Talk:The Drones (English band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First discussion[edit]

One of the functions of this page is to discuss the contents of the article. User:Spylab seems to have strong opinions on the contents of the article. What are they? Yozzer66 (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My opinion is that all Wikipedia articles have to meet Wikipedia standards and follow guidelines such as neutral point of view, good organization and proper writing style.Spylab (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a given. All Wikipedians begin from that point. What are your SPECIFIC opinions on THIS article. The aim is to improve it NOT change it for non-specified or idiosyncratic reasons. Yozzer66 (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is to have it comply with Wikipedia standards and guidelines, which is what my edits have been doing.Spylab (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is to IMPROVE the article with edits that comply with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Don't get me wrong, it's great that other Wikipedians are now showing an interest in this article. Before I started work on it, The Drones article was a stub that had remained untouched for 5 months! Honestly, as a member of the Wikiproject on Punk, I personally welcome any contributions that genuinely improve the article. Yozzer66 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly suggest you stop blindly reverting absolutely necessary corrections to grammar, puncutation, NPOV, historical sequence :and other problems that appeared in earlier versions.Spylab (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you a Wikipedian? The words / terms 'strongly', 'blindly', and 'absolutely necessary' suggest you have a very low tolerance ::level. For goodness sake, have a little humility. If you can't justify your edits then don't make them. If you can't stand to see your contribtions challenged then maybe Wikipedia isn't your bag. Yozzer66 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you familarize yourself more with Wikipedia standards for NPOV, grammar, punctuation, formatting and other issues so you can avoid continuing to make counterproductive and destructive edits to Wikipedia articles.Spylab (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, calm down, both of you. Your diligence on this article is worthy, Yozzer. It is normal for an 'active' article to suddenly receive attention from other editors, who will tweak in this manner or that. You should take it as a compliment. If you have a specific issue- just mention it here. With Spylab's help it's looking like a very good article. I believe the citations need some work, particularly the trakmarx, which just go to an index page. They should go to the exact item and maybe a quote be included as per the citation template. I think 'seminal' could be changed to 'influential' or 'significant.' The fair-use rationale on the image could be spruced too. I did shoot some video of the band when they played NYC in 1999. I'll have a dig around for it, maybe post some up. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Wwwhatsup. This isn't the first article that I've radically revised and then had amended! As a Wikipedian I welcome improving amendments. Unfortunately, Spylab and I seem to disagree about the contents of several articles at present. My point on all these disagreements is DISCUSS THEM. Regarding your specific points: (1) For some reason, I can't get the exact address for the trakMARX citation. I don't know whether it is my software, or the website, but the only address I can assertain is the index; (2) If the description 'seminal' was mine then I would agree that 'influential' or 'significant' would be more appropriate but it is an assessment by the referenced source. This source maybe mistaken (I don't believe it is) but, unlike Spylab so far, I believe that it should only be contradicted by another fully referenced source; (3) The addition of other images would be a great improvement. Regarding the 'sprucing up' of the fair-use rationale, any suggestions would be very welcome. All the best. Yozzer66 (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I can quite see that you two guys are like oil and water. Spylab is absolutely on sound ground when he suggests you should bone up on Wikipedia protocols. The Manual Of Style and other documents are the result of many many disputes and much thinking and work. The aim is to produce something that *is* truly encyclopedic, solid as a rock. Here is a short list I regularly consult as i klutz about:
If Spylab sees things that are contrary to generally accepted Wikipedia principles he's duty bound to do his best to correct them. If the two of you can't agree you have to get other people to review the changes and come to a consensus. I did look earlier and saw nothing amiss with his edits, but I've also observed on the [punk rock] page that he can be a little over-dogmatic.
What I will do is do an edit and give my rationales.
Specifically, I'll address the intro. The fact that the band appears on the two comps is notable but only as part of their career. It doesn't belong in the intro. Before moving it I'll check the reference. Ah! - it doesn't refer to the specific page. Easily fixed by right clicking on the link and going for copy link location (in Firefox). Now I use my handy Citation quick reference above to get the web cite template and fill in as much as I can.
{{cite web |url=http://www.trakmarx.com/2004_01/13_comp.htm |title=Punk Rock Compilation classics |Publisher=trakMARX  (issue13) 
 |author=Johnny Forgotten |year=2004 |month=Jan |accessdate=2007-11-30}}
which gives: Johnny Forgotten (2004). "Punk Rock Compilation classics". Retrieved 2007-11-30. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help) in the reflist. Don't ask me why the publisher entry doesn't show. I still put it in..
(I observe that author's name is Johnny Forgotten not Normal and marvel at the sloppiness of the previous editor). It is quite dubious whether the POV of an pseudonymic punk is a citable reference, or that trakMARX is an authoritative source but I'll leave it in and let others decide that. What is evident is that nowhere is the peacock word "seminal" mentioned although it is implied.
What Mr. Forgotten says is that these comps were "essential" in defining "the zeitgeist" of punk. I'll change "seminal" to "influential early". It should be remembered that one desires to keep POV out of articles even if it's other people's. The fact that J.Forgotten considers the comps essential is not encyclopedic. IF he was a notable published authority like, for instance, Mojo magazine, it might be.
Moving the sentence down the page - I drop it in the middle of the 1977 section meaning I can remove the In 1977 bit as superfluous. I observe the whole piece is a little awkward and without doubt will be rewritten in the future.. But at least this little sentence here, now not so overblown, in it's proper location, and with a decent citation, stands a good chance of survival in the evolutionary process. I remove the superfluous second reference to the Streets comp. I fix up the intro by adding Manchester to the definition. I change UK to England because, as an American, that makes more sense to me.
Casting my eye one last time over my edit. I notice that the Paul Morley AMG ref above it has still got the user-token included, so I chop that out. Tsk tsk.
And that is that!

Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rereading the article one thing that really stands out as unkosher is the use of inline quotes that are not really material. Say on the album, the fact should be stated that the record is well regarded & the actual quotes should go in the citations - the template provides for this. SO.. I did that.
Now I know, Yozzer, that this may not appeal to you immediately, that it might feel like gutting the story, as it were, but I hope that you can perceive that it makes the whole thing ultimately more readable, coherent, and encyclopedic.
I've had enough for now. We'll discuss images tomorrow.
Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One last word though. I liked that bit that used to be in there Fans had to wait until 1999 etc. That was a nice turn of phrase. That should be brought back.Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wwwhatsup for all that. I don't agree with everything you wrote but it's just very satisfying that the article is now receiving attention. As I said, before I started work on it, and helped to generate this useful discussion, The Drones article was a stub that had remained untouched for 5 months! Keep up the good work. Yozzer66 (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-"the sloppiness of the previous editor" when misnaming an author in the references. I hold my hands up. It was me gov! The error came about when I was trying to make sense of pages and pages of notes I'd made on The Drones (and band pages that link to the article). You see, to my mind, there seem to be two types of Wikipedian - those who do all the spade work (researching the sources, referencing, external links, brand new pages, etc.) and those that tinker afterwards. Don't get me wrong there is room for both, as Wwwhatsup's useful amendment to the author's name illustrate. I think spade workers can be over-protective, objecting to the "gutting" of an article they've helped resurrect. Whereas, tinkerers can be "over-dogmatic" (to use Wwwhatsup's description) and patronising. To coin a phrase, "It's good to talk!" (for our American cousins this is from a British Telecom advert). Yozzer66 (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mojo and other tweaks[edit]

I think the mojo thing should be at the end. It's a little awkward as it is and it makes chronological sense.Wwwhatsup 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert that., since no-one has spoken up. And also knock out 'cognoscenti'. Who else but cognoscenti would have an opinion on the quality of a punk album? I've rephrased the sentence to more accurately reflect the citations.
What's needed is a bit more info about how the band came to pack it in back in the day. Wwwhatsup 09:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cites need more work too. isdn's for the books? Templates? The peel ref is generic, needs to be specific. Done.Wwwhatsup 10:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point about 'punk cognoscenti' is that they have an INFORMED view on albums that more mainstream reviewers have never even heard of, let alone formed an educated opinion on! Its use is a prefectly valid inclusion. That said, the current wording will sufface. Yozzer66 11:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Paul Morley / Dave Bentley[edit]

An anon IP left the following comment in the article. I reverted, and advised the editor to find a secondary source. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC) For the record..[reply]

In actual fact they were never managed by Paul Morley, he attended the recording session for the first single and came up with the E.P. name. They were managed by Dave Bentley who masterminded the distribution of the EP selling an amazing 14000 copies with no advertiseing (sic) at all. He left just as the LP was released to form Bent Records.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Drones_(English_band)&oldid=1200881787"