has been a while since I've been very busy working but I've recently nominated Kanye West's acclaimed 2010 album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy for FA status after running through it again and as a West fan, I thought you may be interested in leaving some comments at the FAC. K. Peake 21:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is back at FAC now, would you care to leave comments again please? --K. Peake 13:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Just a friendly note to let you know that some edits who've made introduced false titles in sentences where one didn't exist prior to your edit (see: [1] ) - No worries, but your edit summaries refer to an essay, WP:FALSETITLE, that specifically advises against the edits who've made. I reverted the most recent two such edits, but it appears you might have done this at hundreds of articles (see link to edit summary search below). Please reread the essay and perhaps consider self-reverting these particular edits. Thank you. Señor Spock (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Señor Spock (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Señor Spock I think you might be misreading WP:FALSETITLE. A false title is without the "the", so the Rodrigo albums currently have a false title, which I "fixed". It makes a little more sense when you read it as "album by the American singer-songwriter" rather than as "album by American singer-songwriter". There must be a misunderstanding here. Yes, it is an essay that is not currently an actual WP rule, but I've already seen it be implemented across arrays of articles. I encourage you to re-read the essay. The way it's worded is confusing, as "removing" a false title means you "add" a "the". – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the example from the essay you linked to in your edit summaries:

A false title is when you remove the article ("the", "a" or "an") before a noun, making it into a freaky psuedo-adjective.

• False title: The documentary follows American songwriter Bob Dylan.
• No false title: The documentary follows the American songwriter Bob Dylan.

I read the essay correctly, but misread your edits, which added the, not removed them. My bad - very sorry for the confusion. I'm still getting used to reading diffs and still get confused sometimes. Sorry to have bothered you - I'll revert my reverts. Señor Spock (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Señor Spock No problem at all! Happy we were able to

resolve the issue. :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Born to Run you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Born to Run for comments about the article, and Talk:Born to Run/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tkbrett -- Tkbrett (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zmbro, I hope you're well, and happy 2024! As you've probably noticed, I've been offline for a couple of months. Yeah, I know last year you and I tentatively planned to collaborate on "Cover Me" and I know I no doubt haven't been productive enough to give you confidence that it was worth your time to contribute either. Although I can't 100% promise I won't get busy again, I feel like the balance of my commitments and priorities in real life have shifted enough recently that I can probably get in a medium amount more Wiki time for the next while (and if I do get busy again and suddenly drop out once more, I sincerely apologize in advance). I see you've been making good progress with your Springsteen album article project (Darkness, and now working on Born to Run and The River). You'd originally proposed that we collaborate on one or more Springsteen album articles, and then I'd said maybe a song article would be less work and a better match for the amount of time I had. Now I'm thinking (a) You're making good progress on the albums, and when you eventually get to especially Born in the U.S.A. and maybe Tunnel of Love, I'd really like to be a part of that; and (b) It takes a lot of passion for the subject in order to commit to bringing an article to FA, and perhaps I never had the passion for "Cover Me" the song that I did for "I'm Goin' Down". Maybe collaborating on the album Born in the U.S.A. is a better match for both of us? I know you're in the middle of Born to Run and The River, but if I were to start working on Born in the U.S.A. relatively actively, do you think you'd have time to spare to work on it some now as well? I think I'd find that more motivating, and easier to not lose focus, if you were in there making a medium amount of edits at the same time as me. But, again, I know you're in the middle of other articles, and it may not be fair for me to ask you so suddenly to work on this now. Or if you do still really want to work on "Cover Me", that could be another option, but again, I think personally I'd lose motivation fast if I didn't see you in there making a medium amount of concurrent edits. Or, if you're currently too busy on Born to Run and The River to collaborate on anything with me now, maybe I'll start working on something completely different. Whatever you would like to work on with or without me is of course all good. :-) Let me know what you think, thanks, Zmbro! Moisejp (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Moisejp. Yes I've been chugging through this Springsteen project quite well. I haven't had much to do in terms of other hobbies so I'm back on my WP kick for the time being. I'm mostly looking forward to Nebraska, as that and Darkness are my favs. At this point I'm not sure whether I'll be doing Tunnel of Love or not, but I do plan by this year. However, that album turns 40 in June, and I think it would be appropriate to do some work on that before its anniversary. I'd be happy to do a collaboration for U.S.A.! I can start a sandbox for it and if you wanna start adding to it we can! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I saw the page you created. Let's do it! I've started rereading the BITUSA section of Marsh. It's the best overview out there. Rereading it will remind me of all the main points to include and should get me in the right mindset. I'll start making edits soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After I finish The River I think I might skip ahead to U.S.A. because of its upcoming anniversary. I intend to bring Nebraska to FA, and given there's a new book devoted entirely to it I have a good feeling it might take a while... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hoping to get BITUSA for TFA on its anniversary? I wasn't predicting we'd finish that soon (for one thing, there's so much written about BITUSA for us to sift through) but who knows, if there are the two of us working on it, we can see how it goes. For my part, I'm expecting to work on it steadily but not necessarily super speedily. But yeah, we can see, maybe things will coalesce faster than I was thinking. :-) That's cool there's a book dedicated especially to Nebraska. Moisejp (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not FA as that's a little too quick. The anniversary is early June so we'd basically have to fast track everything. It'd be nice to get it to GA, but at the very least I'd like to get it expanded before June. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm glad we're on the same page about that. I definitely wouldn't want to rush it, and am looking forward to doing a good, thorough job. :-) Moisejp (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same :-) I'll get to work as soon as I finish The River, which should (ideally) be this upcoming week. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good start to adding info to the article in your sandbox! Just now I verified for the first time in a while that I still have access to Newspapers.com. Just looking in 1984 and 1985, there's 10,000 hits for Born in the USA in 1984, and 20,000 in 1985. I'm determined to make good use of Newspapers.com, but am probably going to take a few days or so to figure out my best plan of attack for getting good info from there without being overwhelmed by all the hits. Also, which books do you have easy access to--I think I remember you mentioning in the past that you'd got Margotin and Guesdon, for one? I can try to figure out what other essentials there are, such as Geoffrey Himes' and Heylin's books (if you don't have them), and see about getting them from the library. I have Dave Marsh's Glory Days - Bruce Springsteen in the 1980s. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I own Margotin & Guesdon, Carlin's book and Springsteen's 2016 autobiography. Songs is available through archive.org as well as Gillian Gaar. I requested Dolan's book over at WP:RX while I was sent the Kirkpatrick chapters on Nebraska and USA. I also have access to Rock's Backpages :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC) P.S. that new book on Nebraska I mentioned earlier just arrived so I bet that has some good info since the two records overlap :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reserved Himes' book from the library. Unfortunately neither Heylin's E-Street Shuffle or Song by Song seem to be in my local library system. The Kindle version of E-Street Shuffle is $11 and Song by Song $4. It's possible I'll just get E-Street Shuffle or possibly both—I need to remind myself how easy it is to use Kindle and whether I can export to PDF or anything. Also, it seems to be I remember (from my "IGD" research) that Song by Song was merged into a later edition of E-Street Shuffle where the content appears as an appendix, but I'm not 100% sure. If so, I may only need to get the one book. But I remember Heylin's work contains lots of valuable recording specifics among other things, so I definitely want to use him. Moisejp (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got Himes' Born in the U.S.A. book from the library today. I'll do some scanning of it this weekend or soon. Moisejp (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp Cool beans. Just make sure whenever you add stuff you have a citation overall or at the end of each bullet. I'll be adding stuff from Margotin/Guesdon, Carlin, etc. and don't want to get confused on who said what. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. I'll go back and add citations to any bullets I haven't, soon. :-) Moisejp (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp Question for ya. I've been making some progress and there are some things I'd like to discuss with you but I am unsure about going at it. Should we create the talk page and discuss there? Or maybe create a sub-heading at the bottom of the page for convos? I'm thinking the former would be best. I just know it might get a little confusing posting questions in the same space as the main text and I don't want to fill up my talk page here. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zmbro, sure, a talk page sounds good, thanks! By the way, I really appreciate all the progress you've been making, and I hope it doesn't bother you my contributions have been fewer. I do want to make slow but steady contributions, and I hope it's okay that it that it's looking like it likely won't end up being a totally 50-50 collaboration. I'm keen to contribute but so far I've only managed to find small windows of time to be on Wikipedia. But you mentioned aiming for June for GA is good, so there's not too much pressure to edit fast, right? Now I'm thinking likely I won't try to use Newspapers.com for the GA version--in the meantime I'll concentrate on books and easy online citations--but then when we beef things up for subsequently working towards FA, by then we'll already have the foundations out of the way and I can think of the best way to tackle sifting through the thousands and thousands of hits on Newspaper.com. :-) Moisejp (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no problem! I'll get the talk page started. It's be nice to get to GA before it's anniversary (so perhaps at the least a DYK fact could appear on the date), but if not it's no biggie. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work's been super busy the last couple of weeks, but I did scan the copy of Himes that I borrowed from the library (just returning it today). Am planning to get my hands on probably a digital copy of Heylin ASAP. Talk again soon! Moisejp (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd totally forgotten, but it seems I purchased the Kindle version of Heylin's Springsteen Song By Song in 2021. It doesn't have page numbers but it does have "Location"; it looks like there are precedents to use Kindle locations for citing, so that's good. As for Heylin's E Street Shuffle, I haven't explored in depth, but it seems like there's at least medium access available from here: https://openlibrary.org/works/OL17733205W/E_Street_shuffle. I'll see how far I get with that. So, I'm good, I've got Himes and the two Heylins. My deadline for a work deliverable is at the end of next week, then hopefully I'll have a bit more time to scour these sources. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zimbro, I saw your contributions to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_recorded_by_David_Bowie" and hope you can explain why there are no "Tin Machine" songs on the list of songs recorded by Bowie. I understand that splitting hairs "Tin Machine" is NOT "Bowie" but neither were "Manish Boys" and "Pity the Fool" is on there. "Tin Machine" songs are credited to Bowie not David R. Jones ... Also why is "Hop Frog" not on the list? Not criticizing just curious. Thank you. DeadAgainstIt (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeadAgainstIt Hey there. Every once in a while that thought has come up. The Tin Machine stuff was originally included in the list but removed during the list's Featured List Candidate process at the recommendation of other editors. Enough time has passed that I think I'll re-add them. As for "Hop Frog", are you talking about the Lou Reed song Bowie sang backing vocals on? There were a bunch of cases like that. He also appeared on Scarlett Johansson's Anywhere I Lay My Head album. I guess they're not included because Bowie was simply a contributor? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Born to Run, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the album cover for Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run has been imitated by several musicians, as well as the Sesame Street characters Bert and Cookie Monster? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Born to Run. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Born to Run), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick question for you. Is there a way to provide editors of the Star Wars page some helpful resources without triggering an edit notice? When you put the article link on the talk page, it triggered an edit notice that appears every time you edit the article, which is annoying. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wafflewombat Hmmm I'm not sure. Do you mean on your watchlist or like a notice that pops up even when you're not on the page? For that I'm not sure I've not encountered that before. Maybe ask someone in the Teahouse? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of talking with some people at the Teahouse about it. Just for reference, would you mind clicking "Edit" on the article page, just to see if it pops up for you? If it does, you won't miss it, it's very obvious. Thanks. Wafflewombat (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope does not pop up for me. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were you in source editing mode when you clicked Edit? I discovered that the edit notice only appears when you're in visual editing mode. Wafflewombat (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 03:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other place we can put that link, so it doesn't trigger the edit notice? Maybe in the Further Reading section? Wafflewombat (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not the person to ask that. Maybe try the Teahouse. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was thinking about moving List of songs recorded by Coldplay to List of songs written by Coldplay, since the page now includes unreleased material (some of which the band only performed live) and a few works they gave away to other artists. I decided to contact you specifically because you were responsible for making that article Featured. Do you have any objections towards my idea? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GustavoCza Hey there! That makes sense to me. You clearly have done a solid job at maintaining the list since I brought it to FA, and since it now contains, like you said, more material than they have actually recorded, I say go for it. The targeted page doesn't exist so I think you should have no trouble moving it to the new one. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I noticed that you undid the revision I made to this page yesterday. Apologies for not explaining what I did. Freeman did indeed show the band photographic tranparencies of the Yesterday and Today cover during that shoot. However, what George Harrison is holding in his hand is no such thing; it's one of the colour filters (gels) from the photographic lights. You can see that this is so more clearly in this photograph: [2]https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/oct/27/the-beatles-revolver-album-special-edition-super-deluxe-review (with Lennon holding one up directly in front of his face). I hope this is useful. Thanks. 176.85.135.155 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I understand what you mean. Unfortunately, the statement is sourced in the article by Robert Rodriguez, a respected Beatles historian. His book was published in 2012, however, so if the Revolver super deluxe set has statements about the image that contradicts what's currently sourced then we can certainly make an exception. Until then, it is sourced content that should stay. In the future, please be sure to add an edit summary, as from my POV it simply looks like you removed sourced content without any reason. Best wishes. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I haven't read Robert Rodriguez's cited text, so I don't know what he actually wrote (and I'm happy to be told). It's not impossible that Robert Freeman would have had a colour photo printed out on materials that look exactly like colour gels, but it's more likely - on the balance of probabilities - that somebody, somewhere along the line, has misconstrued the meaning of "photographic transparencies". The photo in the link I prvided seems to confirm this (unless the Guardian photoshopped it). All the best. 176.85.135.155 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely possible! Unfortunately we have to make do with what we have, and I don't have either Rodriguez's book nor the Revolver Super deluxe set so I can't confirm either. Thanks for being so understanding! It seems that doesn't happen a lot here with IP editors. :-) Best wishes. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a copy of the Revolver Super deluxe set: look at the photo on the article. Neither of us can say what Rodriguez said, so that 'respected' author's insights remain obscure. 176.85.135.155 (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That photo doesn't really clarify it to me. This similar black and white photo to me it looks like it's a lot more than a simple color filter. I found more of Whitaker's images here. There's one where all four are holding colored cels over their faces (I can't seem to directly link it), but idk George has the same cel as the picture we're talking about. John has the same cel as the photo in the Guardian one, but for George it's hard to tell. (to me) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one? 176.85.135.155 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a simple filter. Again though, idk if it is the same thing as the photo being discussed. That photo to me still looks like George is holding something inside the filter (like the filter is folded over it). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of going round in circles, I'd like to know what this dude Rodriguez's original words were. 176.85.135.155 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well we're in luck! The book is available for borrowing on the Open Library. I borrowed it and here's what it says (pp. 163-164). The photo is from a personal introduction the group filmed on May 19, 1966, for The Ed Sullivan Show to accompany their "Paperback Writer" promo film. Rodriguez: "Interestingly, they are first seen covering their faces with large pieces of plastic film; when seen in close-up as the singing starts, the celluloid is revealed to be transparencies of the infamous "butcher" version of the Yesterday... and Today album cover." – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily take this writer's word at face value, given that his son is working for the Daily Mail. 176.85.135.155 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does an author's son's occupation make the author's work completely irrelevant? That makes no sense. This author is a respected Beatles historian so his word means a lot. Yeah, sometimes sources get stuff wrong, but idk anyone else who would state otherwise. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely germane that his son is working for the Daily Mail: it's a steady job, but he wants to be an author of softcover books. 176.85.135.155 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with Revolver? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam, will you read the lyrics to the odd Beatles song from 1966? 176.85.135.155 (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Appreciate the humor but WP is unfortunately not a forum, so have we resolved the issue at hand? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no cogent evidence that my changes to the text were wrong, but the edit war is over (if you want it) and if you say you want a resolution - well, you know, we're all doing what we can. 176.85.135.155 (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this comes up again, feel free to bring this up at Talk:Revolver (Beatles album) so more people other than myself can see it. Unfortunately the editor who most likely added the content in question hasn't been active on WP for two years now so we'll have to see if anyone else knows. Best wishes. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was reading the List of songs by Taylor Swift talk page and found an interesting conversation. Basically, they removed the "recorded" and "written" distinction to better encompass unreleased material while also making sure to include the covers that Swift released over the years. Do I have your permission to move List of songs written by Coldplay again or should I just remove the covers? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Yeah go ahead. If it encompasses more than what they wrote it makes more sense to remove it entirely. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be a top contributor to this article. Would you be okay with me putting this up for GAN sometime in the future? — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 00:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. I don't ever recall editing that page. I must have ran the management console on it once and no one else has done much else. Weird. Yeah go ahead. In its current state I don't think it's ready yet but if you'd like me to conduct the GA review I can. I enjoyed reviewing 85–92 as that record was on heavy rotation in my college years. And I just listened to Vol 2 the other day while working so it's somewhat fresh in my mind as well. Just lmk. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. ;) — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 17:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just put the article up for GAN. I'm currently waiting for your response. — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 14:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if you could help me with citing a book. It's for this page. If you scroll to the bottom, you'll see only one book under Works Cited: Books. I want to be able to make SFN citations for this book. Right now there's just one, in the lead, but when I click on the authors' names in the note, it doesn't take me to the bottom of the page like it's supposed to. The SFN shows up under Citations as the first entry: Hidalgo & Sansweet, p.333. Hopefully it makes sense what I'm asking. Wafflewombat (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure. It's working for me just fine. The way it's laid out currently is how sfn citations work. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, it now works for me. Not sure what was going on last night. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Any interest in doing a review at Featured article review/Doolittle (album). Not sure if your into the Pixies, but could really do with feedback and/or a basic copy-edit (am blue in the face from reading and re-reading). No worries if otherwise pre-occupied...the Apex Twin album has been on my watchlist for years. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil Hey there. I've never been able to get into Pixies, but I have made a few edits to Doolittle. I can't promise I'll do a full review due to my limited interest, but we'll see. On that note though, I think we both forgot about the PR review of Born to Run... I know I left of few of your suggestions unanswered due to getting distracted with other stuff but if you ever wanted to finish that up I'd appreciate it. If not no biggie. :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be gone for a few days, but would like to pick up again on Born to Run. Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Julia (Beatles song) sheet music cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide a source for the CBS television premiere if you want one. MightyArms (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be posted at Talk:Star Wars (film)? I haven't edited that page in awhile and I am unaware of what you're talking about as you have provided no context. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The reason I talked to you is because I looked through edit history and it seems you were the one who edited that tidbit out of the article. MightyArms (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MightyArms It would have been helpful to actually link the edit in question. Again, I can't remember what was sourced specifically as that likely happened months ago at this point. Is this new source you found considered reliable? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was taken from an old TV Guide ad so it should be reliable. I can link to the edit for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_%28film%29&diff=1212185056&oldid=1212184655

MightyArms (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems more like a primary source. Info such as the removed content in question would need a secondary source to truly verify. Maybe check the Billboard magazine archives. Since Star Wars was so big they might have covered its TV premiere. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So during the Fallout: New Vegas GAR, I said I'd eventually get around to finishing the initial reception section, and now I think it's done. Not sure if you wanted to take a look to see if the quality matches the rest of the article, but I figured I'd mention it anyway, if only to toot my own horn. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Hobo No problem at all! The section looks good, I made some MOS fixes. Once again, I appreciate all the work you put it to bringing it up to today's standards. Just waiting for that damn PS5 remaster.... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other Beatles mentioned any discord during “Rubber Soul” and George Harrison said he enjoyed working on the album.

It was certain passages that I removed, namely Norman Smith’s unconvincing claims that Paul McCartney was critical of George’s guitar playing.

14.202.173.22 14.202.173.22 (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought you would be happy after expressing pride in how far I'd gone before to know that I've now brought West's biggest hit to a GAN! K. Peake 08:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake Congrats bro! I recall you mentioning that one many years ago, great to see it finally happen! :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is solid on your part to remember this from years ago, yes I always believe in following through with commitments! --K. Peake 14:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you have an article listed at WP:GAN. I recently started a project, Good Article Review Circles, and thought you might be interested. This initiative helps articles get reviewed more quickly through collaborative efforts. By joining, you'll review others' articles and get your own reviewed in return. Check out the page for more details! — GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've got a question for you. It takes awhile to explain, so I apologize for the length. There's no rush on this, but if you're able to ponder this at some point I would really appreciate it.

I've been editing Star Wars character articles. Before I started editing, the pages had an Appearances section, which listed all the places the character has shown up. There was a sub-section, called Legends, Legends Works or Legends Media, which listed the appearances that are in the SW Legends narrative universe, which is separate from the official canon. Since I can't use proper header text in this post to illustrate, I will direct you to Lando Calrissian for an example of the original formatting. Here is the Appearances heading, and here is the Legends sub-heading.

My problem with this formatting is that it doesn't inform the reader what kind of appearances the non-Legends appearances are. They happen to be the official canon, but this is not usually clear. I changed the formatting on some pages, such as Padmé Amidala. Here is the Appearances heading, and here is the Legends heading. The only change is that the Legends section became its own section and not a sub-section, and the words "official canon" were added to the first heading to explain what those appearances are.

Another editor, TAnthony, has expressed that canonicity should not be a focus on these character pages. He believes the appearances should not be separated into canon and Legends categories. I understand his view, and I believe it may be beneficial to reduce the focus on canonicity on some of these pages. But in the meantime, we need headers that are descriptive and clear. TAnthony edited some of the pages that used my formatting, and now they look like Luke Skywalker. Here is the Appearances heading and here is the Legends heading. His version is basically a hybrid of the old formatting and my formatting. I think it has the same problem as the original formatting, in that it doesn't tell the reader that the first list of appearances are canon.

Which formatting do you think is best? For simplicity I'll post the three examples here: Lando Calrissian (original), Padmé Amidala (my version), Luke Skywalker (hybrid).

I'm also open to a completely different version, if you have ideas.

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I spoke with the other editor, and the issue has been resolved as far as I'm concerned, so I don't need your input after all. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zmbro. Thank you for your work on List of songs recorded by Duran Duran. Another editor, Aszx5000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Amazing list and a huge time and effort! How come you are not autopatrolled? It makes no sense for WP:NPP to be patrolling your articles given their undoubted quality? thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Aszx5000 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought this article to FAC again and as a fellow West fan, would you care to contribute this time? K. Peake 06:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi zim, I hope all is well. Do you still have access to Rock's Backpages? Usually I can find its pieces at their original source, but MOJO is annoying because their back issues are hard to access. In particular, I'm looking for this piece. Would you be able to help me out? Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 12:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tk! Unfortunately I don't have access to RB anymore. In fact, every time I try to open it, it gives me a "403 Forbidden Access Denied" message (on article links and the main page). Not really sure what's up with that, but it's very unfortunate. Sorry I couldn't help! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat, thanks for the quick response. Tkbrett (✉) 19:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Gives me the same error across browsers, on both mobile and desktop. I guess I'm banned lol. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. There are probably only a handful of individuals on the planet who can justify a subscription at that price point, so it doesn't make much sense that they would alienate a previous customer! Tkbrett (✉) 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for Darkness on the Edge of Town, "about... Bruce Springsteen's "samurai record", at least how he puts it. Darkness on the Edge of Town, his fourth studio album, is my personal favorite of his. Not only capturing the essence of who Springsteen is and what he's about, it has solid music and lyrics that made an interesting but innovative follow-up to Born to Run."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your work on this article and congratulations on it being TFA. —  AjaxSmack  21:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind message! Cheers to more in the future :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Zmbro! The article you nominated, Born to Run, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Very well deserved ;) Ippantekina (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The River (Bruce Springsteen album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tavantius -- Tavantius (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article The River (Bruce Springsteen album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The River (Bruce Springsteen album) for comments about the article, and Talk:The River (Bruce Springsteen album)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tavantius -- Tavantius (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just made my first edit today, because I am a big Stones fan and this album was the first one of theirs I bought (about 50 years ago). Also possibly my favorite.

I corrected some earlier text that said GHS songs were not played live after the initial 1973 tour, until some forty years later. I have recordings of 75, 76 and 78 tours, so I know some were played then, before being dropped until the post-2000 tours. I saw www.rocksoff.org was used as a source elsewhere, so I assumed it was an acceptable source. Seems very accurate and thorough to me.

You evidently didn't like the source and removed it. Thankfully, you left my text, though. I don't understand your issue with that website. Seems reasonable to me. Dogstar59 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dogstar59 Hi there. Welcome to WP! Let me first say, thank you for bringing this up on a talk page rather than edit warring. I removed the source because it looks like it's simply a Stones fan site and possibly a self published one at that, which would make it an unreliable source by WP's standards. May I ask which article you saw that website used on? Yes, it looks very detailed and such, but it would be more appropriate to have a book or the like containing the setlists to reference, such as this one. I'm sure this one could also be helpful. I'm not saying you have to get these yourself, but ones like it could help with sourcing your statement with reliable sources. And yes, I did not remove your text because it actually was wrong before, as can be seen by live albums such as El Mocambo 1977 containing "Star Star". The text can be kept for the time being, but it would be better to have her sources that constitute reliability on WP. I hope this helped! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another source might be the official Stones website. I think they have historical setlists. I didn't list one-off shows in 77 and 79 (El Mocambo and the Blind Concert). I suppose I could have included them for the purists. And I am not into edit wars, so no worries.

The website was used in the following paragraph, about the GHS songs being played in the 2000s. I didn't have anything to do with that paragraph, other than creating a separate paragraph for easier reading (the two were together, I think).

So, if it is acceptable, I will do another update and add the two one-off shows (77 and 79) and use the official Stones website (assuming the setlists are there - I am about 95% sure). Don't have the books you listed and don't want to buy them just for this. The update may take a few days, as I am busy with a bunch of other stuff and I have to self-teach the coding for references (by looking at how it is done elsewhere on this site). Good to meet you. Dogstar59 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the official website has published setlists yes that would be better. Would probably qualify as a primary source but it's still better than a citation needed tag. Nice to meet you too! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Attractions, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Attractions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My information is from direct observations of the products discussed. Should I source myself? What gives you the right to undo my edits without checking them first? Did you check them? Do you have any of the tapes? Please explain how you rationalize that my edits needed to come out? Please put the edits back in. They are significant to the context of the record business during the time of the album's issue and somewhat after that. SamScozzari (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. All content must be sourced by reliable sources. Simple "observations" won't do. That is why your edits were reverted. You can add the content back when you have reliable secondary sources discussing it (you also can't cite the products directly; see WP:PRIMARY) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the valid reason for reverting was explained in the edit summary. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I cite the product (i.e., The Beatles, Abbey Road, Apple Records, 1969, 8-track Tape catalog number 8XT-383 ? SamScozzari (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No... you also can't cite the products directly; see WP:PRIMARY – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]