Talk:Justified and Ancient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject The KLF, an attempt to improve and expand coverage of The KLF and related topics.

Talk to us. KLF-related Articles in need of attention.


This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia.
Good articles Justified and Ancient has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
To-do list for Justified and Ancient: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Lead needs cleaning and expansion
  • Some extra citations are probably needed
  • Should context and evolution be merged? Renamed? Context expanded? Outside views welcome.
  • Is there enough information on the composition? If not, is there anyone we can call on to help with this? (Vinoir was our expert writer and he's done a bunk!)
  • Drummond's comments from 45 need incorporating.
Did You Know An entry from Justified and Ancient appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 3 April 2006.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] New article

For some reason I thought America:WTIL was the last (must be the 992/1992 reference) but nope, you're right. Another tremendous new article, I think a new standard has been set here! I don't think we've gone too far into fancruft either. --kingboyk 12:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The KLF in front page shocker! My goodness, we've made it to the front page :-) --kingboyk 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a result. In due course we'll get further than that snippet too, I hope... :-) --Vinoir 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Featured status for The KLF is what I'm aiming for (and I think there's such a thing as featured list too? KLF discography). --kingboyk 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top of the Pops

I've just watched the TOTP performance (with Bill & Jim dressed as ice cream cones (!) and Tammy on the big screen) and to my surprise the in-studio vocals and rap are live! Unfortunately my copy is a bit too low-res to get a decent shot, so we'll have to stick withy the capture I made from the video. --kingboyk 21:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song samples

I think that clips of the "Chill Out" version and "Stand by The JAMs" would work well here? --Vinoir 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NME or New Musical Express?

I prefer the latter as it sounds more formal, and also self-explains to non-Brits/music fanatics exactly what the publication is about. I take is there is an opposing view and if so what's the rationale? :) --kingboyk 00:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds more formal, but the magazine is more popularly recognised as NME, much as the acronym BBC is the more recognisable. I too prefer New Musical Express, but I think that since its Wikipedia article is at NME, the refs at least should use this form - what say you? I do agree with you regarding the need for its expanded form in the article text, for non-Brits, and I'll change that back. --Vinoir 01:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It says "The New Musical Express (better known as the NME)". We're citing references - which should be official and formal. That said, it's been a long time since I've bought it - ah the inevitability of getting old - so I don't know if they ditched the longer name. As far as I know they haven't, so I think we should use the formal title in citations. --kingboyk 01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed Good Article Nominee

I don't feel that this article is quite up to Good Article status. I feel that it's an excellent start, but I don't think it's ready for it yet. I copied the requirements of a Good Article which I don't feel it meets and have listed them below:

  • It is well written. It has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to a non-specialist reader... I read the article twice and I'm still not sure if I've learned anything from this article. I imagine that people familiar with the group or with this genre of music would have an easier time understanding it. But since encyclopedia articles are for the layman, I can't say that this succeeds here
  • It is broad in its coverage: If I'm not mistaken, it was stated that there was more than one version of this song, but the article seems geared towards a single version (whichever one has the CD picture, I'm guessing). When the article does discuss other versions, it's confusing to keep track of.
  • All significant points of view are fairly presented Another guess here, but it seems like the article is in favor of the song and it almost reads like an advertisement. Aren't there other points of view? Criticisms? Anything? I'd find it hard to believe if any song in the world didn't have some sort of criticism.
  • It does not change significantly from day to day Looking at the history, this doesn't seem to be the case. On some days, there are many edits

I'm also concerned about the relative newness of the article. It was created less than a month ago. I think it needs more time to develop and settle down. Also, only two people have made any contributions to this article. I feel there ought to be more, especially to make it more of a NPOV.

All this said, I'm EXTREMELY impressed by how developed this article has come in such a short amount of time. Images and lots of references are especially rare in new articles like this one. I really applaud your effort and think that this article is off to a great start.

What it all boils down to is that I think this is a good article, but it's too new and needs more editors to polish it up and make it more NPOV. Keep up the awesome work! Thunderforge 20:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reviews and constructive feedback for The KLF song and album articles. Your comments are appreciated. I fully understand and accept your concerns about coverage and stability.
Regarding the comprehensibility, it was nice to be reviewed by someone with no preconceptions of the band or their work. The KLF were, to understate things, a very bizarre duo, with loads of odd recurring themes and a taste for controversy. The KLF main article explains this in depth, but currently its "satellite" articles do not go into the same level of detail. This is, I guess, fair enough, much as a maths article such as Hurwitz's automorphisms theorem does not explain what an automorphism or a group is. In other words, there's a hierarchy. But the specialist maths articles can be found through only a handful of very relevant articles, whereas Justified and Ancient can be reached through Tammy Wynette (for example), which is potentially confusing. So that's is a good point well raised. On top of more detail, those articles need signposts to the deeper explanations in The KLF article. I'm not sure these comments apply to The "What Time Is Love?" Story, however: this is a more specialist article, currently only linked in the prose of "What Time Is Love" (and other than prose, only in The KLF discography and in album chronology infoboxes).
The non-neutrality I also accept, though less willingly, because in creating the articles we've been making use of an excellent on-line archive of media articles. The quotes that we've used are representative of the articles from which they're drawn, and the spread of quotes represents more or less everything of relevance from the archive. But because of The KLF's anarchic and provocative ways (frequently trying to subvert the music industry), they enjoyed a mainly favourable reaction from the music press to most of their work. And the music press are not the public at large. The articles will benefit from this being pointed out.
I've added these musings to the User talk:Thunderforge page. Do you mind if we return for your opinions prior to resubmission?
Thanks again for valuable and thought-provoking feedback. :-) --Vinoir 23:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with several of these objections. In particular, I strongly disagree with the statement that it reads like an advert. Of course we are enthusiasts - not many people write about music they think is shit - but as Vinoir said, we use all reviews we can find, good or bad. I will, however, go through them with a fine tooth comb to ensure that any hyperbole is justified and anything contentious gets an opposing view (neutral point of view not neutered, that's my goal). The "problem" is that The KLF are media darlings - even the broadsheets love them for their antics. NPOV means report the verifiable facts without fear or favour, and report the opinion and consensus of the published sources. We can't say "well, maybe this song is actually crap" unless NME or Rolling Stone says it is. They don't. In fact, I can tell you I've actually tried to dig out something negative just to get some balance into The KLF article and it was hard! (I have Piers Morgan saying they are "wallies"). Actually, you should take a look at Brilliant (band). Same overall topic, same authors - does that read like a fan eulogy?! I think not :)
Are encyclopedia articles for the layman? I'm not really sure, I guess they are. I can say one thing though, you can't expect to get a full context or understanding from an article about a recording if you don't read the biography of the artist first! Blue links are there for a reason and I think as authors we can at least expect our readers to be forearmed with the knowledge we provide in the artists' main article, even if they knew nothing about the band beforehand. We can't put a potted biography into every KLF article, it would be boring and repetitive for those of our readers who will read every article. Furthermore, The KLF is some 70k long - all the background needed is right there. Again, however, we will check that we aren't using any slang or geeky terminology without explaining it.
Stability: I believe all 3 you rejected (and I don't think it fair you did all 3) have not had any major edits for days. That's because we've finished them, and right now we pretty much are the KLF WikiProject. We'll tweak them, we'll watchlist them, but these were intended to be "version 1.0".
Coverage: Fair enough, we'll have another look at that.
Honestly though, we didn't apply for featured article status. I certainly believe we have good prose - user:Vinoir is an excellent writer and I seem to be pretty good at editing :); I believe we cover the topics thoroughly; we have citations, references, images and audio samples. But, no bother, your criticisms are constructive and food for thought, now let's see if we can make our articles even better. Cheers! --kingboyk 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've renominated this as a good article. User:Thunderforge's concerns have been addressed or countered. Specifically:

  • broadness: additional information in the ==Evolution== section, on the three versions of the song prior to the single release;
  • non-neutrality: the potentially negative effect of collaborations has been added, but no new criticism has been found in Library of Mu; that is, the ===Reviews and reaction=== subsection is unbiased;
  • stability: there is nothing substantial left to add to the article; recent history changes reflect the improvements following the article's prior failed nomination for "good article";
  • newness of article: irrelevant to the quality of the content of the article.

I am inviting Thunderforge back to survey the article. --Vinoir 10:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's great to see so much work being done to all this article. There's only a few things I wanted to point out and I'm fine with it.
  • The "Inspiration" section seems a bit confusing. You state that they were controversial (and kind of restate it a few more times), but don't specifically say how (you do that in the evolution section). So the flow is a bit strange there.
  • I'm not sure if the "Themes" section is rightly named. It talks about the song's relations to ice cream and archaeological remains. I might put that in inspiration for the song if it really influenced its creation (I don't really know if it did) or just rename the title.
  • I'm okay with the personnel being listed (they are rather important to the song), but as someone who has never heard the song, I don't really have any interest in what formats it has been in, especially since it takes up a large portion of the page. I think that either a better way to present the info (i.e. taking up less space) or removing it altogether is a better use for it. But this is your article and if it is essential to the song, go ahead and leave it
These are my only real concerns about this and I would go ahead and pass it if these were addressed in some way. However, I think it's best to let someone new make the final say since I have contributed to this article to an extent. Good luck! Thunderforge 02:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
"Themes" is correctly named I believe. If any section is dubiously named it's actually the other one you mention, "Inspiration" - which is kind of background info from what I can see. I'm not sure if we need the tracklistings either, but perhaps we should make it clear that the article is not just about the song it is about the single too. That is the justfication for including and it might be useful to somebody (so I'm not taking a position either way on that - what do other articles do?). I'm sorry to say I think you continue to be excessively harsh. I'd invite you to read The KLF main article for essential background information on their career, including many instances of controversy (being sued for copyright infringement, dumping a dead sheep at an industry awards ceremony, burning one million pounds...) --kingboyk 07:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking back, I think that I did come across as a bit too harsh in my review. I didn't mean to be coming across as a definitive authority and I'm sorry if I did. I've glanced at The KLF and it does seem to fill in some of the blanks that I was missing (I probably should have read that article in the first place). Regardless, I think that this article is alright, but I'd still like someone new to make the final decision. Thunderforge 00:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yikes, I feel bad now for calling you harsh! hehe. Well, anyway, thanks for taking so much time over this. I agree that someone else should take a look now to assess it. --kingboyk 06:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I completely agree about the new for a new reviewer, and indeed I asked for Thunderforge's opinions to be informally given. Cheers Thunderforge, your contributions are again appreciated. I think it gives a kind of closure that is handy during the renomination process. I'm glad that you have now contextualised "Justified and Ancient" for yourself by reading The KLF article, and concede that you should have probably done this before-hand.
Regarding your new comments, I believe that the ==Themes== section is correctly named, as its content relates to the similarly-named section of The KLF article. However, I agree that ==Origins== is a misleading title, and have renamed this as ==Context==. I agree that the ==Formats and track listings== section is dull, but I think that it is a valid Wikipedia service to provide. The good articles This Charming Man and I Believe in You (Kylie Minogue song) both provide info on formats and track listings (but note that in contrast the good article Bringin' on the Heartbreak does not). I shall try to shorten the section in some way because it seems to occupy a disproportionate amount of "article space". --Vinoir 12:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
PS the guidelines recommend including track listings. --Vinoir 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top of the Pops (2)

Can we work in a mention of the TOTP performance (if it's not there already)? I've also located a citeable source saying the ice cream cone costumes were made by the Spitting Image designers[1]. --kingboyk 11:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a brief mention, but it can definitely be expanded. Good spot on the source. --Vinoir 01:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 45

Apparently Bill said this in 45: "I felt truly ashamed hearing [Tammy Wynette's] voice, the voice of poor white American womanhood, struggling to find some emotional content in our banal,self-referential lyrics." (acc:

People:    Johnson, Holly
Author(s):      Laurence Phelan
Section:        Features
Publication title:      The Independent. London (UK): Feb 27, 2000.  pg. 53

). Can you find the quote Vinoir (if not, we can just cite the newspaper) and think about how to slot it in? I think that ideally it should be the "last word". After, to an extent, bigging up the song it would be quite cool to end with these words of shame don't you think? --kingboyk 12:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely: I was aware of these quotes and was going to wait until we reached the article in our chronology. Not only the above, but also that she couldn't keep in time during the recording sessions and they had to extensively "stretch" and "re-sync" her voice back at Trancentral with a bit of kit that Jimmy had just bought. According to the book. Hey, you've struck gold with your latest searches though. --Vinoir 15:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've found an article (in the RAR file I sent you) written by Bill which includes all the above. I can only assume it's a reprint of the 45 chapter or the chapter is a reprint of this. However, to be sure we don't lose anything valuable I'll leave this one to you, please make sure you check it! The file is called "Portrait_ The day Tammy said `Is that you, honey_' Tammy Wynette was the first lady of country music. Bill Drummond recalls his trip to Nashville to persuade her to sing on his record.html". (The Guardian. Manchester (UK): Apr 9, 1998. pg. T.008). --kingboyk 12:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 90 from the 90s

(In your RAR file, Vinoir). I've added this reference but I'll leave it to you to decide whether to keep it or not. 50/50 for me. --kingboyk 14:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I was at a 90s night yesterday and the DJ had no KLF. I was unimpressed but unsurprised. -Vinoir 16:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

in case you're wondering what the Did you know? entry was and you don't want to trawl back through hundreds of pages of the Did you know? archive (like I did) ...

cheers Drstuey 09:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for the lyrics

The reference for the lyrics was removed[2]; when I tried to put it back I wasn't able because the site in question is blocked by the spam filter. That's evidence enough that we shouldn't be referencing it I suppose :) Still, I'd prefer the lyrics to have a citation - any suggestions as to how to proceed? --kingboyk 10:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/s/Talk%7EJustified_and_Ancient_d1cd.html"