User talk:Jemstone66

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Jemstone66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 09:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Nigel Slater

Hi Jemstone66, thanks for expanding the article on Nigel Slater!

I'm pretty sure the editor of OFM is now Nicola Jeal. I've reverted that small bit, but otherwise thanks very much again for the contributions.

[edit] John Peel

The BBC Radio bio had it as Rod Stewart ! I checked with some producers at BBC just now who worked with John and they agreed the best man at Peel's wedding was John Walters, although the Faces were there.

Here is the seemingly incorrect BBC Radio 1 article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/johnpeel/images/pdfs/John_Peel_Biography.pdf

And here's another article contradicting it, saying, the real case, that John Walters was the best man, sent to me from a friend at the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1466346.stm

Thanks for the correction. -- Wikiklrsc 18:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:NMEC81.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NMEC81.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 15:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC publicity images

Would it be possible for the BBC to formally release all publicity images as "Copyright Attribution"? It states that "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted."

I don't know how much influence you have on the publicity department, but if we could get formal release on the photos, we could archive them on Wikimedia Commons and use them more regularly on the Wikimedia websites. (BTW, I'm a member of the Communications Committee, as is David, who you contacted.) -- Zanimum 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Twee pop

I've (hopefully) answered your question on Talk:Twee pop - as a survivor of the early 90s scene I can assure you the phrase was most definitely in use. The very long article on the Twee pop scene from Pitchfork might be of interest. - Iridescenti 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The article from Pitchfork is actually called: "The story of Indie pop" and says: " They have their own names for themselves (popkids, popgeeks) and for the music they listen to (p!o!p, twee, anorak, C-86). They have their own canon of legendary bands (Tiger Trap, Talulah Gosh, Rocketship) and legendary labels (Sarah, Bus Stop, Summershine). They have their own pop stars, with who they're mostly on a first-name basis: Stephen and Aggi, Cathy and Amelia, Jen and Rose, Bret and Heather and Calvin. They've had their own zines (Chickfactor), websites (twee.net), mailing lists (the Indie pop List), aesthetics (like being TWEE AS FUCK), festivals (the International Pop Underground), iconography (hand drawings of kittens), fashion accessories (barrettes, cardigans, t-shirts with kittens on them, and t-shirts reading TWEE AS FUCK), and in-jokes (Tullycraft songs and the aforementioned TWEE AS FUCK)-- in short, their own culture."

ie: So there is a culture called Indie Pop and different ways of describing the music, arguments about its leading lights, different views in the US and the UK, and an underground culture but basically saying there is something called indie pop and sometimes people refer to its bands, movements as "twee" or "c86" or anorak.

i'm not saying that people didn't refer to talualah gosh as twee pop at some point but a) more in the US and b) more using the phrase "twee" rather than "twee pop". but as the articles for twee pop and indie pop currently stand there is no distinction between the two in what they describe and thus they should be merged. you can have an article that as the pitchfork article does quite neatly that says indie pop is a thing that over the years has had various informal and formal nomenclature amongst its fans. If there should be 2 articles then they should at least be cleaned up a bit. there's hardly anything in the history of "twee pop" thats different to the history of "indie pop" at the moment. and whereas the "indie pop" article has dozens of sources the twee pop article has 1. the pitchfork article ````


I'm not citing the pitckfork article as evidence, for precisely the reasons you mention above. However a Google search[1] reveals a quarter of a million hits on the phrase "twee pop" (including over 20000 from the UK alone[2]) which I would argue means the phrase is still in common enough circulation to warrant its own entry. Whether Dan Treacey, Amelia Fletcher et al used the phrase themselves is a moot point (although I've a photo of Peter Momtchiloff in a 'Twee as fuck' t-shirt in the early 90s) as long as the phrase is in use now. Back in the days, the phrase was 'shambling pop' (coined I believe by John Peel, & used on the 'Backwash' sleeve notes etc) rather than 'twee pop' , but this term has no real use in this context now - anyone mentioning "shambling pop" now would likely picture Pete Docherty rather than Talulah Gosh).
I think a merge would be a problem - merging it to punk would just be ridiculous, while moving it to indie (or even "80s indie") would a) subsume a fairly distinctive sub-scene into a very rambling article covering everything from the Raincoats to Robyn Hitchcock by way of the Smiths, and b) set a precedent for merging other indie genres from the time (shoegazing, post-punk etc) into a single article, which would become so long and incoherent as to be useless. 150 pages currently link to twee pop[3] so the stand-alone page is presumably getting a reasonable amount of traffic.
I do agree that the page as it stands is a mess and needs a major cleanup & complete rewrite, as do the entries for most of the bands (see comments on Talk:Amelia Fletcher, but I don't think that in itself is valid grounds to get rid of it. At some point I'd like to wipe this article down to the bare bones and recreate it in the same sort of style as the current shoegazing article but with decent sources, citations & photographs. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/m/User_talk%7EJemstone66_0665.html"