Talk:Burn the Bastards

Merge?

I'm wondering whether this article is worthy of a stand-alone entry. Much of the prose in the "Origins" and "Transition" sections is bound to either duplicate or cover the same ground as Who Killed The JAMs?. Perhaps "Burn the Bastards" should be a section of the LP article, much as "Single" is a section of "Justified and Ancient", complete with "Formats" subsection etc. We might (or might not, I suppose :-) ) have to dispense with the single infobox. What are your thoughts on that one, mate? --Vinoir 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not an important single, so if the WKTJ article would gain from having the additional info go for it. I'm not too fussed either way. (And I haven't worked on this one yet so I don't have any emotional involvement :)). --kingboyk 18:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Build a fire"

"Build a fire" or "Fuel the fire". I thought it was the former, you've changed to the latter. What gives? Is it headphones and concentrated listening time? :) --kingboyk 09:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Overly so, I reckon: I've just listened to that fragment loads again and its definitely "Build a fire"! Bizarre. :) --Vinoir 10:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

House band or House band? I think the former, but both make sense. Therefore I've delinked; the reader can decide for themselves. --kingboyk 13:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good call. After all, Wikipedia is not a nanny state. --Vinoir 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

GA note

You can't reference the pedia. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand the point, but I don't see where it's done. Do you mean footnotes 1 and 3? They're not referencing the Wikipedia article, so perhaps the links should go. If you mean something else, please elaborate :) --kingboyk 18:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Who Kill the Jams?" link reference to that article. It isn't obvious you're citing a magazine. I think you need the ISSN to make it apparent. Regards, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be no ambiguity now. I looked into ISSN numbers and it needs a paid subscription to get them. If you think it's still broken please tell me the footnote number or the exact text so I know what I'm trying to mend :) --kingboyk 20:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The "The"

We read:

A suspension of The JAMs' activities was explicitly announced. . . . This single, also by The KLF, featured. . . .

This use of Capital-T-"The" always strikes me as ridiculous corporatespeak. And the WP article on (say) even the creepy "Carlyle Group" rightly ignores this daft capitalization. My version:

A suspension of the JAMs' activities was explicitly announced. . . . This single, also by the KLF, featured. . . .

Any objection if I went ahead and made such changes throughout? -- Hoary 14:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We've had this debate over at WP:BEATLES and there seems to be some regional differences. It's become almost religious over there. We'd prefer "The". The KLF got the FA star with "The KLF" appearing throughout, so let's leave it as is :) --kingboyk 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Drummond and Cauty themselves use capitalization for "The Timelords", "The KLF" and "The JAMs", but not for the "One World Orchestra" or the "K Foundation". "The KLF" rather than "KLF" (for instance) is the name of the band, so to ignore this would not be right. However, I too am glad that "Carlyle Group" doesn't get the capital treatment! :) --Vinoir 15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If Drummond and Cauty want to use a capital "T", that's their privilege; I'll ignore it. Cf Sanyo, which consistently refers to itself as SANYO, but I think just about everybody ignores that. But that's just my two groats; I don't want to involve myself in any quasireligious warfare. -- Hoary 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling mistake?

[1] I think it gets a "sic" doesn't it? --kingboyk 14:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It sure does. --Vinoir 15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

GA pending

Please modify the beginning of the Origins section as it is a carbon copy of Down Town. Secondly, the origins of an album aren't the origins of the song so the parcels of text added to every articles from the JAMs in the Origins section should maybe reconsidered. Drop a note on the my talk page if you don't agree. Lincher 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm replying here as well as on your talk page, because you raise an important point. I will modify the prose so that there is no word-for-word duplication. However, the strategy of including a brief history at the beginning of JAMs singles stems from the first GA nominations for "What Time Is Love?" and "Justified and Ancient". These failed on account of our assuming the reader's familiarity with the subject matter, which, due to the off-the-wall nature of JAMs/KLF activities, left the reviewer bewildered and feeling that the articles were incomplete. From that point on, our policy has been to include whatever context is necessary. In particular, for JAMs singles, it's necessary to know that overt plagiarism was their business for the year 1987. And for "Burn the Bastards", the nature and consequent fiery destruction of the LPs is the principal origin of the song.

The inclusion of such context means that anyone reading their way through the singles chronology will encounter information they have seen before. But they shouldn't have to read the same prose, I completely agree. I'll ensure that "Burn the Bastards" is written differently to "Down Town", emphasising the relevance of the LP. Please let us know your thoughts. --Vinoir 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For FA standard articles, we need to provide context. That said, the prose should be fresh and relevant, not copy/pasted. Kinda what you're saying Vinoir... --kingboyk 09:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vinoir rewote it, and I've merged two sections into one "context" section. How do you like it now? --kingboyk 10:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Burn the Bastards has failed, for the following reason(s):

Nicely written and informative article, but I just don't think there is enough material here to make GA status. A lot of the information is not really about the song in particular, but about the band and the album. Since you struggled to put this song in context, you may wish to consider merging it with the album article, which itself is not very long. That way, the song is already in context when you mention it.

Aguerriero (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The article is as complete as we can make it, I think: this particular single didn't get much press attention nor was it a commercial success. I'm not aware that shortness is a reason for failure, unless the article has glaring omissions. That said, it could perhaps do with some refactoring as you're right that a lot of the info seems to be about the band and the album not the single. Leave it with us. I think this is a marginal failure at best but never turn down a chance to improve an article, right? :)

Of course, as stated above, all articles should have some context. Ordinarily I would agree with you that merging to the album article would be best; in this case, however, I think a standalone article is better. First of all, as you know, this was a single and not just an album track; secondly, the album was by The JAMs but the single was by The KLF. As the first KLF single it takes on some extra significance. Thanks again for the feedback. --kingboyk 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see this as a GA nom again, after it has been refactored, as you say. Rather than having an article on hold for long periods, I'd rather take it off the list temporarily and fix it up. Again, shortness itself is not the reason for failure - it's just that the prose about the song is less than compelling because it is too buried in prose about the album or band itself. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've actually given it a bit of a refactoring. What do you think? Does it seem more focussed? Can you suggest anything else we can do to improve it? I'd like to add more reviews and press commentary but alas I'm not sure it's possible. (Also, you'll see above we'd actually raised the issue of whether to merge this one - so apologies for the drama :) - but I think we have enough for it to stand alone and as I mentioned the release has some importance because it marked their transition into The KLF). Again thanks for the review; on balance I think you were probably right to fail it so no hard feelings! --kingboyk 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is much improved, definitely worth resubmitting. I agree that there is enough here to stand on its own, especially since there is clearly a trend in your project to create articles for singles. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I'll wait until User:Vinoir comes back so he can have a tweak too, and then resubmit it. Your feedback has been most excellent. --kingboyk 08:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Vinoir is sadly missing in action, so my tweaks will have to do. I'll resubmit it. --kingboyk 15:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a followup: there is a trend in our project to make articles on singles, but only if we have enough material (we haven't done it and I suspect won't do it for the Disco 2000 singles, for example). We're fortunate that The KLF were well covered by the press and we have an excellent archive to draw upon, and, as a result, Fuck the Millennium was recently made an FA :) --kingboyk 08:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

GA awarded

After being requested to assess this article, I have to cave in on this one too, this is thoroughly well written, covers all the topics necessary and nicely footnoted. Thanks for such a great work and to those who helped in creating a GA article. Lincher 11:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• This one's a little slim in comparison to our best work (and about as small as we'd want to go on an article, I think) but given the limited impact of the subject matter I think it's comprehensive and worthy. Thanks for agreeing and for taking the time to review it again. --kingboyk 12:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The KLF - Burn the Beat.jpg

Image:The KLF - Burn the Beat.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Burn the Bastards/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Kept

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be a good idea to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burn the Bastards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111071100/http://www.klf.de/discography/ to http://www.klf.de/discography/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)