Talk:Joey Waronker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Splitsection.svg This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Joey Waronker, due to size or style considerations.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is part of the Smashing Pumpkins WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of The Smashing Pumpkins. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to Smashing Pumpkins-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale


[edit] Birth date

Agreeing with GangstaEB that the MySpace account seems to be fake. That was my initial thought, but the comments on the page made me think twice.

The happy birthday wishes occurred on May 20, which led me to believe we had incorrectly given his D.O.B. as May 21. However, during his R.E.M. days, the band sang 'Happy Birthday' to him during the recording for MTV Unplugged on May 21, 2001. I'll revert it back to the latter date until we can confirm the correct one. - Dudesleeper 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the stuff about Crowded House's reunion being unlikely, since they actually have reunited, and edit that paragraph into "Waronker is currently working on Crowded House's album Time On Earth with Neil Finn and Nick Seymour."

[edit] Merge proposal

Love it when editors stick a {{merge}} tag in and then move on without stating their reasons. That aside, merging Joey Waronker (The R.E.M. years) would make this article too R.E.M.-centric, which is why the separate article exists. He was only "with" (in a touring sense, at least) R.E.M. for four years — only a short period of his overall musical career. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of info in that other article then, for only 4 years, or maybe this one needs expansion. Sorry for not stating my reasoning earlier. To me, it looks like the REM years article contains overmuch, er, "fancruft", for want of a less negative word (and I'm not trying to be negative), and could be usefully trimmed, then merged in here. However, if the other article is the result of consesus, then apologies for being hasty, and I'm not going to argue against that. Regards Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)