Talk:Runnin' Down a Dream

Image copyright problem with Image:Tom Petty Full Moon Fever.jpg

The image Image:Tom Petty Full Moon Fever.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Argentinian band "Los Súper Ratones" spanish cover

There is this argentinian rock band called Los Súper Ratones who made a cover of this song with spanish lyrics. The song title was translated as "El sueño que viví" (El sueño que viví (YouTube video)). The song was made for a Tom Petty tribute album made by Record Label "Free pop Records" http://www.zonalibre.org/blog/surferrosa/archives/063774.html. It also appeared in a Los Súper Ratones DVD called "¡Urgente! Super Ratones" (http://www.superatones.com/discografia/2005.htm) as a bonus track.

Maybe this information could be added to the "Cover versions" section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.205.107 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a compendium of reviews; take your "rock journalist" fantasies to another website altogether!

Before I gleefully deleted it, and glumly replaced it with real information, this was in the section now titled "Lyrics and Music" (but then titled "History"):

"Runnin'" was the thematic and musical inverse to the same album's "Free Fallin'", motion in kind but direction in difference. The main riff was propulsive, overdubbing itself in a battle of acoustic guitar against snare drum with fuzz guitar laced underneath and with vocal "ooh-oooh"s interspersed.

"[M]otion in kind but direction in difference"?!?

Here's a fun game: Can YOU count the number of ways in which the section quoted was totally lame and inappropriate for Wikipedia? I'll start it off by saying, we don't abbreviate titles on Wikipedia. That is for fan sites -- for example, on a Pink Floyd fan-site, references to "DSOtM", "Dark Side", "PF" and "the Floyd" are all totally natural, but they are completely wrong for an encyclopedia. (Just because you can edit Wikipedia does not mean that you should!)

I would also add: Anybody who would refer to a guitar riff "overdubbing itself" ("in a battle", no less), is merely saying "I don't know what 'overdubbing' IS."

Here's a good question to ask yourself: Why would you propogate the species of "rock critic" writing, when the Internet is already FULL of would-be Robert Christgaus and could-never-be Lester Bangses, when YOU'RE NOT EVEN BEING PAID to do so?

Don't REVIEW things on Wikipedia. If you haven't the ability to accurately, factually describe it, leave it alone.

--Ben Culture (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, some people just have no sense of humor.

The visible changes I made to the actual article's text were indisputably improvements. Everything I quoted above was removed, and facts derived from the sheet-music book were added.

BUT, I went a little nuts, and inserted a hidden comment blasting the hell out of the inappropriate, flowery language I had just removed. What do we call it? Peacock terms? Adjectivism? I wrote several foul-mouthed paragraphs emphasizing the above, that Wikipedia is not Rolling Stone magazine, or even that wretched AllMusic, or one of those web sites that will be gone two years from now, like songmeanings and songfacts. This is Wikipedia. We're about verifiable facts, and that's what I made VISIBLE in my previous edit.

Someone who didn't see the humor in my hidden commentary merely reverted my edit. Personally, I think the option to simply REVERT an edit should be disabled entirely! It's for lazy people! It keeps bad material in what could be good articles.

Because he didn't like my HIDDEN comments, he reverted my good edit into the terrible previous one. I have undone that by *actually* removing the hidden commentary (it involves selecting text and hitting the "delete" button), manually adding Cydebot's edit, and for the first time in my life, reverting my own edit back. Without commentary, with the robot's improvement.

There should be no legitimate complaint for any changes I'm responsible for now. In good faith, I believe I've improved the article greatly.

--Ben Culture (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. And though I may seem confident in my decisions, I wouldn't mind a word of support. I don't need praise. I just need to know that the shit I deleted really was true shit that didn't belong on Wikipedia. I mean, the idea of Wikipedia devolving into yet another Internet compendium of amateur reviews depresses the hell out of me. I want Wikipedia to last 500 years or more, you know? By that time, it would probably exist in a format you and I could barely even perceive, much less understand, but I like to think it would be a compendium of literally all verifiable knowledge of the human race and the planet(s) they live on, being updated literally every second and checked and balanced just as often.

That may seem a rather grand thought for an article about a rock single, but it's part of the whole. There was obviously a consensus that Wikipedia was becoming clogged with references to Family Guy/Simpsons/South Park references, and those references were purged, and the articles are all better for it. Likewise, I would like to see a similar consensus that all reviews that are disguised as encyclopedia entries should be edited or rewritten from the ground up. I'm pretty sure that in the "What Wikipedia is Not" articles, there's already something about it not being a compendium of reviews and flowery descriptions.

Removing that stuff WAS the right thing to do, right?

--Ben Culture (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"Guitar Hero 5 uses a Master Track"

How does the Rock Band DLC version not use a master track, or why does this have to be mentioned in this manner? --112.198.79.198 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)