Jump to content

Talk:Band of Gypsys/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Album chronology chain

The dates for Hendrix's album releases are:

  • Smash Hits: 7/69
  • Band of Gypsys: 3/70
  • Historic Performances: 8/70

Different countries have different dates and releases. For example, in the UK, Electric Ladyland (10/68) preceded BoG (6/70), which was followed by The Cry of Love (3/71); Historic Performances was not released there. Refer to Jimi Hendrix discography and Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography which have references. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is disputing the US and UK release dates being different--I'm sure the dates were different in other countries as well. The problem is your revision broke the chain from Smash Hits to Electric Ladyland to this article, compromising "the integrity of chains" (Template:Infobox album#Chronology). Also, a search for "Super Hits" here showed nothing in the source you cited about Super Hits--does your source say where "Electric Ladyland" is in the chain if not after "Super Hits"? If you want to enforce a convoluted "Hendrix American" or "Hendrix British albums" chronology, you have to find a way to maintain the chain(s). If not, defer to the earliest release date, in the spirit of the infobox template doc. page. As of now, the chronology in Smash Hits (The Jimi Hendrix Experience album) leads to Electric Ladyland, but this article's chain leads back to Smash Hits, omitting Electric Ladyland altogether. Dan56 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Super Hits? The details for Smash Hits is on Shapiro 1990, pp. 534–535 (the US version is different than the UK one). Maintaining the integrity of chains is fine, but they should reflect correct dates. The first release of BoG was in the US, so skipping back and forth for different releases and dates in other countries doesn't make sense (this is more obvious for Rainbow Bridge, see Talk:Rainbow Bridge (album)#Album chronology chain). It would lead to a tangled and misleading chronology. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ojorojo:, perhaps making two chronologies in each of these album articles? so each article has both Hendrix American albums and Hendrix English albums chronologies? Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
(e/c)A sensible solution. However, I don't like the idea of loading up infoboxes. MOS:INFOBOX says "The less information it [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance... exclude any unnecessary content." Sometimes these extra fields are overused:" California Girls", Bike". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
They should reflect the earliest date, irrespective of the date's country, for the same reason we don't include both US and UK dates in the infobox. Dan56 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
But that doesn't solve the problem when they are entirely different albums (again, see talk:Rainbow Bridge). A standard practice should be applicable to that situation as well. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The decision to overload infoboxes with country-specific chronologies was not mine. The practical solution would be to chain the album articles by their earliest/original release date. The priority is to maintain the chain for readers, not throw them curveballs with an inconsistent chain. Dan56 (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Dan, you've jumped the gun on BoG. Historic Performances wasn't released in the UK. Since the priority is on the earliest/original release, that country's chronology should be used. That makes it consistent with the label and date. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The priority is maintaining the chain. Just have one chain, Jimi Hendrix albums, and follow an order by original release date. Dan56 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
According to you, perhaps. Accuracy of release information is more important IMO. A chronology is not useful if it is misleading. BTW, For Isle of Wight: Experience predeced IoW, not CoL. For Cry of Love, Experience followed it in the UK, not IoW. Slow down. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no release information in the chronology chain; there's only the title and year, so what from what I've said would be misleading to readers? According to Template:Infobox album#Chronology, the chain must be maintained: "when release 'A' points to 'B' as the next release, 'B' points back to 'A' as the previous release." That's the definition of a chain; if it isn't maintained, it's not a chain, thus not what the parameter intends to be. The chronology chain is just a tool for accessing articles for readers in a simple manner, not to serve as an extension of the discography article which provides details on a release beyond the title and year. If you are noticing me making changes, you are welcome to help. Dan56 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed/clarified a couple more. I don't think it looks good, but at least the chronology is correct (hopefully). What happens to the chain when an album without an article is reached? —Ojorojo (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Skip over. Chains are meant to connect readers to articles, so if it's not notable enough to merit its own article, then its omission isn't notable either. Dan56 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Band of Gypsys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Band of Gypsys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Updating infobox

Koavf: My 11/30 edit updated the infobox, using subst:Infobox album. I understand the template notes "originally release" info only, but when there is a separate UK chronology, a second release date along with "Track" to show the UK edition is appropriate. Otherwise, it is not clear which release the date refers to. Likewise, the caption "Capitol album cover" is necessary to identify than it is not the Track cover. The hidden note "ALL SONGS ON BOG ALBUM WERE RECORDED ON THE SECOND NIGHT 1/1, NONE ON 12/31" was originally added because some editors were attempting to mistakenly add "December 31, 1969" without reading the rest of the article. There is no reason to remove it. Using "& nbsp ;" is not the only available option for ndashes: {{nbsp}} and {{snd}} may be used. Also, in text, mdash and ndash are often interchangeable. MOS:DASH allows for both – it is just a matter of personal preference. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: You're saying that you know you're supposed to do things a different way but insist on doing them the incorrect way for special pleading. The release date is the first time it was released--many albums are released in different markets at different times and an infobox is just for basic high-level information. Explain the rest in a release history section, as per WP:ALBUM. We can use either a spaced ndash or an mdash but we should just be consistent about usage. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: The same applies to you: why insist on following the guidance for the original release date, but not the original label? If there is so much emphasis on the original, why is a second chronology allowed? The guidance itself is inconsistent. This is something that should be addressed in a RfC. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Does this album have different covers for the different releases? I didn't recall that being true. If so, then the caption is entirely appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Uh, read the "Release" section. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Also--as I have told you multiple times--you are introducing template errors into {{Infobox album}}. It is not hard to use it correctly. You are incorrectly spacing This is all basic information that is very simple to do correctly and yet you insist on doing it incorrectly. Please fix your errors rather than blindly reverting. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What specific errors are/were in the infobox? ("January 1 – 2" appears in the text, not the infobox) I am not "introducing" anything; I reverted your edits to the earlier pre-edit war version so we could discuss the changes. Since there is some good mixed in with the bad, this removed some proper corrections. This does not mean I disagree with these, just that we should start over from the beginning, since there are several issues here. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Don't undo fixes. If you see {{Infobox Album}}, it no longer uses Last = but | prev_title =

| prev_year = . I have directed you to where you can find the correct informatoin: WP:DASH, WP:ALBUM's style guide, the template instructions at {{Infobox album}} so I'm not sure why we have to hash out how to correctly write "January 1–2" on the talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: As I have pointed out several times, I have only restored the pre-edit war version until some issues may be resolved. I am well aware of the current {{infobox album}}. I, not you, was the first one to update it using subst:infobox album, which added prev_title, etc. You have not addressed my comments and are trying to sidestep the issues by just using links. It appears that you are not willing to compromise and are not showing good faith. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: I didn't substitute the template. Not sure what you're talking about. This is not an edit dispute about anything of any substance, so I'm not sure why we need to go thru this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Several of your edits were based on an incomplete reading/understanding of the guidelines and the article itself. You've re-added the caption, so I guess some progress is being made. I've updated some of the refs and tried to make them more consistent. Including the extra chronology without identifying the album is still bothersome – if only info about the original is allowed, there shouldn't be an extra chronology. It should be one way or the other. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: This is how any edits to any article would work so there is no need to even have this discussion. If you do seven things wrong and I fix five of them but introduce two errors, then you can fix my two errors. Again, this is not a content dispute or anything of substance but extremely navel-gazing discussion about nit-picking. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: On the contrary, the original release verses extra chronology issue is a valid issue. Neither the Album article style guide nor Template:Infobox album documentation has been adopted as a formal policy or guideline. It is a point that should be discussed. Also, if you recall, a content issue is what started all this. The "1991 Polydor Europe & Japan CD reissue bonus tracks" listing only applies to a limited release and shouldn't be included with the original and current official track listing. The relevant info has been added to the "Release history" section, where it is discussed. Adding it to the track listing table gives it undue emphasis (WP:UNDUE). You are too quick to dismiss this without any discussion except "you are incorrect about the track listing". Incorrect according to what? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: The Album WikiProject style guide, template instructions, and 250,000 other album articles. Can you show me a single track listing template that floats bonus tracks somewhere else in an article? The WP:UNDUE claim is silly and I simply don't even understand what your confusion is about the extra chronologies but if you want to bring it up at WT:ALBUM, please do. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: You seem to ignore the fact that this article is a GA and has existed largely as reviewed for 3+ years. The reviewer specifically addressed the bonus tracks and didn't have a problem with it. Your argument is purely "other things exist" and I doubt less than 1% of articles list all the various bonus tracks, special editions, re-issues, etc. tracks in with the original and current official versions. If you remember, I removed the bonus track listing altogether, when I added the relevant info as text to the section where it was – you are the one who wants it back, but where it doesn't belong. Show me a policy or guideline that says that a track listing for relatively unimportant reissue is necessary or even desirable. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. I don't know of any re-releases that lack bonus tracks alongside the main track listing. Please point out one. Or, as I asked before, please show many any article out of about 300,000 album articles where the re-release tracks are in a separate section. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Well, there's Are You Experienced, Rumours, and several more FAs, which you recently edited and didn't bother with. But what is your point? I said I'VE ALREADY REMOVED IT. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not interested in dragging this out and you don't show any desire to reach a consensus. I think it's time to explore alternatives. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Are_You_Experienced#Track_listing and Rumours_(album)#Track_listing have the bonus tracks listed under the track listing, just like I said. I think you're fundamentally confused here and I sincerely have no idea what you're going on about. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: If you can't see that they're in their own sections, separated by text, etc., and more importantly, that I have repeatedly said am not trying to have a separate bonus track listing, there is no point in continuing this. Ojorojo (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: I still don't know what you want. If you can tell me, I can help you. What about the article do you want to be different? Anything? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Band of Gypsys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Band_of_Gypsys/Archive_2&oldid=947997954"