Talk:Missing Links Volume Two
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Missing Links 2.jpg
[edit]
Image:Missing Links 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Missing Links Volume Two - The Monkees.jpg
[edit]Image:Missing Links Volume Two - The Monkees.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Down the Highway, recorded in 1968?
[edit]I was reading The Monkees' recording session information here, and apparently I can only find evidence of Down the Highway being recorded in 1969. Exactly where is the information that suggests that it was recorded in 1968, or is it an error and that it was actually recorded in 1969? Or was it started in 1968 and finished in 1969? -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also the information here states that it was recorded in 1968. Exactly which information is correct? I'm confused. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've done some research on several sites - The Wikipedia, The Monkees Music Vault, The Monkees Sessionography, and The Sunshine Factory. The Sunshine Factory says 1968, The Sessionography, The Music Vault and the Wikipedia says 1969. The Missing Links Volume Two page on the Wikipedia previously said 1968 but I changed it to 1969, because the other pages on the Wikipedia said that it was 1969. The hints that it was 1969 outdo the hints that it was 1968.
- And now that I come to think of it, the selection of session musicians that played on "Down the Highway" more closely resemble those that were selected to play on the songs Michael Nesmith arranged in June 1969. I'd say the possibility that it was June 1968 seems unlikely, because according to the session information of the other songs recorded in May - June 1968, the sessions that Nesmith produced would most likely have taken place in Nashville. And Down the Highway was not recorded in Nashville, it was recorded in Hollywood. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, we never use one Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article. Never. That is circular referencing. In cases where reliable sources differ, we don't try to resolve the dispute in Wikipedia's voice. Instead, we say something like "some sources say the song was recorded in 1968, while others say 1969", providing citations for both dates. Your observations about the various session musicians are original research which can't be used on Wikipedia, even if they are plausible. In conclusion, a Wikipedia article should summarize only what reliable sources say about the topic. Nothing more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. Well pretty much everything I've contributed to the wiki pages (not including my suggestions on a few of the talk pages) is not original research. I changed the date from 1968 to 1969 because I was able to find more non-original research that suggested / supported the latter date. I will do my best not to counter what you've suggested and / or said. The reason I didn't write "some sources say the song was recorded in 1968, while others say 1969" was because I wasn't sure I'd get away with writing such a sentence. My observations about the various session musicians may be original research but --- just so we're clear --- the information I contributed to the pages about what session musicians participated in the recordings of what songs is not original research. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- You may want to see how I resolved a date of birth controversy at Harry Yount. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think you could specify which revision you're talking about? You've done lots of revisions on that page. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- The current version, which reads: "There are conflicting accounts of Harry Yount's place and date of birth. Ernest Ingersoll wrote that he was born in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and different birth years have been mentioned by various writers, such as the anonymous author of a published biographical sketch who wrote that Yount was born in 1847, and Thomas J. Bryant, who interviewed Yount in the latter years of his life and speculated that 1837 was his birth date in an article published in the Annals of Wyoming, journal of the Wyoming State Historical Society. However, research undertaken by William R. Supernaugh, an employee of the National Park Service, found military enlistment papers, Yount's Army pension file, and the 1840 United States Census records, all of which indicate that Yount was born on March 18, 1839." I provided references for all of that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The current version, which reads: "There are conflicting accounts of Harry Yount's place and date of birth. Ernest Ingersoll wrote that he was born in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and different birth years have been mentioned by various writers, such as the anonymous author of a published biographical sketch who wrote that Yount was born in 1847, and Thomas J. Bryant, who interviewed Yount in the latter years of his life and speculated that 1837 was his birth date in an article published in the Annals of Wyoming, journal of the Wyoming State Historical Society. However, research undertaken by William R. Supernaugh, an employee of the National Park Service, found military enlistment papers, Yount's Army pension file, and the 1840 United States Census records, all of which indicate that Yount was born on March 18, 1839." I provided references for all of that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think you could specify which revision you're talking about? You've done lots of revisions on that page. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 20:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- You may want to see how I resolved a date of birth controversy at Harry Yount. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. Well pretty much everything I've contributed to the wiki pages (not including my suggestions on a few of the talk pages) is not original research. I changed the date from 1968 to 1969 because I was able to find more non-original research that suggested / supported the latter date. I will do my best not to counter what you've suggested and / or said. The reason I didn't write "some sources say the song was recorded in 1968, while others say 1969" was because I wasn't sure I'd get away with writing such a sentence. My observations about the various session musicians may be original research but --- just so we're clear --- the information I contributed to the pages about what session musicians participated in the recordings of what songs is not original research. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, we never use one Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article. Never. That is circular referencing. In cases where reliable sources differ, we don't try to resolve the dispute in Wikipedia's voice. Instead, we say something like "some sources say the song was recorded in 1968, while others say 1969", providing citations for both dates. Your observations about the various session musicians are original research which can't be used on Wikipedia, even if they are plausible. In conclusion, a Wikipedia article should summarize only what reliable sources say about the topic. Nothing more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)