Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bob Dylan

Welcome to the discussion page of the Bob Dylan WikiProject !

Bob Dylan project templates

In adding project tags to articles, I've noticed most Dylan talk pages already have Album and Rock templates. Before forging ahead, I thought I'd ask if it would be okay to use the ProjectBannerShell template to "package" the three more neatly. I've already done this on the New Morning discussion page as a test case, and as with the banner above, I also included the Talkheader template. Feedback? Allreet (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"WikiProjectBannerShell is normally used when more than two or fewer than six banners are present on the talk page, and WikiProjectBanners when six or more are present." - "Usage" section on "Template:WikiProject Banner Shell".

Go right ahead - you don't need our approval! It certainly will make the banners easier to navigate. I.M.S. (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Section Headings at "Bob Dylan" Article

I'd like to bring back up the discussion of the section headings on the Bob Dylan article. Does anyone have any suggestions for better ones? The current ones sound like they're from a critic's biography of Dylan, not an encyclopedia. I don't even think they have much to do with the subject of the sections themselves. Any ideas? I.M.S. (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the titles are fine, e.g. "Motorcycle accident and reclusion" and "Born again period". The subtitles used for the decades are the offenders. Simplest would be to drop them since each decade has multiple themes that couldn't be captured in a few words, plus there's nothing at all wrong with using the decades by themselves. Allreet (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the decade headings are what I meant (keep the years, of course, but the titles can go). I think that the titles are understandable, perhaps, to people like us who have a great knowledge and understanding of Dylan. To people who don't know much about the man, or are just researching him, though, they hold very little meaning. As I said before, these might be names I'd use as chapter titles on a biography I wrote about Dylan, but not in an encyclopedia. If no one has any problems with it, I'll go ahead and take off the decade titles. I.M.S. (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This has come up at least twice: check out "Unencyclopedic?" in Archives 7 and "Headings" in Archives 8. I personally believe somewhat they may not be NPOV; for example, "Trust Yourself" presents the 80s in a positive light whereas if the title were, say, "What Good Am I?" that'd be a different story. However, some editors have felt strongly that the headings should remain. If you want to remove them I would post a message in Talk: Bob Dylan and be prepared for some resistance. Moisejp (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Article assessment table . . . and a list of articles within reach of GA/FA?

Does anyone know how to add one of those nifty article assessment tables (not sure if that's their official name) like the one we see here Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_York_City#Article assessment? Lots of project pages seem to have them, and as we get further along in working towards improving more and more articles it'd be a handy way to follow the progress we're making. Moisejp (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what other members had in mind when they joined this project, but one thing I'd specifically like to work towards is having more FAs and GAs among the Dylan articles. It is these whose quality is officially recognized by the Wikipedia community/institution, and from that point of view for me personally it'd be satisfying to see more Dylan articles achieve this official recognition. I could be wrong, but I believe so far only Bob Dylan is FA and Like a Rolling Stone is GA (have I missed any?). Right now we have a "To-do list," which is great, but another idea would be to have a list of articles that are withing reach of GA, or eventually FA, that interested editors could focus on to bring it up to the next level. When Bob Dylan was up for FAR, a lot of editors came together and resolved issues with the article and we maintained the FA status, and that was really satisfying. I'd be really happy to get to work with other editors to focus on other articles within reach of GA or FA. I'm not sure how other people in this group work, but for me it can get lonely and discouraging to work on improving an article by myself, whereas if other people are working together and encouraging each other and multiple people are contributing ideas, it can be really motivating. Now, I don't know how other people feel, and I don't want to push this group to aggressively pursue GAs and FAs if others aren't into that. Of

course, one difference between the FAR and any articles we targeted for improvement is that the FAR had a time limit, whereas if we target certain articles we can take our time. Still, yeah, for me personally, with the way I work and am motivated, I think I can contribute most if there are clearly specified targets (for example, a list of articles to try to bring up to GA) that other editors are also working towards. But again, that's just me. What do others think about all of this? Moisejp (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your first post: It's not that hard - I've done one before. I'll set one up for WPDylan in a bit, but it will take a while. You have to create a few categories and get a bot set up to collect all Dylan articles into those categories, which takes some time (and the bot only runs three times a day).

That's great, whenever you have time, it's much appreciated! Moisejp (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your next post: That's a very good idea. I was actually working on a "collaboration" area, which would be something along the lines of this:

---

Note: This space was occupied by our project's collaboration area - the said area can now be found further down the page. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

---

It would have it's own sub-page of the main WP page, where we could discuss our main focus (i.e., this month's collaboration) and share ways to improve it. Is that something along the lines of what you were thinking? I.M.S. (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, that could be a good way to do it. I don't have any better ideas off the top of my head, but in the next couple of days I'll try to look at some other project pages to see how they do it. One thing is that a month is kind of an arbitrary amount of time and we may not be able to get the targeted article up to snuff before the month is up. Depending how busy people are and how much work needs to be done on it, we may need to keep the month's collaboration up longer. But that is a small issue. Otherwise your idea sounds really good. Moisejp (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The suggestions above are great, and other ideas abound. The sky's the limit. Yet so little time, so much to do. A few random thoughts:

• As suggested above, prioritize the road toward GAs/FAs based on article assessments. Top importance articles first, then High, etc.
• In addition to the assessments chart, a list of issues for each article would be helpful as we go along, not long dissections, but brief, bullet-by-bullet descriptions that editors can add to and use as a road map/tick list. In that regard, I like I.M.S.'s suggestion about a sub-page from an article's main page or talk page. This would keep page notes/tasks/discussions separate from day-to-day talk and greatly improve communications between editors.
• Also set up a resources sub-page from the Project page for editors to post and share web and print sources for use in research and as citations. I've done something like this on article talk pages to help other editors. The sources display like references, but on the edit page I included a pre-built citation (commented out so it wouldn't display) with each reference. Since the weakest aspect of most Dylan pages is a lack of cites and since a fair number of sources will be used again and again, this would save an immense amount of time/grunt work in terms of digging for sources and creating the citations.
• Print sources that aren't available through Google books pose a challenge. Books are usually the most reliable of sources, yet few if any of us can afford to own everything. I don't know what to suggest, other than to point out that collaborations would benefit if team members had a collective wealth of information between them. For example, I have Gray, Sounes and Hadju, and I know my collaborators have Heylin, Shelton and Scaduto. If I'm curious what a particular source might have to say on something or if I'm merely on a fishing expedition, I could ask my mates for what they might have. It's not as simple as that, but it does highlight the need to develop ways to streamline and broaden the scholarship.

That's all I have to offer for now, other than to say I'm thrilled with the possibilities, daunted by the realities. P.S. I hope nobody minds but I just replaced what was originally posted - I thought I had clicked Show Preview, but when I returned later to finish (I wrote this in Notepad), I was surprised to see what I now replaced. Allreet (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

All great ideas, Allreet. And good job on adding those WikiProject banner shells! I.M.S. (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot is running right now, soon we'll have that assessment table up. I.M.S. (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what it looks like:

Bob Dylan articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	5	2	1				8
GA	3	14	14	16			47
B	5	5	7	6			23
C	11	20	28	32			91
Start	2	11	54	165		1	233
Stub		4	15	67			86
List		4	4	3			11
Category					49		49
Disambig					1		1
File					48		48
Project					5		5
Template					13		13
NA			2	38	32		72
Assessed	26	60	125	327	148	1	687
Total	26	60	125	327	148	1	687
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 2,208			Ω = 4.52

- I.M.S. (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks great!! Moisejp (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Songs template

It appears to me that the Bob Dylan template is big enough as it is, but fails to mention, probably the most important thing for a songwriter - the songs. How about a second template for either Bob Dylan singles or, my favourite, Notable Bob Dylan songs. I prefer the second option because so many of his songs were brought to prominence by other artists. Comments? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a "Bob Dylan Songs" task force? I.M.S. (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at the moment, we don't have enough helpers to sub-divide us! --Richhoncho (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just adjusted the project banner - what do you think about it? I.M.S. (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I was talking about creating another template for the songs to appear on the article pages, rather than anything to do with the project pages. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand you - that's why I suggested a task force, so we could have our own banner. I also added those categories to the banner to make the WP's scope clearer. So, do you think a Task Force is a good idea later on down the road? I.M.S. (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Shall we keep the idea under wraps until we have a few people to join the sub-group? Not sure I'd join a sub-group myself. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What I have done.

Just so nobody wastes time trying to do what I have already done. I have covered all of from 4 to M inclusive of Category:Songs written by Bob Dylan adding the Bob Dylan template to the article if necessary and the WPProject template to the talk page. Please change my assessments if you disagree. No harm would be done. I have also amended the Bob Dylan template so the related articles shows the different cats for Songs recorded BD by and Songs written by BD. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work! I.M.S. (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

List of artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs.

Could you all have a look at User:Richhoncho/Artists recording Dylan songs as a possible replacement for the present layout. I can't say I can't think of improvements or variations, so please comment, cheers, --Richhoncho (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the table format a lot: the sortability (a biggie), compactness, and ability to add the year. Tables also prevent editors from adding extraneous detail, a common cleanup problem with lists. Two downsides that pop to mind are the loss of the original's alphabet for navigation and visual aesthetic, the first of which is important, the second relative. Also, it's a bit harder to add to and police a table; for example, you have to include the table elements with each entry, a minor annoyance, and in tracking new entries, edit histories help by providing the names of the subsections updated. The only improvement I can think of other than some way to retain alphabet navigation (probably not possible with any of the available table formats) is to include album titles, which is pertinent and would only be problematic in terms of songs that appear on multiple albums, as with the Byrds. One issue related to this that needs to be resolved is citations. I have a moderately longstanding issue regarding citations in lists; I'm militant about

cites everywhere else, but feel they bloat lists and that song/album material is easily referenceable without them. That's pretty much Critique 101, the abstract being that I'm 65-35 in favor of the change and 100 percent inspired by your desire to innovate. Allreet (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to create an alpha table without a sortable option. Or to add album details in the present format. Album details I assume would only refer to the first release of the song, not every subsequent release. The reason I like the sortable version is you can see dates and who recorded what if required, and would give a very good excuse to remove the trivial covers from the song articles. BTW My test page now has over 100 artists and 100 songs and nearly as many errors!

Further thoughts. I think this article (irrespective of presentation) is a key part of defining the importance of BD. Without wearing my pro-BD hat he's still probably in the Top 10 of most important songwriters, if I put the hat on, there's no contest! I am almost tempted to suggest we list the genre of each version. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Top 10? More like Top .001!

Responding seriously, I think your chart looks great, and, if you add the alpha table and tweak it a bit, it should certainly replace the original. I.M.S. (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can overcome the problems that are created by sortable tables. How about having TWO list articles (both in unsortable table form) one "Bob Dylan songs recorded by other artists" listing the artists under the song and "Artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs" listing the songs under the artist (as present format). I am happy to do either providing we have a concensus amongst ourselves. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a previous list of Dylan songs recorded by other artists (the "original" you're talking about, right?). Could you tell me where this is located so I can better understand the changes you are proposing? Thanks a lot! Moisejp (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

List of artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs. If that's what's you're referring to as the "original". Allreet (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Moisejp (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Article ratings and importance

Regarding article ratings and importance, I see Allreet has has gone through a bunch of them (I only looked at some of the album ratings, so I'm not sure the extent you may have done this to the vast number of other articles). Thanks for doing that, Allreet. I noticed that often (but not always) the importance was made consistent between the Bob Dylan and Rock Music and Albums projects. It was my understanding of how things work that the ratings shouldn't necessarily be consistent. What may be of high importance in Dylan's career may be, say, mid importance in the history of rock music. I didn't go through all of them but one that I noticed in particular was The Basement Tapes, which I changed to High importance (could possibly even be Top?) in the Dylan project but left as Mid in the other two. I'm not sure if there may be other cases like that where the importance should be different among the different projects, but there very likely are. Moisejp (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Very valid point, Moisejp. For example, "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" is one of Dylan's best known songs, so it merits a "High". However, is it extremely important to rock music as a whole? Probably not, so it gets a "Mid" on that scale. With something like "Like a Rolling Stone", however, it merits a "Top" on both scales, as it is important to both of those subjects as a whole.

You may want to add those points to the Guide to Tagging and Assessing Dylan Articles. I.M.S. (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, good idea. I'll do that in the next day or two when I get a chance, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Moisejp and I.M.S.: I think there might be some confusion regarding what I did - add project banners to all the albums and so far, 50-plus songs. Except for a handful of cases, the ratings for project BD had already been added by the time I got to the talk pages. If they were missing (rare), I did my best to enter them, and in the few cases where I changed existing ratings, I almost exclusively increased them but only after a reading of the associated article. Along the way, I did notice a fair number of ratings that were the same between categories, but I figured many of these were the result of the limited rating system we're using; for example, a song might deserve a Rock rating that's a high Low and the Dylan rating might be a high Mid, but both could end up rated Mid, depending how conservative or generous the different raters were in making their assessments. I also noticed a fair number of Dylan ratings

that I thought were debatable but didn't change, chalking them up to similar quirks and feeling we'd eventually sort things out as more editors reviewed the class and rating category pages. Anyway, the edit histories tell the tale, plus I documented everything I added or changed in my edit summaries.

Ultimately I'm not too concerned about the ratings in and of themselves - it's not like conferring Grammys. I see the ratings as a tool to help us get a handle on one part of this immense project. Looking at that, I wish we had something similar for other facets, notability being one of the more crucial. Most articles I reviewed are littered with trivial or questionable material that is going to be nearly impossible to remove or re-work, while information of higher

importance is missing but is going to be all the more difficult to weave in because the marginal detail is in the way. A rating or assessment system would be most welcomed there, for example, identifying facts of undeniable importance (Top), lesser facts that are also indispensible (High), pertinent supportive detail (Mid), and information of little value to the reader's understanding of the subject at hand (Low). That may seem far-fetched or unnecessary, but without some measure of objectivity and common sense, I'm afraid the road ahead will be paved with low-level struggles rather than productive ones. Allreet (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Allreet, there will be discrepancies and room for possible argument about ratings - which is why I said if anybody disagreed with one of my ratings they were welcome to change it, I wouldn't mind (see above). At this stage I think it is more important to have the Dylan-related articles tagged as such. If we want to discuss ratings perhaps later on the relevant category page? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Allreet, sorry if I mistook those changes for yours. I probably didn't look carefully enough at the histories. I agree that there may be disagreements about ratings and you two are probably right that as more editors view more pages we'll likely get ratings that reflect consensus.

About your idea for deciding which details within the article are important or not, I don't see any easy way to do that except as a team tackling them one at a time and talking through it on each article's discussion page. When we get a list going of priority articles that some of us want to work together on, we'll just have to discuss as a group what is important and what's not. Well, building from your idea, maybe someone could copy and paste the article onto the discussion page (or a new, separate page) and different editors could put (H)'s, (M)'s and (L)'s throughout. For example (making up some imaginary sentences here): "Some critics said it was his best album since Planet Waves,(M-Moisejp)(L-Allreet)(M-Richhoncho) but it was until then his worst-selling album since Self Portrait. (H-Moisejp)(L-Allreet)(L-Richhoncho)" I don't know if that'd work but we could try it out at least once and see how it goes. Moisejp (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to make it clear that I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone - I think that Allreet, Moisejp, Richhoncho, Mickgold and others have all made great contributions to WP Dylan. When I said "valid point', I was referring to the fact that all articles don't deserve the same importance rating on different WPs' scales, as you all have been discussing above. I.M.S. (talk)

I certainly didn't take it that way. With a cursory glance I felt some articles may not have been rated as I would have done (including some of the ones I rated! LOL), but we could spend so much discussing relative importance that we forget to do the important work - raising the standard of all BD related articles. I also think if there is an article I want to raise the importance of I'd better work on that article quick and establish it's importance myself. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take it that way either, I.M.S., so don't worry about that. By the way, I have added the precision we talked about above (about importance ratings not having to be consistent among different projects). Please everybody feel free to tweak it or add a specific example. Moisejp (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

I'm working on the WP collaboration right now - I'd like to create a page and get it started by the end of this month. It would probably be located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bob Dylan/Collaboration (please do not create quite yet). I was thinking of how we could all specialize in different things (e.g., someone could focus on citations, another on just prose). Or, on the other side of the spectrum, it could be very free form and loose. Any opinions, ideas, etc? I.M.S. (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work so far! I wouldn't separate writing prose from citing refs. I think they go together. When you find the appropriate cite/ref in a Dylan interview or a Dylan biography or a newspaper report, that influences how you can phrase it. Maybe simply a list of priority Dylan articles requiring attention is useful way to proceed? Editors can join in & edit, according to their specialist knowledge and interests. Mick gold (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Showing Off

Because it's so simple to do after my earlier trials and tribulations, I have added a sortable table of all articles tagged as WP Dylan, together with their importance rating and categorised whether an individual, a song, an album etc. Rather than discussions about ratings hopefully it will jog a few minds about what should be added to the project. See Category talk:Bob Dylan articles by importance. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Beatles songs

Taking a lead from the above list, I have started a similar list for Bob. Again, comments and criticisms are welcome. There's a sample at User:Richhoncho/Artists recording Dylan songs. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

NB. Please feel free to test/save in situ. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Richhoncho. One idea might be to start with officially released songs, because they are the simplest and most straightforward to reference. Although many unreleased songs have been well documented, verifiable information about other ones may be more difficult to find, and at a certain point it could be tricky to know where to draw the line between definite information and less definite info. But I'm not saying we should avoid the unreleased songs altogether, I just mean might as well start with the most clearly defined ones, i.e. the officially released ones. Another idea idea would be to put his unreleased songs on a separate list. The officially released songs will be "low maintenance." On the list of unreleased songs there will be people, including some editors who are not regular contributors to the list, who will sometimes try to add any number of rumoured or poorly documented songs, sometimes without giving references, and so this list will require more constant supervision and be "high maintenance." Thus, I feel it'd be better to get the list of released songs out of the way and under control first, and then we won't have to worry about them as much as we give our attention to maintaining the other list. Moisejp (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

All good and wise points. I will put aside all Dylan unreleased material for later use, especially having taken a look at basement tapes outtakes, Complete minefield! Not only that it will be an extremely long list in any event. I'll keep beavering away and look forward to any further comments. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

2nd major query. Do I list every song on every album, i.e. "Like a Rolling Stone" is on nearly every compilation album, 2 different studio versions, and several live versions? Then there are songs which are only released as live songs i.e. "The Water is Wide" If I only list the primary releases I finish up with albums which only have one or two entries in the list, if I list every release then I have numerous entries for the same song, or should I list say, the 2 studio versions of LARS, I suppose I could list every different recording and add each album it was released on. This way I would finish up with LARS in 3 time from Bootleg 1-3, LARS primary release on H61R and greatest hits albums AND an entry for each different live version. Suggestions? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother listing the same version of the same song over and over. I might, however, list different versions, and mark them accordingly (Version 1, Version 2 - then make a note at the bottom of the page - or state directly what they are, e.g., "Bootleg, 1971"). - I.M.S. (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Moisejp has hit the nail on the head, and leave the bootlegs alone for the time being. I've done all the songs from the 1st 3 albums and the Bootleg series 1-3 and loaded to the above page - already a couple of songs have duplicate entries with live versions, alternate takes etc. Anyway I'll keep it on my page until we can think about taking it elsewhere - so barring lots of work (more than I anticipated), no harm is done yet. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Don't hurt yourself, though, trying to dig up all unreleased tracks if you do decide to go in that direction. Good Luck! I'll be happy to lend a hand if you need help. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the source somewhere in my attic, although I decided I had enough live versions of LARS and AATW et al long time ago. LOL --Richhoncho (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidance please. I am listing all these songs and I really need to identify the proposed name of the list, would it be "Songs written by BD," "Songs recorded by BD," Songs written and recorded by Bob Dylan," "Songs recorded in the studio by BD," and I'm sure there's a few other options, including the possibility of more than one list. But here's the rub, whatever is chosen there are songs omitted. Any ideas? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration - A Thought

I'm starting to have second thoughts as to my creation of the "Collaboration Page". Perhaps it would be a whole lot easier and simpler if it was located here, on this talk page. Does anyone Agree/Disagree? - I.M.S. (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the number of active contributors gets larger I think a collaboration page is more wishful thinking than any use. So, it could be a great idea, but not quite yet. IMO. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll probably just strike out the page, and keep it for archival purposes until enough interest stirs. I'll go ahead and move the collaboration area to the talk page - if everyone agrees, this will be the "official" location until we decide otherwise. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Project Collaboration

After much confusion, this is the final "resting place" of the collaboration area. It is now active - please add on and help it grow!

---

This Month's Collaboration - "Like a Rolling Stone"

• Add your name to the list below if interested in joining

1. I.M.S.
2. Mick gold
3. Rlendog
4. Moisejp
5. Allreet

Goals (add one if you like, strike if accomplished):

• General cleanup and maintenance
• Improve to an article worthy of FA-class stance
• Take it to FAR and get it passed

I have re-written Like a Rolling Stone with additional quotes from Jules Siegel & Marvin Bronstein, CBC. Mick gold (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleaning up of "Like a Rolling Stone" and added an image. Also, I put a couple of questions on the discussion page. If anybody has the references to address these issues (Mick gold, or anyone else?), please do. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed that people were adding to this section! Great job, everyone. Should we move this area to the main page, or is it better suited here? - I.M.S. (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice pic, Moisejp. It might sit better on main page: This Month's Collaboration. I had uneasy feeling I was not in the right place, when I added my comment. What do others think? Mick gold (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and move it to the main page. I.M.S. (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's now been moved. I'll leave this message up for a few hours, but to avoid confusion I'll delete this section after that. All the previous conversation will be preserved on the main page and on the new collaboration page. You can find that page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bob Dylan/Collaboration. Does that sound alright? - I.M.S. (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

New comments begin here:

The section is now moved! - I.M.S. (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration Template

I just created this template for collaboration projects:

{{Dylan under construction}}

It would replace the regular "under construction" template. Does anyone have any opinions on this? - I.M.S. (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Bob Dylan songs. Bob Dylan recordings etc...

OK, Too much Bobbing can make you blind. It's too long, and I am tempted to say let's just have a list of Dylan compositions (whether sole or jointly) and to remove different recordings of the same song. At present I "think" I have added all recordings of songs Dylan wrote, only including live if there is no studio recording, but I know I have missed the bonus disc to The Bootleg Series Vol. 8: Tell Tale Signs, but added any song listed in Lyrics: 1962-1985, I need to research other Dylan songs further. There must be more. Have a look at User:Richhoncho/Artists recording Dylan songs and let me have any comments, especially about the proposed article title. BTW, if you want anything added/amended/deleted note it on the discussion page - I have a nice spreadsheet for edits, Easier than in WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If I were you I would remove the multiple recordings of the same song. Do you know about this website: http://www.searchingforagem.com/Starlight/BobUnrel.htm

Dozens and dozens of unreleased Dylan songs are listed. Some are just rumours, but many have been documented here and there. Moisejp (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You have made my mind up, I'll go with "List of songs written by Bob Dylan" use the above link to use as research to confirm and validate additional entries, edit the dupicate entries i.e. one entry for each song, but note different versions are available, but I'll still have the other songs in case anybody things its worth another list. Meanwhile, this will take some time as I am off-line most of the time for the next week, so further comments are welcome. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now Aint The Time for Your Tears

Should this bootleg album have an article about it? Fences&Windows 04:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not that sure. There isn't much info on it online, and it seems that the only reference used in the article is www.bobsboots.com. It isn't that well known of a bootleg album, is it? Let's wait for some other opinions. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tambourine Man

In case anyone is interested in participating, Mr. Tambourine Man is currently under GA review here. I nominated it in September before this project existed and now it has come up for review. 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

November's Collaboration

Any ideas for the next collaboration? Let's get some ideas, and maybe we can have an informal poll to decide. Here are some of my ideas:

• All Along the Watchtower - To GA class
• Blonde on Blonde - A big article that needs a little cleanup, but shows potential for GA
• Bringing It All Back Home - Needs a little cleanup and more citations, but I'd like to see it GA
• Or, a broad focus. We could, for example, create articles for all the songs that don't have one on John Wesley Harding.

Any more ideas? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Anybody? - I.M.S. (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of my ideas, but I don't claim my reasons are necessarily good:

• The Basement Tapes - simply because I've done a certain amount of work on it in the past, and it's a pretty fascinating period in Dylan's life, and I'd be happy to see it get up to GA
• The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan - I know Mick Gold has done a lot of work on this one, so I'd be happy to see it get to GA, too. It has come a long way. But I'm sure lots of you have done lots of work that I haven't followed on many other articles so, again, anybody else's favourite is just as valid as these ones.
• Blood on the Tracks - I haven't had much to do with this one, but it's also a really interesting album in the fact that the two versions were recorded and in its themes, so it'd be really satisfying to have a quality article for this one, as well. Moisejp (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Moisejp, I think The Basement Tapes is a very good idea. It doesn't just deal with an album and the music recorded for it, it also concerns an important concept and moment in Dylan's life, and music as a whole. I'd like to go with that one - but let's see what others say. Perhaps we could get it to FA eventually... - I.M.S. (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So, shall we work on The Basement Tapes? - I.M.S. (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

List of songs written by Bob Dylan

It's finally up. Needs more work, references and into. Probably a few entries to be added. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! I've added a few songs. I'm sure, as you say, there are more to be added. I will try to help some more with entries and references in the coming weeks. Moisejp (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dylan Photo

I just found this very interesting photo on Flickr:

File:Bob Dylan Príncep d'Astúries de les Arts.jpg

What do others think of it? Does anybody know where it was taken (it was posted to Flickr in Spanish, so I can't discern the description). - I.M.S. (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish Wiki says it's "Bob Dylan dietro l'ufficio della Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee di Greenwood, Mississippi, 1963." --Richhoncho (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that it's been double posted - do you think the version I uploaded would be worth keeping as an English equivalent? - I.M.S. (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I notice there's only 5 files in Commons. Also while you remind me I find it strange that there are so many recent photos of Dylan, but nothing circa 65/66. It appears to be something that happens all over WP. I would say there should be a photo from the prime of the artist at least. IMO. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have encountered this problem many times on Wikipedia - I'll be on the lookout for a free image of Dylan from the mid-60s. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability of some Dylan songs

I've added a notability tag to songs which I believe don't express a reason for a seperate article. However some of the songs, such as "Idiot Wind", "Obviously 5 Believers", "Pledging My Time", "To Ramona" etc., I believe notability could be established easily and I will try to improve them. If anyone wants to question my opinion or establish notability for any of the songs I've tagged feel free. Articles like "Dirt Road Blues" have no infomation on them whatsoever so I would suggest an immediate merge with the album article. Any opinions and questions will be welcome. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Some, if not all, of these notability tags are problematic and incorrect. Every officially released Dylan song has detailed coverage in Oliver Trager's Keys to the Rain, for example. Plus, every song from the 60s and early 70s also has detailed coverage in Clinton Heylin's Revolution in the Air. So those two sources alone are enough to establish notability for every song Dylan officially released through 1973 per WP:N. A number of Dylan albums with songs that were tagged, such as Blood on the Tracks have books written about them, covering all the songs, so that plus Trager covers WP:N. Not to mention the numerous other books that cover many of Dylan's songs such as Paul Williams' Bob Dylan: Performing Artist series. So really, every Dylan song at least through the mid 70s easily surpasses Wikipedia's notability requirements, and thus any tag to the contrary ought to be removed. I don't diasagree that these sources should be added to the articles. Of course they should, and the articles should be expanded. But that will take time. In the meantime, there should be no question about the songs' notability. Rlendog (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rlendog is absolutely correct. I have removed all the notability tags, and replaced with either unreferenced or refimprove as appropriate. That leaves the following which have been redirected since 3rd February - Let Me Die In My Footsteps,Tryin' to Get to Heaven, Million Miles, Dirt Road Blues, Can't Wait. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

However the song articles at the moment don't pass the requirements. Non of the ones which I tagged gave info why a song article should be created for them. A song such as All the Tired Horses explained why the song was unnotable - it wasn't sung by Dylan, it only had three lines etc. Just because a song has a vast amount written about it by a biographer doesn't make it notable. The Paolo Nutini song Coming Up Easy was originally redirected for only charting at #62 on the UK charts, these Bob Dylan songs don't express any reason why they're more notable than that. The songs Tryin' to Get to Heaven, Million Miles, Dirt Road Blues, Can't Wait only expressed what album they were from and were redirected by another editor, meaning that it's not just me that thinks some of these songs don't meet the guidelines. If you put yourself in the reader of the articles shoes and hadn't heard of the song before, if you hear yourself saying "so what" when you've read the article I think that should mean it's not notable. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your key word above is "at the moment" and I agree with you "at the moment" the articles do not pass muster, which is why some of the articles already had expand tags, and I have added refimprove, and unreferenced tags. You slapped a notability tag on Idiot Wind, if you don't think that song is notable, or wish to set the standard there, with a highly debated song in independent media, I suggest you look at the surplus entries in Van Morrison and Beach Boys, and I suspect there's a few in The Beatles of less notability. The purpose of this project is to IMPROVE the coverage of Bob Dylan, not destroy it. Dylan is one of the top 10 most important AND influencial songwriters of the 20th century (notwithstanding I think he is the premier songwriter of the 20th Century), complete with a Pulitzer prize (the only songwriter?), therefore his songs are important and notable as a result. Also, I note that IMS created the "to do" as a note to IMPROVE these articles, not destroy them. If you insist on continuing merging I suggest you take them to AfD. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That, I found out is not enough, however; a promise that the article will be notable doesn't make it notable. Most of these articles have not been edited in years, showing that they probably aren't going to improve in the forseeable future. I've made sure that the edit history is still available for the redirected articles so if they are created again the previous contents on the page can be obtained easily and notable info can be added to the article. I recognise the significance of Idiot Wind that's why I've said I'm to improve it on my user page. I too want to improve these articles but if they don't qualify notability then they can't be kept. Kitchen roll (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability attaches to the topic, not the article as it stands at any particular point in time. "Idiot Wind" is a notable song, easily meeting the requirements of WP:NSONGS and WP:N. Even if the article in its construction at a point in time doesn't demostrate that, it doesn't make the subject non-notable. It can lead to questions about its notability being asked, but in the case of most Dylan songs, at least through the 1970s, those questions are easily answered, even if the article isn't expended immediately. Wikipedia has mroe stubs than any other article class. Rlendog (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope this controversy doesn't affect the Van Morrison songs again as I have written the majority of them: [1] and feel like they are notable and I have spent many hours establishing it and adding info and sources. Would be a shame for the work to be wasted. Agadant (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Agadant. I did add a notability tag to 3 Van Morrison songs that Kitchell Roll had edited to make a point, I have no intention of any further adverse edits to Van Morrison, so unless Kitchen Roll now wishes to merge them, they are completely safe! FWIW, if I do add notability/merge tags I *never* complete the merger as WP is a collaboration and my opinion is no more important than the next editor, so, if you think my notability tags are wrong feel free to remove them. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Richhoncho. Thanks for being so honest. It's really appreciated. Agadant (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Richhoncho is refering more to the songs I wrote when I was a less experienced editor and had no idea about the notability guidelines. Songs such as "You Make Me Feel So Free", "Call Me Up in Dreamland", "Brand New Day (Van Morrison song)" etc. I hope anyway.

Also I added the notability tag in hope I would get some attention to the song articles by other editors as well as myself in order to improve them, not to get them deleted necessarily, just the ones that can't be improved upon. Kitchen roll (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And you think three weeks is long enough for somebody to find the article, review, find sources, edit etc? Especially when the main Project editors were concentrating on Like a Rolling Stone. There's plenty of notability tags that have been sitting on song articles for 2 or more YEARS. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I redirected one song. I'll create the Let Me Die In My Footsteps page again if you like. It's just nobody at the time seemed to take any notice of this for about 3 weeks, and I made sure I noted the talk page to make sure people didn't disagree with what I was doing. So I thought nobody was bothered about it. I have to say I didn't notice Rlendogs comment until yesterday, which is an error on my part. Sorry if I caused any inconvenience. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pat garrett and billy the kid

I have to write a 4 thousand word essay on this film - English litrature. I need critically analyse the film and also look at deeper meanings - psycho- analyse. Metafors and so on. I'd like to start a discussion on this topc. I would appreciate any input from anyone. Thanx P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.177.145 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Echo Helstrom

Sorry, I've been away, and didn't notice that the article on Echo Helstrom was deleted a while back (in 2008, actually). Doesn't our Echo deserve an article? I think so. And I think the article contains sufficient evidence of her notabilit, and the deletion was hasty.I have recreated the article in my own space, here: User:Herostratus/Echo Star Helstrom.

If anybody has any thoughts on this, leave them here or on the talk page at the above link. If enough people think it worthwhile, I will recreate it. Herostratus (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well don't all talk at once. Herostratus (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I did have a look at the article on on your user page, and, quite honestly, I couldn't get worked up about it either way, it would be nice to have the full set of Dylan postcards, but is the article really crucial? If it was recreated I would not support its deletion, especially as it is referenced, so all in all in I'd say recreate. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say this is worth reinstating as an article and then it can be improved. There is more info in Gray's Dylan Encyclopedia, in Chronicles and in Shelton. Mick gold (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a wee bit of info about her on the No Direction Home DVD. I think Dylan says she brought out the poet in him or something like that, among other things. Moisejp (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Here's the thing. I don't really know the policy or precedent fully, but I think that restoring an article that was properly (in-process) deleted is probably frowned upon. Deletion review can undelete articles, but that is only supposed to correct process errors (voting irregularities, premature close, etc.) which is not the case here. What IS the case is 1) there really weren't that many votes, it's wasn't an overwhelming decision, and 2) if I had not been away I probably could have tipped the vote to "no decision", and 3) she's notable, in the opionion of me and perhaps some other, and 4) it's been a while, so it might be proper to revisit the subject.

Theoretically I could undelete the article (I am an admin), but 1) this is generally not done, and besides 2) I wrote the article so I am hardly disinterested, and 3) the article hasn't changed since its deletion (obviously). So I won't do that.

How-ev-er, if a third party or parties wanted to work on the article (either in my userpace or by moving it into their own userspace), and the article is thereby changed and improved, then I think those parties could properly restore it.

So I'll leave it at that for now. If anyone wants to pick up the ball, great; if not... Herostratus (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am, on balance, thinking of recreating the article, but why not Echo Helstrom? Star might be part of her name, but she is not known by that name. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Becasue there is a band Echo Helstrom (band) and the page Echo Helsrom was a disambiguation page (it's now just a redirect to the band). I'm not sure if Echo Helstrom (the person) is massively more notable than Echo Helstrom (the band). If you think she is, then article Echo Helstrom could contain the person's bio with an "about" template pointi--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)ng to the band. Your call. Herostratus (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think she`s important..that`s all I really have to say about her..she was a notable influence on Dylan..the fact that anyone wrote about her in the 1`st place indicates there is interest in her..

A.J. Weberman

New user here, and very interested in working on the Project. Thought that it might be worth mentioning that a sub-article for A.J. Weberman might be interesting for inclusion somewhere; Maybe not on the main Dylan article but in some capacity. Thoughts? Truthissoap (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A. J. Weberman has a full article. It could use some work though. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New Project Collaboration

---

This Month's Collaboration - "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan"

• Add your name (#~~~) to the list below if interested in joining

1. Moisejp (talk)
2. I.M.S. (talk)
3. Mick gold (talk)

Goals (add one if you like, strike if accomplished):

• General cleanup and maintenance
• Improve to an article worthy of FA-class stance
• Take it to FAC and get it passed

(Note: We have actually been working on this article for a while but neglected to put up an official announcement. But by all means, other editors are very welcome to contribute. Thank you.)

Thanks for setting it up. I've added my name to the list. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

US Copyright office.

Just starting looking here when I stumbled across transfer of copyright. does anybody know or understand the workings of the copyright office, or what this would mean (I can can guess answers... but that's not right!). --Richhoncho (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

TfD notice

Template:Dylan under construction has been nominated for deletion again. See here. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Those pesky Rolling Stone refs

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Rolling Stone has changed its website such that all of its backlog is no longer available. I'm hoping we can clean up all of GA and FA articles to get rid of all the references to the magazine's website. I'm happy to help, but in some cases I am not sure I'll be able to find alternate sources. Mick gold has done a nice job of removing/reworking all the R.S. refs in the Bob Dylan article, and I noticed he removed one from Like a Rolling Stone. I did a quick scan of the other GA/FAs and noticed the following other ones (although it's not impossible that I missed one or two):

• Like a Rolling Stone: ref 2 "Like a Rolling Stone"; ref 30 "Help!"; ref 58 "Rock of Ages"; ref 71 "100 Best Singles of the Last 25 Years"; ref 77 "Jimi Hendrix"
• It's All Over Now Baby Blue: ref 34 "The Best of Van Morrison review"
• Mr. Tambourine Man: refs 80, 81 "Greatest 500 Songs" and 83 "100 Best Singles of the Last 25 Years"
  

Well, I guess that's not so bad. I'll try to get started on those soon. The list ones can probably be easily found on http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk but the other ones may need some reworking. If anyone else has time to help out as well, that'd be great. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken care of the "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "Baby Blue" ones. I'll try to have a look at "LARS" in the near future. Moisejp (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So, what exactly has happened with all the content on the Rolling Stone website? I'd not heard anything about it. However, I notice that all of the vintage album reviews from the 1970s or even late 1960s that were archived on the RS website have vanished too. I've tried using the search function on the website but to no avail...I think these reviews and things like the "RS Greatest 500 Songs" are completely gone. :-(

Kinda, reminds me of when billboard.com decided to "improve" their website, discarding masses of highly detailed online chart information in the process. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they decided it was too much info to give away for free. Moisejp (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a really nice summing up sentence from the Legacy section of Like a Rolling Stone but it's gotta go. We could just cut it, but if Mick gold or anyone else has any ideas for a nice replacement, that'd be all the better: In the words of Rolling Stone, "No other pop song has so thoroughly challenged and transformed the commercial laws and artistic conventions of its time, for all time." Moisejp (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely we can use this sentence and cite the issue number & page number of Rolling Stone. A text doesn't have to be online to be cited. There are cites from other mags we have used in FW which are not online. (e.g.Q Dylan: Maximum Bob! The Definitive Celebration of Rock's Ultimate Genius, Q magazine) Once I get hold of DVD of RS I can do this (or ANother editor could do it) but I can't do this for a week or two. Mick gold (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You've got the Rolling Stone magazine DVD set? Cool! OK, so the two RS refs still left in LARS are ref 57 "Rock of Ages" and ref 66 "Like a Rolling Stone." Moisejp (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rotolo vs Helstrom

I'm just.... I don't get why Suze Rotolo has an article but Echo Helstrom does not. This needs to be addressed. Not by me, though. So I'm moving the article out of my userspace and into this project's space as a subpage. It's out my hands now, but if someone wants to pick up on it, it's there. If the project doesn't want it, delete it. 04:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where is this subpage on Echo Helstrom? Can you provide a link? Mick gold (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops. It's here, plus I fixed the above link to point to it, plus there is a link to it in the Suppages section of the main project page. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Echo Helstrom may well warrant her own article but I don't see it as surprising that Suze had her own article long before Echo...Suze is simply much more notable in the history of Bob Dylan's career. Not only was she instrumental in introducing Dylan to much of the left-wing politics that coloured his classic folk-protest work, she was also the explicit muse and subject of a number of Dylan's most famous songs. In addition she also appears on the front cover of The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan of course. Echo Helstrom on the other hand was his high school sweetheart and may have possibly inspired some of his songs but that's by no means certain. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I just stumbled across the Suze Rotolo article and see it's classed as Low Importance in the Bob Dylan project. For the reasons noted by Kohoutek1138, should it not be at least "Mid"? Newburyjohn (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

New Collaboration of the Month?

Hello. Are we ready to decide on our next "Collaboration of the Month"? In February, we were discussing the possibility of doing The Basement Tapes next after Freewheelin'. I.M.S. and Mick gold presented some possible difficulties in tackling TBT (see "Onwards & Upwards" above) and it was decided at the time to wait until later to attempt it. I'd be happy to try TBT this time, but if others still feel unconfident about doing it this time, I'm happy enough to do something else. If we do decide on TBT, it might be an idea for us to come up with a plan beforehand about what we want to say—then we could feel like we had a clear strategy to overcome the particular challenges the article would entail.
Other ideas for articles to work on, if we decide against TBT:

• Bob Dylan (album): Not necessarily considered one of his most important LPs, but there's a lot of fascinating background we could get into about how he got his record contract (after being rejected from Folkways and Vanguard), how he was totally different from the typical Columbia recording artist, how he chose the songs (he says in No Direction Home that he just chose songs he had been hearing but deliberately didn't record much that was very personal—and there's an interesting story about how he "stole" Dave Van Ronk's arrangement of "House of the Rising Sun"), his reaction to it (apparently he was "highly disturbed" when he heard the record), feelings of jealousy from the Greenwich Village folk community, etc. For me No Direction Home's account of this period was extremely interesting and that would be a key reference for me, although I'm sure we could find lots of other sources. I notice Mick gold has worked a little on this article recently.
• Blood on the Tracks
• John Wesley Harding: But it might be better to do this after TBT, as there'll be a certain amount of overlap of background info.
• Maybe it sounds crazy, but it might be refreshing to do something completely different and tackle one of his mid-80s albums like Empire Burlesque or Knocked Out Loaded. It might be fun to do something light like that. We maybe wouldn't have enough references to bring one of these up to FA, so we could just aim for GA.
  

Moisejp (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work on The Basement Tapes. There are some problems with this album which I described above [2] but it would be a challenge. Why don't we start working towards GA and see how it goes? (I'm off for a week without much access to internet so I won't add any more thoughts until I come back.) Mick gold (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea of starting with GA and seeing how it goes. While we wait for I.M.S. and anyone else to respond, I'm going to tentatively start making some format/style edits and any other obvious edits that can be made before we discuss what our plan is. I've also started re-reading Griffin's Million Dollar Bash book to refresh my memory about the major events, etc. Moisejp (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We might as well get started on TBT. And if any other editors want to contribute, that would be peachy. Mick gold (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

List of artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs

I am probably being pedantic here, but I don't like the title above. "Cover" signifies somebody doing, say, songs that Elvis Presley recorded. As in "cover" band, which are now called "tribute bands". I'd much prefer List of artists who have recorded songs written by Bob Dylan... Not quite as snappy, but much more precise. Comments? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't agree. "Cover" just means "Perform a song written by another person", in my opinion. There are cover bands that don't write any of their own material, but most don't cover just one artist and I don't see any negative connotation here. Herostratus (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Dylan and the Band's Studio Sessions

Now, I know that Dylan and the Band recorded a number of songs in the studio ("Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?", "Seems Like a Freeze-Out"), but there are a number of tracks that were recorded but never used. I can't think of any specific titles, but a bootleg called "The Genuine Bootleg Series" includes several of them in their set list (here is the link; you can browse through the other packages under the same name). This seems like an important part in the "white-hot electric" period of Dylan's career. Shouldn't there be a page on the subject? BootleggerWill (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am presently updating List of songs written by Bob Dylan to include all known recordings that fit under that title and there is an article for unreleased Basement Tapes, other songs are mentioned in the relevant album articles. Do you have a suggestion to bring together in some more organised way? BTW Anybody than can help me with the references for the List of Songs written by Dylan would be much appreciated. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I see the point of Bootlegger's suggestion. Dylan and The Band/Hawks laboured to record a follow-up album to H61 in New York. Recording sessions on Oct 5, Nov 30 1965, Jan 21, 25, 27 1966 according to Heylin's Day By Day. Tracks released were CYPCOYW as a single, and magnificent take of "One Of Us Must Know" on BoB. Many tracks attempted (many versions of "Vision of Johanna", “Jet Pilot”, "Leopard Skin Pill Box Hat", "I Wanna Be Your Lover" et al [3]). It wasn't just The Band, Al Kooper and Paul Griffin on piano also present. Frustrated by lack of progress, Dylan went to Nashville with Bob Johnston in Feb 1966. I don't see NY sessions adding up to a coherent/interesting article compared with task of turning Dylan's major albums and major songs into GA and hopefully FA which this Project is currently engaged in. Mick gold (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

List of songs written by Bob Dylan

I have taken it as far as I can go for the moment. It needs some consideration of the following :-

1. Size. It's getting mighty browser-busting long! How do I overcome this? I am thinking the logical split at the moment is pre- and post-motorcycle accident.
2. It needs an intro of some kind. Anybody kind enough to write one?
3. I have added "lyric fragments", but they are not really songs, should they be listed?
4. Where there is no known Dylan official recording I have added somebody else's version. Is this good?
5. Should I add bootleg recordings if they are referenced to cover unofficially released songs?
6. There are a number of copyright registrations which have not been officially released by Dylan, possibly nobody, but should these be added? NB The list can be found on the talkpage
7. Can somebody sort the repetitive references out for me?
8. Does anybody else have any questions?

Feel free to edit, I am away for a week or so soon. Cheers --Richhoncho (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC) PS. I have covered to 1973, official releases, and memory (when it can be backed by references). I need more books to continue...--Richhoncho (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could split the list up by year, e.g. "Songs Written By Bob Dylan: Recorded in 1966", or you could split them by album or period (acoustic period, electric period, basement tapes period, John Wesely Harding period, et cetera). Or maybe there could be a page dedicated to released songs written by Dylan, and a page dedicated to bootleg songs written by Dylan. These are just suggestions. BootleggerWill (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Personnel Lists

So far, I haven't seen a single personnel list for any of Dylan's songs. I don't think we should add them to any articles coming from his acoustic period (except, perhaps "Corrina, Corrina" and "Mixed-Up Confusion"), but much of the information on this subject is bungled together into one long section of each article. Take, for example, "From a Buick 6". For one, it only mentions two members of the band, and only for a brief moment, and it doesn't specify who plays any other instruments besides guitar and organ. I doesn't even mention Dylan (but I suppose this isn't needed; it is, after all, a song by Bob Dylan). And besides, practically every Beatles song page has a personnel list, why not every Dylan song? BootleggerWill (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One obvious reason why The Beatles' songs have personnel lists is that Lewisohn documented the recording of The Beatles exhaustively, so we know who played what [4] This is how Bjorner [5] gives the personnel of Buick 6: Bob Dylan (guitar, piano, harmonica, vocal), Mike Bloomfield (guitar), Paul Griffin (piano), Bobby Gregg (drums), Russ Savakus (bass), Harvey Goldstein (bass), Arthur ? (piano), Al Kooper (organ). Not quite in the same league! If you want to make a start on personnel lists for songs, that would be excellent. Mark Polizzotti has good account of recording & personnel of H61R [6]. Mick gold (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob Dylan's drug use

I just read Bob Dylan World Tour 1966 for the first time and I'm concerned about this section on Drug Use. Alarm bells ring vis a vis WP:BLP! This section seems to be sourced to Nigel Williamson, The Rough Guide to Bob Dylan. I've never read this book so I can't comment on how the source is used. I'd be interested in opinions of others. Mick gold (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the section should be removed. It goes into excessive detail and possibly violates WP:BLP... it doesn't add very much to the article either. If required at all, a well sourced and short statement about Dylan's drug use during the tour should be sufficient. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Blues

Do you think the page "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues" should be moved to "Talkin' John Birch Society Blues"? I don't know wether the title was invented by Columbia, or is Dylan's original. I know that the early test pressings of The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan that included that song had the name spelled as the latter, but is it the official title? The Gates of Eden (^{Talkin' Gates of Eden Blues}) 04:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just my two-pence worth but I think that it should stay where it is. "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues" is how the song was officially released on The Bootleg Series Volumes 1–3 (Rare & Unreleased) 1961–1991 and it is also the title used for the song's appearance on a number of well known (among the hardcore fan community at least) bootlegs, including Ten of Swords, The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan Outtakes, The Whitmark Years, and Columbia Recording Session Outtakes to name just four. It is also the title that is most commonly used in books by well known Dylan authors such as Paul Williams, Oliver Trager, Clinton Heylin, and Robert Shelton. As per Wikipedia naming conventions, an article title should be recognizable and easy to find, making use of "names and terms commonly used in reliable sources" and "names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article." With this in mind, I think the article is already in the correct namespace. Besides, the first sentence of the article makes it clear that the song is, on occasion, known by slightly different titles. However, I will say that perhaps a redirect page to this article should created at "Talkin' John Birch Society Blues" for those few people who may be searching for the article under this alternate title. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

World Tour '66

Right now, I am in the midst of cleaning up the Bob Dylan World Tour 1966 page, and there is this one section that has been particularly hard to bring up to code: Attitude and Personality. In the beginning, it used to head off the article; and was a total mess quality-wise, but after I moved it to a more appropriate place and re-wrote most of it, I found that it really wasn't benefiting too much to the article, except for the little piece on drugs. Should it be excised from the article, expanded and cleaned, the information moved to another place in the page, or some other suggestion? The Gates of Eden (^{Talkin' Gates of Eden Blues}) 23:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

New Collaboration of the Month?

Now that The Basement Tapes is an FA, is there any interest in a new collaboration of the month? Rlendog (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking Highway 61 Revisited for another album project. Or we could go with a broader scope and focus on improving the general quality of multiple articles. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

H61R certainly is important and has a lot of sources to work with. Rlendog (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you two want to start a H61R collaboration I would certainly contribute. I propose the initial goal be GA and that we wait to see how much momentum may or may not develop before deciding if we want to take it any further. Moisejp (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. Does anyone have the "33 1/3" book on H61R by Mark Polizzotti? I have a copy but I haven't read it yet. I've read several other books from the series, and they're generally high quality. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have that book, but it sounds like it'll be useful, so I'm glad you have it! Moisejp (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read Polizzotti's book, I think it's very good. H61R would be a good article to tackle, though I'm not sure how much time I'll have. One query: when we were working on Basement Tapes, there were objections from Sandy et al to paras on each song as being too list-like. I personally like this structure for a GA/FA on an album but might it lead to problems? Mick gold (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have that book, and also Irvin's book on the album. Rlendog (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as Mick has hinted at above, after the exhausting time we had with TBT, I'd kind of like to take the "path of least resistance" for this one. Some thoughts: (1) TBT had 24 songs, but H61R has only nine, so there may be less objection by reviewers this time; (2) We could put the song-by-song analysis but be prepared to move it to a separate article at the first peep of any objection; (3) I don't know if it'd be satisfying for anyone, but of course another option would be to make the song-by-song analysis a separate article from the beginning; (4) If the consensus becomes to not use the song-by-song analysis this time, I would not object. I personally like the song-by-song format but not enough to argue for it if we get objections from reviewers somewhere along the line. Moisejp (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm feeling idealistic so I think we should write the article we want to write, and then compromise if necessary. The worst that can happen is what happened to TBT: hive list of songs into sub-article. I think we (Moisejp, Jezhotwells, DCGeist, me et al) favored this format. Mick gold (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A brief summary of each of the 9 songs should be appropriate, and is common. We would not need to move anything to a separate article, since each song already has its own article. I would think that the content of those articles, with their references, should be the basis for each song's summary within the album article. Rlendog (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rlendog, with the proviso that many of the extant articles on the 9 songs on H61R aren't very good, and each song should be re-written from pov of what is important about each song, and what is latest published research & critical commentary. In the case of our FA on The Basement Tapes, we ended up writing better sub-articles on e.g. "Too Much of Nothing" than the stand alone article on that song. Perhaps one day that imbalance should be addressed, I'd be happy to work on that in new year. Happy New Year to Bob Dylan Wiki project! Mick gold (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

After looking at differences, I've moved sub-article text to "Too Much of Nothing" article. Hope to do more upgrading of articles on songs this year. Mick gold (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Born-again period

I see that Slow Train Coming has all the details of Dylan's conversion to Christianity. But since the born-again period is a very important one in Dylan's carrier (like his "Going Electric" period), isn't it better to have a separate article dedicated to it? Slow Train is just an album made up with songs those were inspired by his new point of view, where Dylan's conversion to Christianity affected directly the subsequent two albums as well as many of his later songs. I think it'll will make both itself and Slow train more readable. Thanks.--Sayantan m (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats...

Congratulations, team. As all of you should know by now, the "Like a Rolling Stone" article has been selected as the main page featured article for January 8, 2011. For the record, here's the announcement as sent to the project team, including the segment that will appear on the main page:

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 8, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 8, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! User:Tbhotch 20:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Like a Rolling Stone" is a 1965 song by American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan. Its confrontational lyrics originate in an extended piece of verse Dylan wrote in June 1965, when he returned exhausted from a grueling tour of England. During a difficult two days pre-production, Dylan struggled to find the essence of the song, which was demoed without success as a waltz. A breakthrough was made when it was tried in a rock music format, and rookie session musician Al Kooper improvised the organ riff for which the track is known. However, Columbia Records was unhappy with both the song's length at over six minutes and its heavy electric sound, and was hesitant to release it. It was only when a month later a copy was leaked to a new popular music club and heard by influential DJs that the song was put out as a single. Although radio stations were reluctant to play such a long track, "Like a Rolling Stone" reached number two in the US charts and became a worldwide hit. The track has been described as revolutionary in its combination of different musical elements, the youthful, cynical sound of Dylan's voice, and the directness of the question in the chorus: "How does it feel?". "Like a Rolling Stone" transformed Dylan's career and is today considered one of the most influential compositions in post-war popular music and has since its release been both a music industry and popular culture milestone which elevated Dylan's image to iconic. The song has been covered by numerous artists, including Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, The Wailers and Green Day. (more...)

Like a Rolling Stone photo

I think there should be a photo for the LARS TFA. I was thinking of this one. What do others think? It can be added to here. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. There seem to be a limited number of free Dylan images. The one you suggest is from the March on Washington, August 1963. It would be preferable to get a pic from July or August 1965 when Dylan looked quite different, more sartorially hip, hair like a cockatooo (e.g. Newport with that fabulous polka dot shirt) but I can't claim to have access to one. The cover photo from Highway 61 Revisited by Kramer would be appropriate. I guess 1963 may have to suffice, for want of something better. Mick gold (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the cover from the single fair game? Among various places where this can be found: http://rgcred.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/bob-dylan-like-a-rolling-stone/. If it's not, then Highway 61 would be fine. Allreet (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob Dylan and Edie Sedgwick

An editor has added material about the alleged relationship between Sedgwick and Dylan, including an alleged pregnancy, to the "Like a Rolling Stone" article. I've removed some of it. Please comment here if you agree or disagree. Mick gold (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's always difficult when there are sources alleging something. So for one source on Dylan-Sedgwick, there's Greil Marcus pointing to a lecture by someone who presents a theory but no evidence. Then there's the NY Post story on the brother alleging a pregnancy without other corroboration. My belief is that to adhere to BLP, neither one is strong enough. The Post or the filmmakers of Factory Girl might be able to afford a lawsuit; WP can't. Just as important is the moral perspective of avoiding harm to someone's reputation: without an unshakable source (on the level of Gray or Stein, for example), I believe we have an obligation not to publish. Allreet (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Offensive BLP material has been removed. I would defend what Crow & Marcus suggest. They are interpreting the song as Dylan's perspective on Warhol's Factory scene, not making biographical allegations. Mick gold (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

More collaborations?

Congratulations all round on Highway 61 Revisited getting promoted to GA. This raises the question: where next? Should we try to take H61R to FA? I feel like suggesting we try to work Blonde on Blonde up to GA. After that, we work Bringing It All Back Home up to GA. Then we can decide which of these albums we'd like to advance towards FA. I think that by getting all 3 of Dylan's great mid 60s trilogy of albums to GA level, we will have achieved something substantial as a basis for WP Dylan articles. Any thoughts? Mick gold (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also been thinking it'd be an idea to leave H61R for now and try to achieve another GA. I have a theory that it takes a certain "momentum" to keep on track all the way to FA, and I felt that, for whatever reasons, H61R didn't have it to the same extent as some of our previous collaborations had—which isn't to say we can't necessarily get it back if we come back to the article at some later point. About what to collaborate on next, I'm surely in the minority, but for me Dylan's mid-sixties trilogy is not his most interesting work, and wouldn't be my first choice. (Off the top of my head, my first choice would maybe be Blood on the Tracks). That said, I'm happy to go with the flow. I hope we'll eventually have lots and lots of his album articles reach GA and FA, so if we do BoB and BIABH now rather than later, that's cool, too. Moisejp (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best to contribute to whichever article we pick, although my personal preference would be to work on song articles rather than albums. A couple of important songs that seem to need some work are Ballad of a Thin Man and Tangled Up in Blue. A few months ago I would have had Desolation Row on that list, although that has been improved significantly (and thus may be in shape to jump to GA quicker than the others). Rlendog (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind at all having our next collaboration or two be song articles. But Mick, if you have your heart set on tackling another album article next, I will go in with you. Moisejp (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

With H61R on the cusp, it does make sense to "go for the gold" (no pun intended). Then let's take a crack at the iconic tunes Rlendog mentioned. My own theory is that some of our selections should be prioritized based on a combination of readership and the state of a given article. The page view stats for H61R were 27,000 this past month, among the heaviest of all Dylan articles (discounting the recent spike for Freewheelin' following Suze Rotolo's death). Blonde on Blonde comes close and still has a refs needed tag hanging over it, so at some point that needs to be tackled as well, though it would be a much heftier undertaking. Allreet (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I like Mick and Moisejp's plan on waiting for FA until other articles have been taken to GA. Although my edits have been few and far between recently, I will make an effort to contribute (and at least comment on the talk page and help in decisions) to whatever article we choose next. Congrats everyone on the GA! - I.M.S. (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. This is a little bit off topic, but it is about GAs, while everyone's attention is focused here . . . I've been working on Santa-Fe (Bob Dylan song) and feel it is probably as complete as it can get and am hoping to nominate it for GA in the quite near future. It's not one of his most important songs, and it is hopefully mostly done, so I'm not asking for it to necessarily be an official collaboration or anything like that, but if any of happen to read it and notice any things that you feel should be changed, I would appreciate the feedback. I don't think anything has been written about its themes since it is just a little nonsense song, but I have tried to cover whatever else I could. Anyway, if anyone has time to have a peek and either leave a note on a the talk page or edit bits of it directly, that would be wonderful. Or if you do feel it is ready for GA as is, all the better, and just let me know. Thanks a lot! Moisejp (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it. Moisejp (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Moisejp, I read it over, and as you indicated, the article covers the subject thoroughly. And I should add: not only that but very well. Nice job. Allreet (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Thinking about this since, the only apparent subject not covered is the song's subject matter. For example, not knowing "Santa-Fe", I'm curious as to what it's about and, then, what makes it something of a "novelty." Allreet (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and feedback, Allreet. Very very little has been written about what the song is about. Nevertheless, I have a couple of small ideas that maybe could be added in an attempt to fill that gap. I'll run the ideas by you on your talk page to see what you think, hopefully in the next several days. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Riendog, above were you proposing Desolation Row as a possible candidate for the next collaboration? I would not object at all if it were chosen. As Riendog says, a fair amount of work has been done on it already and it could be a quickie collaboration that we could do while mulling what bigger project we want to do next. Because it has already come a long way, I think it would be all the more satisfying to see it fully cleaned up and reach GA. Moisejp (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't being that specific (since I had 3 specific suggestions, and would be open to others), but I thought Desolation Row would be a good choice if we want to start with something that already has something decent to work with. 17:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like most people here are pretty flexible about what the next collaboration should be. I guess we're waiting on Mick to see what he says about all this. Again, Mick, if you have your heart set on Blonde on Blonde or Bringing It All Back Home, I'll go along with you on either one. Maybe I'd have a slight preference for Blonde on Blonde at this particular point in time. Moisejp (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Why don't we start with Blonde on Blonde, and then proceed to Blood on the Tracks as per Moisejp's suggestion. We could go to GA on those, and then see which of these we want to take to FA. Sean Wilentz's recent book, Bob Dylan In America, has a useful chapter on BoB. Mick gold (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. If no one disagrees, then, Blonde on Blonde it is. Once that is done, we can have another vote later to see if people want to do Blood on the Tracks next or something else. Moisejp (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As I am not collaborating I as much as I should I didn't think I should vote, but if you do go with BoB, can somebody see if they can get their hands on the original music portfolio of the album - there are some very interesting short summaries of the songs by, I think, Paul Williams, which refer the the "duality" of the title and the songs, i.e. Blond on Blond is both the same and different things at the same time. Methinks this would add greatly to the article. Cheers --Richhoncho (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm game. For both BoB next, then Blood on the Tracks, should that be the concensus. My only reservation on this order is that it doesn't address the desires of some to work on a song. While we don't have to decide on the next step now, we should keep it in mind during the collaboration. Allreet (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Olof Björner

Hello. I've started a new article for Olof Björner. I was concerned that we sometimes get hassled at GA and FA review time when we try to use him as a source, by people who don't know who he is. So I thought it'd be good if we had a page for him where we could build up his legitimacy as a very reliable source, and then wiki-link to it when we do use him. (If he's mentioned in the text we can obviously just wiki-link him as normal, but if he is only mentioned in the reference, we can use authorlink=Olof Björner.) So far the article is very short but I plan to add to a it bit by bit. If anyone else wants to help you can. Here in Google Books [7] it shows several works that have used him as a source or mentioned him. Take care. Moisejp (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll add what I can. Allreet (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

List of artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs

User:Allreet has pointed out this article is now over 169,00 bytes long and is slow to load and difficult to edit. The answer would be to separate into 2/4 different parts, alphabetical by artist. With this in mind I have created a draft that, instead of having a straight redirect to the different parts, would include a list of all the artists and a redirect to relevant section of the separate articles. You can find the version we agree on at User:Richhoncho/Dylanmain#Variation_of_concept_2. Any comments, criticisms or ways to improve from you guys? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Quinn the Eskimo (The Mighty Quinn)

The above has been moved by an editor to [[Might Quinn (song}}]] on the grounds that in the UK the song was released by Manfred Mann under that title - the same editor says that it was released in the US under the full title, as per BobDylan.com. My thoughts are that it should be under the correct Dylan title Anybody want to agree/disagree with me? I have left a note to this effect on the talkpage. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Basement Tapes songs

I've just started adding a template to the List of Basement Tapes songs; it can be found here. Tell me what you think of it; should I continue with the format I have now, change things, etc. BootleggerWill (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Just finished; it's goin' up. BootleggerWill (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It look good, well done Bootlegger! Makes the story of these sessions easier to understand. Mick gold (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Next collaboration

Congrats on Blonde on Blonde getting to GA. What next? Mick gold is keen on taking BoB to FAN. I don't have any strong objections. I was kind of looking forward to leaving BoB behind and moving on to maybe Blood on the Tracks as we previously discussed as a possibility. However, if others feel BoB is pretty much at FA level and that it'd be a shame not to see it through, I'm happy to go along. If so, I propose that we skip any peer review and jump right into the nomination. I also propose that we be prepared to quickly deal with any objections reviewers bring up, without any fuss, so that the process is as speedy and painless as possible and we can move onto other things. I am specifically thinking about the Songs section, an issue that comes up every time. When Silverwood brought up the concern in the "Go for GA?" section of the Talk of Highway 61 Revisited, I went and checked all the FA album articles, and our The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan is the only one of all of them that included a Songs section. I feel we were lucky that it slipped through the cracks and no one objected at FAR time. If it happens that no one objects to the Songs section in BoB, great. But I think it is quite likely somebody will, and I'm just proposing that we be prepared to move the section to a separate article as we did for The Basement Tapes, without a fuss. We know from past experience that it's an issue some people have strong feelings about. I like the Songs section, but not enough to fight very hard to keep it. Whether we decide to bring BoB to FAN now, or come back to H61R and BoB later and bring them to FAN at another time, this issue is going to come up. And of course other issues may come up that we haven't thought of in FAR for BoB or any other article we bring to FAN. And in the same way, I would like to just to be prepared to concede changes with relatively little fuss. (Not that I'm saying we made an especially large amount of fuss in the past.) We saw from The Basement Tapes FAR that it can be a draining process and I'd just be happy to make our subsequent FARs go as smoothly as possible. I hope I don't seem defeatist here. I just think that accepting the Wikipedia community's concept of what constitutes a FA is a reasonable thing, and getting to FA is a very satisfying thing, even if the article is not exactly as we originally envisioned it. Moisejp (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe I'm thinking too much, and we should just approach FAN/FAR without any expectations, and just take it as it comes. Sorry if I made the whole process seem "heavier" than it needs to be. Moisejp (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favour of taking BoB to FAN. The more Dylan FAs the better! Moisejp may be correct in anticipating a problem with the list of songs. If that occurs, we know how to respond, but I think we can mount an argument for the article that we have successfully taken to GA. Mick gold (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue with the logic that the more FAs the better! Moisejp (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks ready enough - let's go for it. If we fail we fail, but I think that we can take care of any issues brought up during the process. Good luck! Again, I'll be there to help and make comments on the FA review page. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, I.M.S. I'm happy for you to nominate it, Moisejp. imho it's better written than other album articles which are already FA. Mick gold (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll probably nominate it sometime in the next 24 hours, assuming we don't hear any objections from Allreet before then. Moisejp (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

All right, it has been nominated. Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bob Dylan

In related articles there are 3 entries which I am not convinced should be there, namely a) Chimes of Freedom: Songs of Bob Dylan Honoring 50 Years of Amnesty International on the grounds all or no compilations should be there, b) The Lost Notebooks of Hank Williams, which Dylan has one track on, c) The Masked Marauders which only 'purports' that Dylan played on. Also I would suggest that the never ending tour should be one article (irrespective of the fact it split into different years). Am I right or am I wrong? Any comments? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In theory, the never ending tour should be one article. But there is already a summary article. The problem with making the whole thing one article is that there is just too much information and the single article would be too long to be of much use to anyone. Hence, splitting the subarticles by year makes sense. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I Agree splitting the Never Ending Tour, far too big to be a single article, my comment was about the template, where I think it would be better as a single entry. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Masked Marauders article should be cut for the reason you gave. For the other ones, I don't have a strong opinion. While it's true it may be inconsistent to include 50 Years of AI and not other compilations, 50 Years of AI is maybe a higher profile release than most, put out by a very significant organization. For the Lost Notebooks, did Dylan organize the other artists on it at all? I had the impression he did, but I could be wrong. If he did, then his involvement is more than just contributing a song. And the Never-ending tour...yeah, I don't have a strong opinion. Possibly it is excessive to have them all there, especially since there are links to them all in the main article. But on the other hand, keeping them all doesn't bother me, either. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll remove Masked Marauders now. I don't think I was clear regarding "Never Ending Tour" on reading my original post. I have no problems with each year split to a separate article, but wondered if it would be neater on the template with one link to the main article. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Bob Dylan album templates

Is there a need to have both or either {{Another Side of Bob Dylan}} and {{Another Side of Bob Dylan tracks}} among others (see more in Category:Bob Dylan album templates)? They are transcluded in the same exact articles and serve the same purpose. Overall, more articles have the track list template because the album navboxes seemed to only have been created for albums in which there is an article for each (or nearly each) song on the album. So there is {{Desire tracks}} but not {{Desire}} because only 3 tracks from that album have articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bob Dylan bootleg recordings

The above cat is up for deletion. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Obsolete links to lyrics; bot could help

At bobdylan.com the URL's for lyrics have changed, making a lot of External Links her obsolete. This seems like the kind of thing a bot could handle. Self-explanatory diff:

[8]

BTW, thanks for all your good work; the Dylan articles are a real pleasure. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

re List of Bob Dylan songs based on earlier tunes

I dropped a note at Talk:List of Bob Dylan songs based on earlier tunes wondering if that article isn't a little sketchy. I could be wrong, but if anyone (with actual expertise) wanted to take a peek... Herostratus (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Radio3Net

User SilkTork has added a link to a number of Dylan album articles, including the Featured Articles Blonde on Blonde and Highway 61 Revisited whereby people can apparently freely stream a copy of the album from a website in Romania. The legality seems very dubious to me. I don't think we should be pushing the limits of legality in this way on Wikipedia, especially in Featured articles, but what do others think about this? SilkTork, can you justify how this website is legit? Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed, and checked out. There is a link in the edit summary to WP:MUSICSTREAM. The website is government owned, and the streams are licensed and paid for. The links are allowed under Wikipedia policy and guidelines. We are not hosting the music, we are providing links to a site which is legally hosting the music. The artist gets a payment each time a stream is accessed. We can link in a similar way to official MySpace pages hosting music and other official websites, such as record companies or the artists' own pages. It is encouraged in the EL guidelines that we do this, so that readers can have access to the work of art being discussed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 05:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, if that's the case, that sounds reasonable. I'll have a good look at WP:MUSICSTREAM when I get a chance. Thanks for explaining. Moisejp (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I did check that Romania is signed up to the Berne Convention! There are "legit" sites which claim to meet their obligations but still do not pay the relevant royalties. Obviously there are illegal sites that claim to be legit (and I am not convinced that some on WP's approved list are fully legit). However, I'd agree with Moisejp. It does sound reasonable and on balance will not ask for the link to be removed. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I must confess I was troubled by the look of the Romanian Radio 3 net website. It looked to me like we're linking to a commercial site which is in Romanian. SilkTork has argued that "We can link in a similar way to official MySpace pages hosting music and other official websites, such as record companies or the artists' own pages. It is encouraged in the EL guidelines that we do this, so that readers can have access to the work of art being discussed." In that case, would it not be simpler to link the FAs on Blonde on Blonde and Highway 61 Revisited to Dylan's official website: [9]? There the reader can purchase the album via amazon and iTunes. Mick gold (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think SilkTork is saying that unlike Amazon or iTunes, in the case of Radio3Net, the Romanian government is paying the fees as a cultural service to its citizens (and anyone else who wants to take advantage of it?). I've had a busy couple of days and haven't had a chance to check out the WP:MUSICSTREAM link SilkTork provided—will do that in the next couple of days and see how convincing it looks. Moisejp (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, I see that it was originally you [[10]] who drafted the Linking to source material section on the WikiProject Albums page, that was later merged into WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. I also see that there was some discussion and consensus about the addition here [[11]]. But can you comment on how you originally arrived at determining that Radio3Net was legitimate, and how much scrutiny and real consensus there has been from other users on this particular point? Sorry if I sound overly skeptical, but since the page is in Romanian, I have no way to check it out myself. I mean, I've read your defenses of it here and in the links above, and if that's all true, wonderful. I just would like to be sure that the approval of Radio3Net's legitimacy is not just based on one person's impressions, but has been fact-checked by multiple users. Again, apologies if I sound overly suspicious. Thank you, Moisejp (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I did, at the time, alert User:Moonriddengirl and several other people that I knew would be knowledgeable, and I did check out the site - what you are looking at in the discussion you link to, is only a part of the story. The matter was discussed in several venues, and several experienced people were involved. Moonriddengirl is respected as the site's most knowledgeable user in the area of copyright issues. You may of course reassure yourself by looking at her user page where she explain copyright as it applies to Wikipedia, and then noting that she supported the use of the links. If you have remaining concerns you may find it helpful to raise them at WP:EL or Wikipedia:Copyright problems - the people there are experienced at this sort of thing. When you have reassured yourself that there is a consensus among users experienced in this field that the links are acceptable - would you take a look at WP:MUSICSTREAM and let me know what more could be said there to reassure others like yourself that this matter has been checked out, so we don't have to do it again in future. And perhaps what else could be placed in the edit summary or on the article page. At the time we felt we had done enough, but it's always worth having a think to see what else can be done. You were not reassured by what we wrote, so perhaps others are not either. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork. Well, it sounds like you did a very thorough and careful job of checking things out. I'm convinced. As for what to add to WP:MUSICSTREAM, I'm afraid I don't have any ideas. That's not an easy question. If I think of anything, I'll be sure to let you know. Thanks again for explaining everything. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Templates

An editor is removing the Dylan template from song articles and replacing with an album template, as per example. I see no value in removing the Dylan template and little value in the album template. Anybody agree? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Dylan template doesn't even include the said articles within it. Navigational boxes are supposed to serve in aiding navigation between related articles. The songs on the album are the most related articles. Ergo, the album navbox is what belongs on the page. - Bossanoven (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You should have read why the template you created today has already been deleted in the past. Never too late, try here. I don't see any how anything has changed. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted a fair few of these edits by Bossanoven that replace the Bob Dylan template with an album template. This editor is also doing much the same thing on articles about songs by The Who, deleting main The Who template for one for a Who album (see here for the template). These new templates serve little or no purpose, but even if they're to be included, they should not replace a template that refers to the artist themselves in an article about one of the artist's songs. That makes no sense. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note: The two recreations have now been nominated for deletion. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Album-track templates in infoboxes

There's a discussion underway regarding a WP Beatles template, Template:Dark Horse tracks, to which editors may wish to contribute. I thought it might be relevant to this artist project also because I've noticed that Dylan song infoboxes carry a similar album-track template. JG66 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobel project: Bob Dylan - explainer video

Within the Nobel project we work on a script for an explainer video about BD & why he received the prize. The video can be then used on Wikipedia. It would be great if someone can review the script and give us feedback. You can find the document here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Simpleshow#Literature_-_2016-10-28 Thank you for your support!--Norma.jean (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Relevant WP:RS article on the Bobster's Nobel Prize here, if it's not already linked, and someone feels like adding it. Narky Blert (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Positively 4th Street

I noticed just now that an edit I did almost 2 years ago has been undone... Positively 4th Street It said that the song does not appear anywhere in the lyrics ... I changed that. Right now I am sitting here with

BOB DYLAN 1962 - 2001 LYRICS Simon and Schuster, ISBN-13: 978-0-7432-3101-5

on my lap, opened on page 184

I would like to know why my edit has been reverted.

Hildairene (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that the lyrics of Positively 4th Street

are also in The Lyrics since 1962 on page 233. Hildairene (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Bob_Dylan...Blonde_on_Blonde

Editor has been adding a OCMS cover on the song articles for this album. I have removed on the grounds of non-notable and unreferenced. I sent the editor to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Bob_Dylan...Blonde_on_Blonde for further discussion if anybody wants to join in.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Basement Tapes/Dylan (1973) album.

Strange discussion going on here at Compilations. Somebody has decided to agree with an unanswered point from 2013 that the above 2 albums are compilations, and changed the issue order of every Dylan studio album. I have reverted this, but for completeness, perhaps a fuller discussion? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am a participant in this "strange" discussion. It has to do with the classification of Dylan (1973) and The Basement Tapes using the Wikipedia categories of "studio album" or "compilation album." Wikipedia -- for no clear reason other than inertia from whomever initially assigned "studio album" to both of these albums -- has them as "studio albums." Most Dylan bibliographies or works of criticism on Dylan do not break albums up into categories (although some later ones do as the number of albums have grown and the classifications help manage them), but no writer regards either Dylan (1973) or The Basement Tapes as studio album such as Nashville Skyline, Blood on the Tracks, or Down in the Groove would be.

There is no Wikipedia entry for studio album, but the Wikipedia definition for its entry of "compilation album" is pretty clear: it is an album comprised of "tracks, either previously released or unreleased, usually from several separate recordings by either one or several performers. If by one artist, then generally the tracks were not originally intended for release together as a single work, but may be collected together as a greatest hits album or box set." Both Dylan (1973) and The Basement Tapes are comprised of tracks not originally intended for release as a single work.

Since there is no definition for a studio album, some common ground would be useful when putting albums in this category. Clearly a studio can be anything from Columbia's A&R Studios to Dylan's Garage (for Good as I Been to You and World Gone Wrong). But, I think what the intent of the "studio album" designation is meant to capture is a album that is meant to represent a musician's most recent work, released with intent by the musician himself as current reflection of his sound and thought. In this sense, Paul Williams likens them to "banners" that function as a kind of pronouncement about where the artist "is at." On the other hand, a compilation album is compiled work from earlier that does not represent the musician's most recent work. Further, compilation albums are often assembled by someone other than the principal creator.

Dylan, is released at a time when the tracks were three years old. Further, it is compiled and released without Dylan's consent by CBS. It is released at a time Bob Dylan is recording Planet Waves with The Band, which represents his recent work. In this regard, it is very much like a release like Another Self Portrait...it assembles, or compiles, work from an earlier period, not to reflect his most recent work, but to achieve some other aim.

The Basement Tapes were never intended as an album. We all know this. They are really a kind of proto-Bootleg Series before that series existed. In fact, there are parallels between the work that Robbie Robertson did on the tracks in 1975 in terms of mixing and adding parts and the work done on "Series of Dreams" in 1991 for the first Bootleg Series release (regarded by the Wikipedia community as a compilation album), where an organ and guitar part were added in 1991, even though the song was representing a 1989 recording session. Or, for example, how banjo, organ, and other parts were added in 1994 to "Dignity," for the 1994 (non-Bootleg series) compilation Greatest Hits vol. 4. Eight years after the basement recordings, Robbie Robertson, largely (or some say entirely) without Dylan's involvement, compiles some of these demos, adds some subsequently recorded Band tracks, and the label releases it between Blood on the Tracks and Desire. Both Blood on the Tracks and Desire represented Dylan's contemporary work (songwriting, arranging, playing, production, recording, etc.), The Basement Tapes did not. They were already legend when they were released, a curiosity. The double LP from 1975 was a compilation that was meant to satisfy that curiosity.

For these reasons, both of these albums should (and always should have been) designated compilation albums as long as the options are compilation, studio, or live albums.

Further, we should regard references. I am at the school I teach at & my Dylan books are at my home office, but before I start breaking out page numbers, please consider that no critic in the seventies regarded either Dylan (1973) or The Basement Tapes as albums in the narrative of what was going on with Dylan or what Dylan was doing at the time of the albums release. Shelton doesn't discuss Dylan (1973) in between Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid and Planet Waves and Paul Williams doesn't discuss The Basement Tapes in his chapters on 1975. Rather, writers have considered Dylan as relevant when discussing 1970 recordings not 1973. The Basement Tapes have been written about when discussing 1967, not 1975.

This issue also affects the numbering of Dylan's albums. Paul Williams even interprets the opening lines of "Changing of the Guards," which are also the opening lines of Street-Legal as referring to Street-Legal being Dylan's 16th album: "Sixteen years / Sixteen banners united over the field / Where the good shepherd grieves." If Dylan (1973) and The Basement Tapes are counted as studio albums, then Street-Legal becomes the 18th album, something that no writer has claimed.

Other writers and Bob Dylan sites that use the studio/compilation/live designation regard Dylan (1973) and The Basement Tapes as compilation albums, see Expecting Rain's discography, which is a "locked" posting maintained exclusively by an Expecting Rain moderator.

I make this posting from memory because it strikes me as self evident. Both Dylan (1973) and The Basement Tapes were compiled and are not intentional studio albums (The Basement Tapes not even being recorded in a studio). However, if quotes are needed, I can start culling references from a disparate body of Dylan criticism and scholarship.

-Daniel (Hatmatter)

I agree with Richhoncho. Both Dylan and The Basement Tapes should be regarded as studio albums. They are both listed on Bob Dylan's website as albums. [12] They are both unusual albums. The The Basement Tapes were recorded in 1967 and released in 1975. Controversy still surrounds the way in which Robertson selected the material for the double album. There is a WP:FA on The Basement Tapes describing the strange genesis of this album. The fact that it was recorded in a basement has not stopped it becoming one of Dylan's most influential and widely discussed albums. Dylan told Jann Wener in the 1969 Rolling Stone interview: "That's really the way to do a recording—in a peaceful, relaxed setting—in somebody's basement. With the windows open ... and a dog lying on the floor." Dylan was released in 1973 by CBS without Dylan's approval, probably because he moved from CBS to Geffen. But the fact that it contains songs culled from various sessions makes it no different from Self Portrait or New Morning which were also put together from a variety of recording sessions over a two year period, as The Bootleg Series Vol. 10: Another Self Portrait (1969–1971) makes clear. When I purchased Bob Dylan: The Complete Album Collection Vol. One, which is the official Dylan collection of every album Dylan recorded from Bob Dylan to Tempest, I found that it included both Dylan and The Basement Tapes, which for me is proof they are regarded as part of Dylan's official canon of studio albums.

All these quotes from Shelton and Paul Williams and the Expecting Rain website are beside the point. It is Dylan who decides what is in his official canon of albums. Not Shelton or Paul Williams or Expecting Rain or Daniel Hatmatter. He does it through his website and through his album releases. The fact that both Dylan and The Basement Tapes are included on his website and in his official box set collection of every album release from 1962 to 2012 answers this question for me. Mick gold (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Hatmatter regarding the two albums in question though the issue is a contentious one because, as he points out, there is no definition of a studio album. As I see it, Basement Tapes and Dylan are studio albums only in the sense that they were released by a "studio," that is, a record company, and given their their contents and histories, I don't even think of them as compilations.

For more on the subject, it may be helpful to visit last year's RfC on the Beatles' Yesterday and Today, the US release compiled from the UK albums Rubber Soul and Revolver (see Talk:Yesterday and Today). The RfC found in favor of "studio album" not compilation. The debate included sources suporting both sides, but the winning argument (as I see it) held that all of the group's pre-1967 U.S. releases were compilations yet none were categorized as such. The editor who noted this also pointed out that the term itself wasn't even used back then and that he sees it as more of a device used by Wikipedia than anywhere else.

That said, I'm with Hatmatter a) because neither album is a studio album in the sense that we use the term here, b) the sources are bound to be split though the ones I've looked at so far are silent, c) Dylan's discography is wholly different from the Beatles', and d) I agree with another editor who wrote "Wikipedia's obsession with defining every album as either 'studio' or 'compilation' has reached the point of absurdity" (oddly, he voted for "studio.") Where I disagree with my fellow editor is that re-doing the discography should have been brought up for discussion first, but that was then, and the case he makes is all that counts now.

Allreet (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Mick, coincidentally, my post got kicked because of an edit conflict with yours. What I don't get about what you wrote is what does bobdylan.com have to do with this? The website lists all his albums without categorizing them. Or am I missing something? Allreet (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And now that I've checked, what does the box set have to do with distinctions about studio albums? It includes Budakon, Real Live, and Unplugged as well as the two albums in question. Plus without the boots, live and other authorized releases, it's not really the canon either. Allreet (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Allreet, you make some valid points. I still think that Dylan is as much a studio album as Self Portrait or New Morning, and it was culled from the same sessions. The status of the Basement Tapes remains ambiguous because Robertson compiled the material and mixed it up with recordings by The Band of uncertain origin. Perhaps I am agreeing with you when you write:

Basement Tapes and Dylan are studio albums only in the sense that they were released by a "studio," that is, a record company, and given their contents and histories, I don't even think of them as compilations. Mick gold (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• There seems to be a thought running here that an album can only be a studio OR A compilation, which, quite frankly, is daft. As I pointed out elsewhere on this matter, Down in Groove (amongst others) should also be considered a 'compilation album', having been recorded over a 5-year(?) period. And as I countered elsewhere nearly all albums these days are compilations i.e. the best bits from a number of recording sessions. As far as I am concerned the status quo is just fine, leave as is. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

PS. A quick read of Studio album - 'Most albums are studio albums — that is, they are recorded in a recording studio with equipment meant to give those overseeing the recording as much control as possible over the sound of the album. They minimize external noises and reverberations and have highly sensitive microphones and sound mixing equipment. In some studios, each member of a band records their part in separate rooms (or even at separate times, while listening to the other parts of the track with headphones to keep the timing right).' --Richhoncho (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd lean towards calling them studio albums. Most of us here I think agree that they're not the clearest cut example of either—and arguments can be and have been given for how their characteristics match one or the other—but in the continuum between the most quintessential studio album and the most quintessential compilation album, my feeling is that they are more on the studio album side. Like it says in the link given to compilation album, the most commonly thought of single-artist compilation albums tend to be things like greatest hits, box sets, and "retrospectives", which these two albums are not. And I agree with Mick gold and Richhoncho that it's very common for studio albums to come from multiple sessions, and there doesn't necessarily need to have been an "original intent" that the songs were slated for a particular album when they were recorded. Surely it's relatively common for some artists—artists like Dylan who have the liberty and prolificness to be able to do so—to knock off a few songs here and there in the studio without a clear idea of when the next album will be released or which songs will make the final cut, or even whether a session will be used at all. Then they go back and listen to the songs and use some for their next studio album. The Basement Tapes may not fit this description exactly, but it's not that big of a jump. Moisejp (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, my take is that the term "studio album" as it is being used here is a device without any authoritative backing. For example, the section of the Wikipedia article Rich cites above has no source attached, and based on the article's edit history, this section and others appear to be original research. Meanwhile, my understanding of the term stems from its use outside of Wikipedia, that is, in reference to self-contained works of previously unreleased material usually though not always sanctioned by the artist. I understand studios very often have say in this process, as do publishers and motion picture studios in their fields, yet despite how practices vary and probably because, the manner in which artistic works are created and packaged has a significant impact in terms of what they are and how they should be regarded.

To reference the Beatles RfC, no matter what the outcome was on Yesterday and Today, none of the people I know would consider that work a studio album - it is clearly a compilation - and included in this body of acquaintances are over 50 deejays, many of whom are professional musicians and all of whom have spent the better part of their lives as we have immersed in recorded music. I also am certain that not one of them would regard Dylan or The Basement Tapes as studio albums, not if they knew the first was compiled by the label from a range of disparate recording sessions, out of spite no less and without any input from the artist. Meanwhile, the second was not recorded on studio equipment, featured eight songs that did not include the artist, and was packaged in a fashion similar to the albums in Dylan's "Boot" series, that is, as a compilation. I simply cannot imagine how this album fits the loosest definition of studio album, though the lede in its Wikipedia article tries mightily to reconcile the disparity.

When all is said and done, my concern is for our readers and for Wikipedia. In effect, I believe the usage being suggested is misleading and therefore, is creating a reality separate from the term's generally accepted meaning. Furthermore, the phrase itself is so nebulous that a Google search turns up virtually nothing to illuminate it, so I find it astounding my fellow editors are either dead certain or leaning over backwards about something that would not pass their sniff test elsewhere. In any case, as with other editorial issues, I would hope the argument will ultimately rest on our most fundamental standard - on reliable, authoritative sources. Since I suspect nothing sufficient will turn up in support, I would be willing to go an extra mile. Why not write to an authority as we have done before for their opinion, for example, Michael Gray in England or Sean Wilentz who's down the road from where I live in the US? I seriously don't think that will happen either, because to settle this where I think it would be would mean changing the numerics, as Hatmatter did in reviving the issue, even though that was probably the right thing to do if not the right way to do it. Allreet (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Here's a couple of links confirming the WP (and mine, of long standing) of the meaning of 'studio album,' [OED], [Definitions.net], both Dylan & BT are definitely studio albums; not even worth discussing. However, a greatest hits or a compilation can also be a studio album too, and that is what we are debating - should we move these 2 albums from where they definitely belong to where they might belong. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are some facts, all worthy of discussion but little debate:

• With the exception of live tracks, all compilations are recorded in a studio, including greatest hits albums and collections such as Biograph.
• With the exception of live tracks and field recordings such as those on the The Basement Tapes, most of Dylan's "boots" were recorded in the studio.
• Dylan and the Band share authorship of the BT, and on some of the tracks, he is not present at all.
• Not one of the tracks on the BT was recorded in a studio.
• The equipment used for the original Dylan/Band recordings was a non-professional deck similar to the ones used for other field recordings of Dylan's material. The only studio equipment involved was the equipment used for cleaning up and overdubbing the tapes.
• Some non-authorized "boots" or parts thereof were recorded in the studio, for example, those taken from the Witmark recordings and other demos.

What all this boils down to is that by virtue of the OED's less than definitive definition, we have two kinds of albums - studio and non-studio which would include live and field - and the only distinction between the two is location. So should we re-order everything to suit that? As for definition.net, the site is a wiki with less reliability by Wikipedian standards than the artist's website. On that note, check out the similarity between Freebase's contribution and different parts of Wikipedia's unsourced Album article. Who copied whom?

Meanwhile, your understanding of the term's meaning and Wikipedia's may very well be the concoction I believe it is, long standing or not, and therefore, could be a conceit, a fanciful expression that has evolved to suit our editorial purposes more than anything else. As such, it appears to me that we are stretching even our own understanding to shape a hole to fit a couple very odd pegs. Whatever, even more long standing is the understanding most people have of the term, its original meaning however imperfect.

What I am fairly certain will happen here is that this will go to RfC, and overwhelmingly people with a stake in the game - editors on various WP music projects - will vote in favor of the device that has served their purposes but without any appreciable sources to support their conclusions. The end result, then, could very well be a clouding of the record by one of the planet's most important publications on the subject of music, which was why I suggested raising the bar and going to objective outside experts for input. Allreet (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bootleg Series

Hey all, I made The Bootleg Series into a sort of DAB page. However, I was wondering if we should just sort of turn it into more of an article. I think it might serve us well. Thoughts? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source?

Hi all.

Any opinions on whether bob-dylan.org.uk is a WP:RELIABLE source? I had thought not, at first glance, but looking at the list of main contributors, perhaps there is a case for it being reliable.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: This is tricky territory. I certainly agree with what Attwood wrote about the tension between the music and the lyrics in the song "Most Of The Time". If Attwood had published his interpretation in a book, like Heylin in his Revolution In The Air, it would be easier to cite. When you go to GA nomination a reviewer might object to this website. It won't be me! I just know from experience we had to work hard to have Olof Bjorner's remarkable website accepted as a WP:RS when we went to FA nomination a couple of times, even though a number of experts have commended it, eg Michael Gray in his Bob Dylan Encyclopedia. Regards Mick gold (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

May 2022

Thinking about upgrades to "All Along the Watchtower", prose clean-up, cite clean-up, etc. Then possible nomination. Would be useful to have editors with some Dylan knowledge, since I have done mostly Hendrix updates for his version of this Dylan song. Any one available for joining in? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested in helping out, ErnestKrause. I'll work on the Dylan related parts of the article over the next few days. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Searching for a Gem (www.searchingforagem.com)

I've posted about this site on the reliable sources board. I thought some editors here might be interested in contributing to a discussion. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Searching_for_a_Gem_(www.searchingforagem.com).

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose:, I tried clicking on your link to read discussion of "Searching for a gem" but link failed to lead me to discussion of that site. Is it me? Or is there another link? Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mick gold: Looks like the section has been moved into the archives - currently at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Searching_for_a_Gem_(www.searchingforagem.com); or you can go to WP:RSN and search the archives. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks, it looks like you got one editor to sort of agree it could be cited as WP:RS. I hope that amounts to consensus! Mick gold (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC) @BennyOnTheLoose: and well done for your work on All Along the Watchtower Mick gold (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Peer review for "All Along the Watchtower" (to prepare for a featured article candidate nomination)

Hi all, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/All Along the Watchtower/archive1. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Jochen Markhorst acceptable per WP:SPS?

I see that Markhorst has authored a number of self-published books about Dylan, and contributes to bob-dylan.org.uk. Any views here about using his work as a source for articles? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for It's All Over Now, Baby Blue

It's All Over Now, Baby Blue has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)