Talk:The Left Banke

some info on jeff winfield

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_322/jeffwinfield.html

Jeff Winnfield's death gives us a moment to reflect on what a wonderful and underrated band the Left Banke were. I am not usualy a fan of classical influence in rock (because so many of its practicioners use it in a way that is often tedious, bloated, and/or pretentious), but The Left Banke are one huge exception. They proved that it can be done: they did it right--always with a subtle understement and terrific songwriting, tied with a good feel. In my humble opinion, they used classical influence better than anyone in rock, ever. Jeff Winnfield will be missed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Article name: The Left Banke or Left Banke

I have just moved this page back to The Left Banke from Left Banke because there is strong evidence and several "authoritative sources" (to quote WP:MUSTARD) that the word "The" is a part of the band's name. The following excerpts from a discussion on Starbois's talk page are transculded here because they outline why I believe that the article should be housed at "The Left Banke". The discussion also provides what I consider compelling evidence for the word "The" being considered a part of the band's name...

Hi Starbois! I see that you have recently moved The Left Banke to Left Banke, citing the fact that WP doesn't generally put leading articles in titles, unless the article specifically forms part of a proper name. While this is true, in the case of The Left Banke, I would contend that the word "The" does indeed form part of the proper name in exactly the same way as it does in The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Turtles, The Velvet Underground or The Byrds, to list just a few examples. As per the "Names (definite article)" section of WP:MUSTARD - "An authoritative source will determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name." Since the Allmusic website, the artwork on band's own singles and albums (see here), and the majority of the inline citations used in the article itself specify that they are called The Left Banke, I believe that this move was both unnecessary and erroneous. In addition, The Left Banke is a trademarked name and as such, the word "The" should be capitalized at all times as per WP:MOSTM. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My decision that this was a reasonable change was based on:

• The linked page at [1] has a section title "Left Banke references found on the WWW:", not "The Left Banke references found on the WWW:"
• The linked page at [2] starts "Though originally helmed by onetime Left Banke mastermind Michael Brown, Stories ironically ...". No "The" there.
• The linked page at [3] contains the sentence "Due to the nature of their music (which often employed session musicians), the Left Banke's sound was difficult to reproduce on the road, ...". The fact that their 'the' is in lower case suggests the author here thinks that it is not part of the band name.
• roundly a third of the WP references to the article are to Left Banke not The Left Banke despite the fact that the latter was (until my change) the actual title. Given that most competant editors check any doubtful links and ensure they don't link via redirects, that suggests that lots of contributors don't agree with you. -- Starbois (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Starbois! I do still believe that the "The" is a part of the band's name. To counter your three given examples...

• In the first example, the band are named as The Left Banke all over that site, even on that very page you've linked to they are called "The Left Banke" more often than not - in fact, the website itself is called The Left Banke Fan Page. It's also worth noting that this is a fan page and therefore probably shouldn't be used as an "authoritative source", to quote WP:MUSTARD.

• In the Second example, the lack of "The" is just a grammatical necessity caused by the structure of that particular sentence. Dropping the word "The" isn't grammatically incorrect and is certainly possible but that doesn't mean that "The" isn't part of the band name. For example, you could substitute Left Banke for "Rolling Stones" or "Velvet Underground" or "Byrds" in that sentence and it would still work grammatically. This in no way means that the word "The" isn't a part of those band's names, just as it doesn't for The Left Banke either. It's just a peculiarity of that particular sentence.

• Your third example just demonstrates Allmusic's in-house style when it comes to band names beginning with "The". Simply put, on the Allmusic site, all mid-sentence usage of a band name beginning with "The" requires the leading article to not be capitalized. This is just the Allmusic in-house style, as can be seen on the website's articles on The Beatles or The Byrds for instance. However, the fact that the word "the" is used in the band name in every occurrence - even the page heading is The Left Banke - supports my assertion that the word "The" is a part of the band's name. Allmusic can definitely be considered an "authoritative source" on this, as can the band's own album and single artwork (linked to above), which also uniformly names them as The Left Banke.

As for what to do about this, I feel that the case for reverting the page move is pretty strong and I am planning to do so. However, I will, with your permission, copy this discussion to the article's talk page for future reference. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do go ahead and revert my change. And copy this to the talk page. -- Starbois (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So, this was the rational and discussion that resulted in my moving the page back to The Left Banke. Personally, I believe that this is the correct namespace for it but I am open to dissenting views. If you disagree with this or even if you agree - please feel free to discuss it here and hopefully we can get a feel for WP consensus on the matter. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Location

I've been in a protracted, somewhat heated debate with "Kohoutek1138" about the way the location is displayed in this article. Instead of rehashing it, I'm going to copy our discussion from my talk page to this one where it belongs. In a nutshell, "New York City, New York" is incorrect. Kohoutek1138 seems to think that "New York, New York" refers to the state twice, though I don't understand why. It refers to first the town, or city, and then the state, as any other address would. I've supplied several external sources to make my point, while Kohoutek1138 hasn't provided any and seems content to ignore mine, as well as anything else that contradicts his point of view. He's also taken to making false allegations, namely, that I've "threatened" him, which I have not. I invite everyone to review the facts and decide for themselves whether or not this is true.

I've just reverted the band's origin location back to New York City. Firstly, the band was based in New York City in New York State. Secondly, if you say that they were based in New York, New York it means that they were based in New York State in New York State—which is obviously nonsensical. Thirdly, by putting New York, New York, you're overlinking as per WP:OVERLINK. I've also added an inline reference, stating that the band originated specifically from New York City.

You see, this is what I mean about edit warring...you knew that I'd reverted this change at least once before, if not twice, yet you still failed to open any kind of dialogue with me about it or seek consensus. Instead you prefer to continuously revert the article, tit for tat. As for the brusque and threatening tone of your replies, I would avoid seeking Admin intervention for the time being because that should be a last resort. I'd much rather we just edit in a co-operative manner and follow Wikipedia guidelines on civility and communicating. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. The name of the place is "New York, New York", though it's also sometimes referred to as New York City, to distinguish it from the state, in sentences in which the state is not also referred to, which is obviated by the town and state having the same name. New York is the name of the town, or city, as well as the county and state. http://www.placenames.com/us/p975772/ It doesn't mean or imply "New York State, New York State". It's New York (town), New York (state), just as one would refer to any town in any state. If you had looked in the notes, you would have seen that I provided a link to New York's Central Post Office, which lists their address as "New York, New York", as do all of the USPS locations in New York. If the USPS doesn't know the name of the place, I don't know who does. This disambiguation page lists it correctly, where it says: "New York, New York is the city of New York, in the U.S. state of New York".

I left a link in the notes. I thought that would be sufficient.

As I've already said, show me one sentence in which I threatened you and I'll close my account, and if you honestly feel that you've been threatened, seek administrative intervention immediately. It's you who have been threatening me. What you've mistaken for a brusque tone is simply directness. Ciao. Jetblack500 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• • sigh** Yes, of course I know that New York City is often referred to as New York but on Wikipedia, where the article about the city is titled "New York City", an un-piped link to that article will read New York City. It's obvious that you wouldn't use New York twice in the infobox because both are the same thing on Wikipedia – i.e. the state, not the city. Do you understand? You were linking to the same article twice. You could use a link to "New York, New York" like on the disambiguation page but that just redirects to the "New York City" article anyway...which only goes to prove my point. I really don't believe that you're failing to grasp this concept...which leads me to conclude that you're simply trying to be difficult about this. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly the opposite. New York is often referred to as New York City, "to distinguish it from the state of New York", as it's used in the title of the article on Wikipedia, the first paragraph of which I just quoted. However, the correct nomenclature when designating both the city and state is "New York, New York" - never "New York City, New York". It's a matter of context.

Ideally the article should be titled "New York, New York" and "New York City" should be redirected to it, though it doesn't matter much, because it's being used to distinguish between the city and state. Ultimately, the title of other wiki articles and the way in which they redirect is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether "New York City, New York" is correct or incorrect. Now do you understand what the issue is?

Of course you can use "New York, New York" in the infobox. One can link to the city and the other to the state, like this: New York, New York. If I linked to the state page twice, it was accidental.

The USPS http://usps.whitepages.com/service/post_office/james-a-farley-421-8th-ave-new-york-ny-1433785, the Chamber of Commerce http://www.manhattancc.org/common/11001/default.cfm?clientID=11001&thispage=homepage, Madison Square Garden http://www.visitingdc.com/new-york/madison-square-garden-address.asp, the Empire State Building http://www.visitingdc.com/new-york/empire-state-building-address.asp, Saint Patrick's Cathedral http://www.saintpatrickscathedral.org/homepage/home.html and City Hall http://www.nyc.com/arts__attractions/city_hall.1318/editorial_review.aspx all list it as "New York, New York". Do you have any comparable external sources for "New York City, New York"? Please let me know if you can find one, outside of Wikipedia.

I'm not failing to grasp anything, and I'm not the one being difficult. Just because you mask your aggression in passive aggressive "**sighs**" and dubious conclusions regarding my intentions doesn't mean you're not being aggressive. If I wasn't acting in "good faith", I never would have wasted my time with this ridiculous argument. Jetblack500 15:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But the fact remains that the New York City article on Wikipedia is titled just that and therefore its obvious that you would link directly to that article. Far from being irrelevant, the title of other wiki articles and where they redirect, proves that New York City is the correct article to link to. There's absolutely no need for a piped link in this case. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an external source for "New York City, New York" or not? Jetblack500 13:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have this page watchlisted I've been watching this debate. My suggestion would be New York City alone, without the state, no disambiguation required. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, the location should read "New York, New York", as my many sources indicate, though "New York City", by itself, would also be acceptable. There's already consensus to change it to "New York City", but I'd like to see what others think before changing it. Please bear in mind that this debate is exclusively about whether "New York, New York" or "New York City, New York" is correct, not anything else. "The title of other wiki articles and where they redirect" have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Finally, I consider Kohoutek1138's approach to this debate, as well as my previous edits of this article, a case of Wikipedia:WikiBullying. It's a serious problem on Wikipedia that really needs to stop.

Thank you. Jetblack500 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, let's have less of the accusations of WikiBullying and a bit more civility and assuming good faith. This talk page is for discussions relating directly to improving the article, not for detailing conflicts between editors as stated at WP:TALK. I would, however, like to address this comment by Jetblack500: "Kohoutek1138 seems to think that "New York, New York" refers to the state twice, though I don't understand why." Firstly this is completely untrue...you know precisely why because I have explained it to you on your own talk page. You removed a link to New York City, New York and replaced it with one for New York, New York, which overlinks to the New York State article twice. After I had twice removed this nonsensical overlinking and you had twice reinserting it, you claimed it was a mistake on your part with this talk page edit. So please, don't go pretending that you don't understand my rational for suggesting that it was incorrect to list the band's hometown in this way.

Anyway, on to the matter in hand...I feel that the correct way to list the hometown of this band on Wikipedia is New York City, New York, as used in many other Wikipedia articles on New York City based bands, from Blondie and Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five to The Strokes. Wwwhatsup's suggestion of simply linking to New York City is certainly a good compromise but the Template:Infobox musical artist page does specify that a state should be listed as well, although we could certainly turn a blind eye to that. I'd be very interested in hearing what other editors have to say about this matter. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Stop distorting and obfuscating the truth. Your exact words were "Secondly, if you say that they were based in New York, New York it means that they were based in New York State in New York State—which is obviously nonsensical." Hello?

As you well know, the issue is, or has been, whether the listing should read "New York, New York" or "New York City, New York", with you doggedly insisting that it be "New York City, New York". The issue isn't and never has been the link. Stop with the smoke and mirrors already, while hiding behind concepts like "assuming good faith" and "civility", when your own words and actions have violated both.

What the Blondie and Grandmaster Flash pages articles say is irrelevant. Just because a mistake is made in one article on wiki doesn't mean it should be repeated. I can cite New York based articles that list it many different ways. That doesn't mean they're correct. You might try reading the many external sources that I provided, like the USPS, City Hall and the Chamber of Commerce. Jetblack500 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetblack500 (talk • contribs)

No. The issue has always been, at least partly, your overlinking to New York State twice as you well know and as I adequately explained on your talk page with my sentence "Thirdly, by putting New York, New York, you're overlinking as per WP:OVERLINK." You replied to this sentence by saying "If I linked to the state page twice, it was accidental." So please stop pretending that you don't understand the issue here.

Yes, I realise that anywhere else the most common way of referring to New York City in New York State would be by saying New York, New York but my point is that on Wikipedia if you link to New York twice, as you did, it takes you to the same article. The examples you provided from the USPS, City Hall, and Chamber of Commerce websites are irrelevant here because the issue is not whether New York, New York is correct, it's whether New York, New York is the best and clearest way of displaying the band's origin in the infobox on Wikipedia.

Just to be absolutely clear on this point...no-one is suggesting that saying New York, New York is wrong, just that it's not ideal on Wikipedia, especially if you link to the New York State article twice. Yes, you could have a piped link to New York City hidden within New York but really, a piped link is totally unnecessary when an article with the exact title we need (i.e. New York City) exists. The more I think about this, the more I think that the only way to resolve this to our mutual satisfaction is to simply put New York City, United States in the infobox. Would you support this? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor Sam Kogon is not a member of The Left Banke

Sam Kogon keeps editing himself into the Left Banke story. He was in a failed band that George Cameron tried putting together after the 2011-2013 lineup broke up. He was a not a part of their history or their legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:AB81:1B00:2981:6A5E:CCEC:AD6B (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)