Talk:Doctorin' the Tardis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Doctorin' the Tardis has been listed as one of the Arts good articles 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 reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
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 within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 To-do list for Doctorin' the Tardis: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Name
The sleeve image says "Doctorin' the Tardis" (small "t" in "the") so I'm thinking the page should be moved? Either way, a redirect would be handy as both forms are currently in use (i.e. Doctorin' the Tardis - currently red - has incoming links too). --kingboyk 18:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. I reckon the sleeve title merits being the article being moved. Thanks for doing that, I'll get the links pointing to the small 't' page. I'm still in two minds about where all the Doctorin' content belongs. I guess it's best here because of the amount of detail concerning the one song? --Vinoir 18:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like you already did it :-) If you like, you continue working on this while I trim some of the lesser details out of The KLF? --kingboyk 19:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh it wasn't you heh heh, must have been the Capitalisation poLice. Oh well. :) --kingboyk 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Seems you aren't editing at the moment, so I'm gonna tweak a few things in this article. --kingboyk 19:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry we keep getting conflicts! Please tinker away, the mutual eagerness is great! I'll be working at links for a bit (and am off out shortly). --Vinoir 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good article nomination
Almost there I think, but I would just like to see the references cleaned up - the separation into references and notes makes it unclear as to what actually has been used as a reference. Worldtraveller 20:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Discographies for tracklisting info, the Library provided the articles used in the footnotes. I don't see anything against the guidelines in having general article-wide references seperate from citations, but if it's a problem we'll just delete the former and rename the latter. --kingboyk 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- You mentioned in an edit summary that maybe the JAMs should have their own article (actually that they "deserve" one). That was the original scheme, but as part of my article improvement drive I reversed it. I'd be very reluctant to split the JAMs out again, because they are essentially the same band, different name. As it is, the duo already have two biography articles, with The KLF covering their musical work from 1987-1992, and an overview of before and since, and the K Foundation covering 1993-1997+. --kingboyk 14:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK then - my concern was that the link, as it was, didn't work because a section heading had changed. Linking to sections is unstable like that. I would still consider having two separate articles - Sub Sub and Doves are the same people under a different name but I'd still consider them separate bands. I'm concerned about your reference to the JAMs being controversial though - first of all it's something of an opinion, and also a general reader won't know why they are controversial, or why it's necessary to mention here that they are (or are considered by some to be) controversial. It really needs more explanation. Worldtraveller 15:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. We'll have a think about it. It's probably not vital, it just adds a bit to the narrative. --kingboyk 15:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Re: the refs - nothing wrong at all with having general and specific ones - just that your section headings made it really unclear. As they are all references, I merged the two sections, and have listed the article as good. Worldtraveller 23:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Lovely job, your input and dedication to the project is much appreciated! --kingboyk 08:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Re: the refs - nothing wrong at all with having general and specific ones - just that your section headings made it really unclear. As they are all references, I merged the two sections, and have listed the article as good. Worldtraveller 23:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. We'll have a think about it. It's probably not vital, it just adds a bit to the narrative. --kingboyk 15:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK then - my concern was that the link, as it was, didn't work because a section heading had changed. Linking to sections is unstable like that. I would still consider having two separate articles - Sub Sub and Doves are the same people under a different name but I'd still consider them separate bands. I'm concerned about your reference to the JAMs being controversial though - first of all it's something of an opinion, and also a general reader won't know why they are controversial, or why it's necessary to mention here that they are (or are considered by some to be) controversial. It really needs more explanation. Worldtraveller 15:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New addition & another job
The following new addition needs to be verified and moved to a better position within the article: "The song also features the riff from another of Glitter's recordings, "Leader Of The Gang"." Which makes me think: we don't have a section called "Composition".
Doctorin' (and Gary Joins The JAMs) ought to be mentioned in Gary Glitter, either in the main article body or the Trivia section (probably the former, it did get him the front cover of NME after all).
I think both of these jobs are more up your street than mine Vinoir... (Summarising compositions, and short but sweet additions to other articles are both things you excel at as far as I can see). --kingboyk 15:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'll have a look. "Composition",
"Formats and track listings"and "Personnel" sections are needed. --Vinoir 10:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ambient house
I've just heard the eerie "Gary In The Tardis (Minimal)" for the first time. I bought the 12" ages ago when I was away from home with no turntable, and I forgot I'd got it. Have you listened to it recently? Pre-dating "3 a.m. Eternal (Blue Danube Orbital)", this is surely The KLF's first "ambient house" track?
Also, I'd forgotten how hilarious "Gary In The Tardis (Radio)" is.
I think samples of both "Gary (Radio)" and "Gary (Minimal)" would be justified, especially if our aim is "Featured". --Vinoir 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Er...and "Doctorin'" too, of course... oops. That ogg sample's poor quality, I'll find a better one. --Vinoir 00:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Listening now... "Minimal" is just that, isn't it. "Gary In The Tardis (Radio)" is class, a lot of fun. --kingboyk 11:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dalek feet
I really think the photo from the video should have the (human) feet coming out the bottom of the crudely designed "Dalek" - that's my favourite part of the video. Also, isn't there a quote in The Manual that they approached the BBC to get some real Daleks but they said no. That video is almost worth an article of its own - it really made the song - it is pure trash class, cheers Drstuey 10:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
