| Revision as of 15:22, 1 October 2022 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,382,785 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Koncorde/Archives/2022/July. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:16, 18 October 2022 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,382,785 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Koncorde/Archives/2022/July. (BOT)Next edit → | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| <!--Template:Welcomeg--> | <!--Template:Welcomeg--> | ||
| == Lampton School == | |||
| Hello, I don't want to get into an argument at all and I am totally fine with you removing the stuff from the Liverpool, West Derby pages if you really don't think it fits, but I do disagree with the Lampton School content removal. You say that happened "in proximity", but it was in the school's grounds and what it is mostly known for outside the area today. In fairness the section probably is too long, but I do think there should be some mention of it. ] (]) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == John Barnes rap == | == John Barnes rap == | ||
Revision as of 04:16, 18 October 2022
|
John Barnes rap
Do you have a personal problem with John Barnes' musical contribution to the NWO song subsequently outshining it? I cannot square your claims that it has no independent notability, with the evidence that is all around that it does. I could perhaps understand your deleterious actions if the NWO song page contained the equivalent information, but it does not. You apparent aim appears to me to be to scrub this information from Misplaced Pages. Help me understand what possible alternative motive you might have. Independent notability is established beyond doubt. CrimeAlert (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
To further explain, I would like you to acknowledge that your statement "The only source does not make the distinction of the rap from the song" is a complete lie. The source quite literally refers to the rap as the only part of the song most fans remember. Why do they say that? Because it is now largely remembered in isolation. It is now known as a distinct thing, which grew beyond the original song (and was almost never even included in it). Your insistence in forcing people to see it as nothing but merely a verse in a supposedly well remembered song, an indivisible relationship, is a perverse distortion of proven established reality. Which begs the question, why? What is your motive for distorting the reality of how this rap outgrew the song, gaining iconic status in of itself? What is your motive for pretending nobody ever writes about the rap unless they are also writing about the song in an equal and indivisible way? It is historical context at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimeAlert (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- The issue is the content, per my original edit summary "No independent notability. This is about a single verse of the song, or about Barnes, and should be in their respective articles already". For specifics about notability criteria for music articles, read WP:NMUSIC. The rap, when referenced, is done so as a part of the song despite your attempts to claim otherwise (a prime example being the BBC
"New Order wisely restricted the England players to backing vocals - with the exception of John Barnes' legendary rap interlude."
and people seeking to read about the song would likely be more interested in reading the John Barnes related content there, rather than searching for a non-existent subject. - All sources indicate it is considered within the context of the song barring some vague references to Barnes being asked to perform the rap independently (which is no different to any other singer performing a song when requested). In contrast, a particular section of a song that has gone on to have a notable existence outside of the original composition would be the Amen break which is discussed, referenced, and re-used outside of its original composition. That justifies the additional article and forking of content. A famous verse, or excerpt, might be popular (such as the chant "Vindaloo", or "It's Coming Home", or "I Get Knocked Down, But I Get Up Again") but popularity and singability doesn't confer notability (per NMUSIC).
- To the actual content. There are numerous issues, not least the fact that claims are made that should be attributed to the source, or are not mentioned in the source, or are plain inaccurate. For example if we take the first source CNN
- "written by Craig Johnston and John Barnes" - article states that it was Keith Allen
- "later gaining iconic status in English football" - article refers to the song World In Motion, not the rap.
- "In doing so it broke one of the football song genre's "rules", that footballers shouldn't rap," - there's no such golden rules, and two years earlier the Anfield Rap, which kinds of scotches this opinion which should be attributed.
- Other elements might be redeemable for the main World In Motion article, but you can rescue those at your own leisure. Koncorde (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Wolverton railway station
Following our conversation at the Wikiproject, I've revisited Wolverton RS. I don't think we need to confer because I've had to delete most of the map citations. But feel free to review in case I've missed anything. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that the "notorious bend" story had something to do with the Advanced Passenger Train failing its trials. I'll leave a note at its talk page to see if anyone has a book reference. A note at talk: Wolverton Works came up with the goods on the reason for the bend being put in. We shall see. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)