Revision as of 18:21, 17 August 2014 editParrot of Doom (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,489 edits →Quote from Uncut: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:38, 17 August 2014 edit undoGraham Beards (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators35,590 edits →Quote from Uncut: replyNext edit → | ||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::::::If it helps, I have a copy of this magazine. The interview segment in question is on page 114. The transcript given on <nowiki>pinkfloydz.com</nowiki> is accurate, but a citation to this magazine would be more acceptable for an FA. (But I am not sure that it fully supports the text that has been added). ] (]) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC) | ::::::If it helps, I have a copy of this magazine. The interview segment in question is on page 114. The transcript given on <nowiki>pinkfloydz.com</nowiki> is accurate, but a citation to this magazine would be more acceptable for an FA. (But I am not sure that it fully supports the text that has been added). ] (]) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::::::That's very helpful Graham, thanks, add whatever you feel is appropriate. I have no problem with the magazine content, at least I know I can trust you (I do not trust the website). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC) | :::::::That's very helpful Graham, thanks, add whatever you feel is appropriate. I have no problem with the magazine content, at least I know I can trust you (I do not trust the website). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::::::I don't think the quotation from Roger Waters fully supports the proposed changes. To add " Gilmour refused to be listed as a co-producer yet insisted on receiving a cut of the production royalties", is too strong an interpretation of "The big argument was whether he'd (Gilmour) be getting a production credit and a point off the top for producing the record. He didn't produce it. He didn't want it made. He was disinterested. He did, however, insist on taking a point of the top." I think the original wording is better - "After months of poor relations, and following a final confrontation, Gilmour was removed from the credit list as producer, at his own insistence", which is cited to Mark Blake, a secondary source, which we ]. I will not be making any changes to the article. ] (]) 19:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:38, 17 August 2014
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Final Cut (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
The Final Cut (album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
Pink Floyd FA‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote from Uncut
User:Parrot of Doom has, three times in two hours, removed a quote cited to Uncut Magazine, June 2004. At first, he apparently (from his edit summary) believed that this was being cited to a website which caries a transcript of the article in question. Once this was error pointed out (in my edit summary) he changed his reasoning; and now seems to believe that FAC criteria prevent their inclusion - but does not specify which criterion, or how the quote breaches it. (The edits and edit summaries in question are: "please explain what makes 'pinkfloydz.com' a reliable source", "clearly you don't know what you're talking about", "try reading the Featured Article Criteria") I have asked him to take the matter to the talk page, but he has not done so and, given past experience and the current comments he makes on his own talk page, refusing a similar request, it sadly seems unlikely that he will comment here. The material should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't cited to Uncut, it's cited to pinkfloydz.com. Until we establish the reliability of that website, it cannot be included in a Featured Article. Parrot of Doom 11:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's simply not true. The citation was marked up as
- the archive URL is pinkfloydz.com, but the citation is unambiguously
Uncut Magazine, June 2004
, which is perfectly acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)- I couldn't care less what code is used. The citation is to the website. It is the website that cites Uncut. You must therefore demonstrate the reliability of the website. If you cannot do that then it cannot appear on this article. If you add the material but cite it to the magazine, that would be fine - but if you do it immediately following this discussion then don't expect me to believe that you have a copy of the original magazine, because I won't. Parrot of Doom 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- You continue to tilt at windmills. The displayed citation was, in full "Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004" (emboldening mine; italics in original). Your unfounded disbelief is of no import. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're clearly either ignorant or stupid. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- If it helps, I have a copy of this magazine. The interview segment in question is on page 114. The transcript given on pinkfloydz.com is accurate, but a citation to this magazine would be more acceptable for an FA. (But I am not sure that it fully supports the text that has been added). Graham Colm (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's very helpful Graham, thanks, add whatever you feel is appropriate. I have no problem with the magazine content, at least I know I can trust you (I do not trust the website). Parrot of Doom 18:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the quotation from Roger Waters fully supports the proposed changes. To add " Gilmour refused to be listed as a co-producer yet insisted on receiving a cut of the production royalties", is too strong an interpretation of "The big argument was whether he'd (Gilmour) be getting a production credit and a point off the top for producing the record. He didn't produce it. He didn't want it made. He was disinterested. He did, however, insist on taking a point of the top." I think the original wording is better - "After months of poor relations, and following a final confrontation, Gilmour was removed from the credit list as producer, at his own insistence", which is cited to Mark Blake, a secondary source, which we prefer. I will not be making any changes to the article. Graham Colm (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's very helpful Graham, thanks, add whatever you feel is appropriate. I have no problem with the magazine content, at least I know I can trust you (I do not trust the website). Parrot of Doom 18:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- If it helps, I have a copy of this magazine. The interview segment in question is on page 114. The transcript given on pinkfloydz.com is accurate, but a citation to this magazine would be more acceptable for an FA. (But I am not sure that it fully supports the text that has been added). Graham Colm (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're clearly either ignorant or stupid. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- You continue to tilt at windmills. The displayed citation was, in full "Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004" (emboldening mine; italics in original). Your unfounded disbelief is of no import. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less what code is used. The citation is to the website. It is the website that cites Uncut. You must therefore demonstrate the reliability of the website. If you cannot do that then it cannot appear on this article. If you add the material but cite it to the magazine, that would be fine - but if you do it immediately following this discussion then don't expect me to believe that you have a copy of the original magazine, because I won't. Parrot of Doom 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's simply not true. The citation was marked up as