Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The KLF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:KLF
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] Peter Robinson (journalist)

Peter Robinson, NME writer and author of Justified and Ancient History, now has a Wikipedia article. If we ever reference him we can link to his name now. I could have sworn we referenced one of his articles, but I've looked at the most likely articles and can't find anything. --kingboyk 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Press releases

Clearly press releases were issued, but are they still preserved? I ask because I have caught a tantalizing glimpse of the Chill Out press release, quoted here and there as a definition of ambient house. One such example was at the blog of our very own Electroclass (talk • contribs), here.

I have a slightly longer excerpt, found in a book. Other than that... I don't even know what the rest of it contains, but this seemed like a good opportunity to raise the question. –Unint 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised the Library of Mu doesn't have it, but a quick search suggests it doesn't. I'd recommend having a word with User:Drstuey (the librarian of Mu) or posting to the KLF mailing list. (And if you find it please let us know!) --kingboyk 09:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1987 - Featured Article Candidate

The article on The JAMs' debut album - 1987 - is now a Featured Article Candidate. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?). --kingboyk 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambient house/KLF resources

[edit] Will Pop Eat Itself?

Anyone have a copy of this book and would they be willing to share any juicy quotes? It's apparently very heavy on The JAMs: http://www.theedge.abelgratis.co.uk/booksmusic/willpopeatitself.htm --kingboyk 00:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this site about

I just found the site

http://www.thesoundof.mu

Does anybody know what this "upcoming documentation" is about and who are the authors? On the site, there's also a song for download available. Daniel 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's been answered before, perhaps at Talk:The KLF?, and the answer is, I'm afraid, that we don't know any more about it than you do. I suspect it's not Bill & Jimmy, but it's very much a case of "wait and see". --kingboyk 17:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anniversary

Hiya. What do you think about 23 March as a potential "request date" for The KLF article on the front page? It's more or less 20 years since The JAMs' first release, and I suspect that the actual release date of AYNIL isn't numerologically or otherwise very significant to Bill and Jimmy: it was just a Monday, the traditional release day of new singles.

If you're up for it, then it'll be a case of adding the request date to the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#The KLF section heading, by the looks of what's already being done there. --Vinoir 02:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus, though I hesitate to say it, the digit sum of that date would equal 17. --Vinoir 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiya mate. I think go for it. It's 20 years since they started so this has to be the year for the front page; 23 March sounds like a great choice. --kingboyk 13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, the 9th will do just as well! Teriffic stuff old bean. --Vinoir 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The KLF personnel

Regarding The KLF personnel and Wanda Dee, these are redirects that point to KLF Communications, but since the scrubbing of the additional communicators info the redirects are no longer suitable.

My take on the personnel issue is that it remains of definite relevance. These are the people who helped Drummond and Cauty actually realise their ideas. Chill Out would be much flatter without the pedal steel work of Graham Lee; the production of the Stadium House stuff (including The White Room) was enhanced by Mark Stent; the vocals of regulars Isaac Bello, Ricardo Lyte, Black Steel and Maxine Harvey exceeded in quality anything that Drummond and Cauty could have themselves mustered, and so on. Also, the duo were, in a sense, able to hide behind these 'frontmen/women' to help foster their own enigma. While there's no questioning the creative force of the duo, or their musical potential (e.g. Space, "WTIL? (Pure Trance)"), or the fact that the pre-Children of the Revolution material is mainly deliberately rough-edged, nonetheless the contrast between the 1987-88 productions and the later work exemplifies the difference made by the co-operative efforts of those regular contributors.

For this reason, I still think that they merit a higher-level view than the fragmented Personnel sections of individual song articles, so that readers can judge the relative contributions of those performers to the overall Drummond/Cauty canon. I agree that such info doesn't sit right in the KLF Communications article, which does after all discuss a record label.

Perhaps what we're missing here is a separate Trancentral article that details the recording studio (some suitable material for which sits in LTTT), instrumentation (which currently sits slightly awkwardly flow-wise in The KLF article) and the additional performers. Thinking about it, I'm slightly surprised that no-one (myself included) threw this one forward before. I guess we were in the thick of FA-nom-World. Anyways, what are your thoughts? --Vinoir 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw an "x personnel" article recently but I can't remember which group it was. Funnily enough I did think then that perhaps I should move ours back to article space.
WRT to a Trancentral or recording article, do we have enough material?
More detailed reply to follow, winding down for the day now :) --kingboyk 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that we've got enough to make a good basic shape of article with what we've already got (personnel list/trancentral/instrumentation). Beyond that, Mark Stent has spoken about the process, 45 mentions some relevant bits (including that jiggery-pokery was needed to get Tammy's vocal into meter), and I expect there's material to be found in The Manual. The duo's unconventional technical methods (1987, Chill Out and, according to Stent, the singles chart era too) and pioneering tendancies make for a worthwhile good-quality exposition, it feels like. Because it'd be right to point out that they couldn't easily take their music into a live context, even the Wanda Dee thing would seem to be caught by this article.
As for it's name, I'd somehow bizarrely forgotten that everything wasn't all done and dusted within the walls of Trancentral, so we couldn't really take that name for the article. P'raps instead we would need something with the gist of 'KLF production methods'.
I guess that realistically we need to get past 9th March before anything should happen anyway. :-) --Vinoir 01:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Like the name of your mechanoid Wiki-servant, by the way. :D
You're selling this to me quite well I have to admit... Let's talk about it some more tommorow/next time you're on, or if you feel like it you can map a structure out in a subpage or something... we can even use Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_KLF/Additional_Communicators as the sandbox if you like, since it's not in article space.
As for a title, how about The KLF in the studio?
Kingbotk? Great name isn't it :) --kingboyk 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I'll have a concerted play in that sandbox at some not-too-distant point. --Vinoir 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Some people seem to think the phrase 'in the studio' is too much of a cliche—I did personally get told off for using it in an article once.
Also, congratulations on front page material; good to see the project back together again. –Unint 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Cliche huh? :) So, open to the floor for any other suggestions... Thanks for the congrats by the way. --kingboyk 10:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Vaguely (very vaguely) comparable articles: Notable or frequent contributors to Pink Floyd, The Beatles' influence on music recording. Any others? --kingboyk 14:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Touring and studio musicians of Phil Collins should do it. –Unint 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Themes

In Martin Hinks useful review of "Whitney Joins The JAMs", he naturally expected to find a discussion of the track's lyrical themes in the ==Themes== section. Would there be any merit in renaming such sections as ==Continuity== throughout the album/single articles? --Vinoir 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Slayer

These guys are catching us up! 2 FAs from 34 articles... --kingboyk 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's now at 9 :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD notice

23 (numerology) is nominated at AfD. Unilateral keep votes so far, but there have been concerns that the article needs some serious work... –Unint 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plan

...We need one.

I don't really have the inclination to do a massive source trawl at the moment (I still have a lot of articles from Proquest to get through, which I will do but it will have to wait). We're also a bit rusty. I suggest then that we choose an article which is already in a good condition but which just needs some minor sourcing and some final polishing, and then get it submitted for whatever process is most applicable. A new GA, peer review or FA is what we need to get back into the swing of things I think and to announce that we're back :) --kingboyk 12:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It'll be cool to see the Project back in full swing. I reckon you should go for the The K Foundation burn a million quid as GA considering the discussion below, and maybe even FA after that if you feel inclined. LuciferMorgan 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Four more GAs and the Slayer Project will be tying on GAs with the KLF Project... :) LuciferMorgan 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Once the 'Context' section of The Magnificent is in place and the article is copy-edited, that might be one to put up for GA ? I've got my eye on a cool image of Fleka that I'm trying to decide the fair use status of (...not a living person, absence of free alternatives). Either way, I definitely think that creative attention should swing fully on to giving The K Foundation burn a million quid a dandy bow tie. I had a thorough read-through of it today. It's already very healthy, thanks to kingboyk. --Vinoir 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, The Magnificent for GA, million quid for FAC and possible aim for next year's April Fool's, and I think Chill Out for FAC so we can get some of their more serious work featured for a change! --kingboyk 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article

Looks like the K Foundation burning a million quid was the leading contender to be the April Fools Day FAC, but for reasons unclear it's dropped out of the running. I've made the bold claim that we could get it Featured by then, as I believe we could (article isn't far from FA already, the FAC process itself need only take a day or two if expedited). Perhaps you'd take a look and chip in?

Failing that - and given our recent front page appearance - we might want to bat for next year instead. --kingboyk 13:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can go along with getting The K Foundation burn a million quid up to FA status as our next priority. --Vinoir 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I argued that we could do it, but really I think next year's April 1st would be better to bat for, having just been on the front page... --kingboyk 18:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I feel similarly about the prospect of two K articles so near to each other on the front page. I'm also not particularly keen on April Fool's Day as a proposed date for it either. --Vinoir 19:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea of the April Fool's Day FA is that it's an article which seems to be ridiculous but is actually true (like the British Rail flying saucer)... I think this would fit quite well, but I also suspect we have at least a year to argue about it :) --kingboyk 20:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kalevala

A one-line mention of Drummond and Manning's Kalevala Records project might be in order? --kingboyk 12:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Orb

The Orb - the earliest incarnation of which featured KLF member Jimmy Cauty - is now a Featured Article thanks to the work of User:Wickethewok. The nomination can be read here. --kingboyk 10:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter

Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter is a drive whereby Wikipedians promise to try and write one FA per quarter. Apparently, at the current rate of promotion, it will take 3 centuries to reach 100,000 Featured Articles! --kingboyk 10:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That fact doesn't bode too well on Wikipedia's success does it? LuciferMorgan 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No. --kingboyk 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The statistic sounds a shocker, but I'd hope the current rate of promotion would rise over time: the quality of an article improves with age, and so the average quality of all articles will also improve (especially once the new article rate slows right down); that should increase the promotion rate. Also, at the moment, the percentage of users who are producing FA standard articles is small. As article quality increases, it'll take less effort to take articles to and through FA, and more people will feel able to be involved. --Vinoir 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote

I noticed that several bands and musicians have pages at Wikiquote with lyrics, interview snippets, critical commentary and so on. I'm sure there's plenty of juicy quotes that would make for some nice pages on KLF, JAMs, Drummond, Cauty, and even Ford Timelord :) --kingboyk 11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just for the record...

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 26.07.2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Just for the record! :-) Carcharoth 01:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, thanks :) --kingboyk 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone nominated the Slayer Project too - perhaps the nominators should write an FA or two sometime. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Did you ask to use it? please remove this pictures and make your own scans. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.44.203 (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

this message is for kingboyk: please remove this pictures!

  • Under fair use, permission does not need to be asked (assuming that the work actually makes valid fair use claims, which I'm sure these images do). See the Wikipedia policy page on fair use: WP:FU and the article on fair use. Who scans the images is irrelevant, as taking a non-creative photo/copy of album cover art does not make this photo/copy/scan a new original work. The cover art is still copyright of the publisher/label/whoever regardless - I believe it is the case that the person making the copy/scan has no unique rights to the image, though I could be mistaken. You could go here for a fair use review, but these images will not be removed as almost certainly fall under fair use. Wickethewok (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wickethewok is correct. I guess somebody's just sore because I removed a "KLF-communications" Youtube link from the article... Anyway: The website in question doesn't own the scans, and any attempt to remove them for malicious reasons will result in a block in order to protect the integrity of this and related articles. (And already has, in fact). It's strange, btw, that he should remove a link to his site as most folks like the free publicity! Doesn't strike me as a true KLF fan either, if he wants to vandalise the best article about them on the web... --kingboyk (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you did not understand, the problem is not that you use the pictures, the problem is kind you are do it.The "wikipedia fair use policy" is for wikipedia user, for you and not for me. We spend our time and money to create this websides, and we do not like it when somebody copies pictures from our websides, does not ask for it and creates no info what the source is of this pictures. Other websides also use our pictures, but the did ask for it and the makes notes where they get the pictures. But you did not do it and this was not only one picture, you copied twentyeight pictures. We noticed this a long time ago but we ignored it. But we did also noticed a other thing, everytime when we add a link to the wikipedia you removed it. We add links to our subsides or to friendly sides or to free download releases and you remove it. The point when we want to set a sign was when you remove the link to the X-Mas video on the KLF Television subside. Did you think that you are the only one that can decide which information is good for a KLF fan and which is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.38.193 (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • What makes you think the images came from you in the first place? I'm not saying they didn't, but how can you say this with certainty?
  • You have absolutely no legal rights to the images just because you scanned them. None. Zero. Nada.
  • You get a "free" link to your website, which is more than most websites get.... but by rights you don't "get" anything in return; whether or not the scans came from you does not give you priveledges to add extra external links to Wikipedia articles.
  • Considering that all the work we do here is free, i.e. other people can republish it without charge, that you then moan about the use of a few scans which you may have done is extremely mean spirited. The writers here don't even own all these releases.
  • As one of the main writers of this article and as a Wikipedia admin it's my job to protect the integrity of the KLF articles. This means ensuring no violations of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory of downloads, it's not a Youtube directory; it's an encyclopedia) and WP:EL.
  • "Did you think that you are the only one that can decide which information is good for a KLF fan and which is it not?" No, but if you want to be involved in that process too, get an account, learn our policies, start editing articles, take part in dialogue, just do anything that doesn't involve posting spam weblinks and being a whinging kunt!!! --kingboyk (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (PS Much of this is academic now as many of the images will be deleted due to their removal from KLF Communications, a process which - unconnected to this debate - I've decided to stop fighting against; see Talk:KLF_Communications#Images.)


"What makes you think the images came from you in the first place?"
The pictures are still in our database and you did not change the pictures, you did only rename it. So it is easy to see where the pictures come from. Every picture on our webside of a real existing record is scaned by us, because we have the records.

So forget it, you can use every picture from us, but make a notice where they come from. Other websides do this the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.38.193 (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The KLF discography

The KLF discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is up for it's second Featured List Candidacy. If you would like to review the nomination please see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography. --kingboyk (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Topics

See Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. The Slayer guys have one for Christ Illusion - an FA on the album, and 2 FAs on the singles it spawned. I was thinking that our body of work might similarly lend itself to a number of legitimate, smaller potential featured topics, such as:

The most realistic of these is K Foundation, which needs the eponymous article to pass FAC and one more to go through (both the Turner prize and burning articles are well within reach of FAC), and K Cera to either get beefed up as sources allow or given dispensation.

The JAMs is possible but they might not allow it because there's no eponymous article. I'll ask.

As for The KLF themselves, of course not all articles within this project would go into the topic (K Foundation is seperate, Cauty solo work is seperate, etc; JAMs would probably be replaced by KLF and include Timelords). I'll have to reread the rules, but for now I think:

  • these apply and comply:
  • KLF, 1987, All You Need Is Love, Fuck the Millennium (FA); Whitney, Doctorin', Grim Up North, Justified & Ancient, Last Train, WTIL?, Burn the Bastards, Down Town, Shag Times, The Magnificent (GA). Disco 2000? (GA). -- probably, with Space, this is KLF Comms not KLF...
  • the following articles would need to become GA or better:
  • Bill Drummond, Chill Out, Jimmy Cauty, 3am, Who Killed The JAMs, The "What Time Is Love?" Story, The Manual, Kylie Said to Jason, KLF films
  • So, not in scope for KLF:
  • K Foundation, art award, burning million quid, K Cera Cera;?? Blacksmoke, Brilliant, Space, The Man, Gimpo... actually all mid and low importance except Kylie Said to Jason and KLF films
  • Don't know:
  • Black Room, List of The KLF's creative associates

--kingboyk (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"JAMs albums" and "JAMs singles" would fail "The topic has an introductory and summary lead article." I'll ask tommorow whether "JAMs" would be successful, as it has The KLF as "an introductory and summary lead article". Probably flogging a dead horse, however. --kingboyk (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)