Talk:Wilgar Campbell
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Duncanrmi in topic not for the article, but...
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
removing one reference
editI'm removing the reference to the Dead Rockstar Club. I couldn't find Campbell on the site and the site doesn't look at all reliable anyway. Mad Scientist (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's there... "Wilgar Campbell - Died 10-?-1989 - Heart attack or liver problems ( Rock ) Drummer - Worked with Rory Gallagher ("Wave Myself Goodbye" and "Laundromat"), The Dogs and The Wild Cats." Sources are not that easy to find and although it doesn't look very professional, I don't see any particular reliability problems. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- You don"t see any reliability problems? For Campbell, they indicate no source at all for that information. So for him, it is definately unreliable. The fact that they listed cause of death as "heart attack or liver problems" should have been a pretty big clue that it isn't reliable info. As for others on the site in general, with some they list a source, but many times it is an unrelieable source like a geocities page or even Wikipedia itself. So, no the webpage in question doesn't even have solid sourcing, much less any evidence of fact-checking, which is the criteria for determining whether a source is reliable. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Further, I removed all mention of his death from the article, because the only other source for it was an interview with someone published on yet another non-WP:RS website. That makes it sourced to a primary source and a poor one at that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- It was a source for the date of death, nothing more, as was pretty clear. It was hardly contentious, and that was the only available source. Why would you think the interview was unreliable? The Gallagher website is the biggest repository of information about Gallagher and his bandmates that there is. It seems rather odd that you removed one piece of sourced information (however reliably or otherwise) and left vast swathes of completely unsourced information in the article. There is still a (correct) place of death and definitely false date of death in the data at the bottom of the article that you might want to remove as well, while removing everything else. The article should probably then be deleted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- It certainly is contentious, as you have two editors here that are contesting it. That is the definition of contentious. The info at the bottom of the edit page is not visible in the article. And just because a source has a vast amount of information is no indication that any of it is correct. His date of birth is sourced to his death certificate, which being in the Western US, I have no way to access, so there certainly is better info available. I did consider removing the unsourced paragraph about his alcoholism, but I will let it stand for now. This article has hit the radar of some people and I expect it will be improved. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, but you're both wrong. False information is OK if it's not visible in the article? Plus you remove a part about him dying, which is undeniable, yet you're satisfied about a completely unsourced statement attesting to his alcoholism (added by someone he used to play football with)? The death certificate is only accessible by someone willing to pay for it, and I'd be willing to bet that whoever added that reference has not seen it, or else there'd bloody obviously be full dates of birth and death. "Some people" won't improve it, because there is no more information out there about him, and certainly none of the type of reliability you're looking for. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, i guess I must agree to dis agree with you. I feel no info is far better than unreliable info, especially when talking about a person. I am going to take the bit in the last paragraph out too. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is at least consistent. I look forward to the improvements being made... Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- I made the initial change (my nickname is a bit different than my previous post) I want to just note I agree with Gtwfan, no information is definitely better than unreliable information. Also, if there are no reliable sources on someone I think that might argue that perhaps they just aren't notable enough yet for Wikipedia. I'm going to take a shot at some minor editing of this article (see my other comment on the Talk page) but I agree its difficult, the book I have on Rory Gallagher doesn't mention Campbell much except that he was the drummer and then he wasn't. MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hence my suggestion to delete the article. The information is not unreliable, that's the first point. The information was and is true. The issue you two have is that the information doesn't look reliable. It's the same old Wikipedia problem that truth is effectively irrelevant, and verifiability is everything. In that case (since they are realistically the only sources available) then the article has no sources and should be deleted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- That said, the only source that may fix these problems is Gerry McAvoy's book, which I have on order. If it proves useful, and Mdebellis/MadScientist's Gallagher book can also be used as a source, then the article may be worth keeping. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- In some of my comments I agree that I mentioned the look of that site and I will admit to a bias here, I'm also a software developer and when I see a site like the two refs I deleted I have an instant negative reaction. But I agree the look and feel of the site (as awful as I think they are) are irrelevant. But what's not irrelevant is the actual site itself. Who put the information there? Who maintains the information? Why are the people who put up the site trustworthy and knowledgeable on the topic? None of those questions were even close to having an answer for the site in question IMO. Anyone can put up a web site these days, just because something is on a site doesn't automatically make it a usable reference. And you (or me or any individual editor) saying its true is unfortunately also irrelevant -- and I'm not doubting you for a minute I'm just saying your and my personal knowledge also isn't a source. MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- That said, the only source that may fix these problems is Gerry McAvoy's book, which I have on order. If it proves useful, and Mdebellis/MadScientist's Gallagher book can also be used as a source, then the article may be worth keeping. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hence my suggestion to delete the article. The information is not unreliable, that's the first point. The information was and is true. The issue you two have is that the information doesn't look reliable. It's the same old Wikipedia problem that truth is effectively irrelevant, and verifiability is everything. In that case (since they are realistically the only sources available) then the article has no sources and should be deleted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I made the initial change (my nickname is a bit different than my previous post) I want to just note I agree with Gtwfan, no information is definitely better than unreliable information. Also, if there are no reliable sources on someone I think that might argue that perhaps they just aren't notable enough yet for Wikipedia. I'm going to take a shot at some minor editing of this article (see my other comment on the Talk page) but I agree its difficult, the book I have on Rory Gallagher doesn't mention Campbell much except that he was the drummer and then he wasn't. MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is at least consistent. I look forward to the improvements being made... Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, i guess I must agree to dis agree with you. I feel no info is far better than unreliable info, especially when talking about a person. I am going to take the bit in the last paragraph out too. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, but you're both wrong. False information is OK if it's not visible in the article? Plus you remove a part about him dying, which is undeniable, yet you're satisfied about a completely unsourced statement attesting to his alcoholism (added by someone he used to play football with)? The death certificate is only accessible by someone willing to pay for it, and I'd be willing to bet that whoever added that reference has not seen it, or else there'd bloody obviously be full dates of birth and death. "Some people" won't improve it, because there is no more information out there about him, and certainly none of the type of reliability you're looking for. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- It certainly is contentious, as you have two editors here that are contesting it. That is the definition of contentious. The info at the bottom of the edit page is not visible in the article. And just because a source has a vast amount of information is no indication that any of it is correct. His date of birth is sourced to his death certificate, which being in the Western US, I have no way to access, so there certainly is better info available. I did consider removing the unsourced paragraph about his alcoholism, but I will let it stand for now. This article has hit the radar of some people and I expect it will be improved. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- It was a source for the date of death, nothing more, as was pretty clear. It was hardly contentious, and that was the only available source. Why would you think the interview was unreliable? The Gallagher website is the biggest repository of information about Gallagher and his bandmates that there is. It seems rather odd that you removed one piece of sourced information (however reliably or otherwise) and left vast swathes of completely unsourced information in the article. There is still a (correct) place of death and definitely false date of death in the data at the bottom of the article that you might want to remove as well, while removing everything else. The article should probably then be deleted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Further, I removed all mention of his death from the article, because the only other source for it was an interview with someone published on yet another non-WP:RS website. That makes it sourced to a primary source and a poor one at that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- You don"t see any reliability problems? For Campbell, they indicate no source at all for that information. So for him, it is definately unreliable. The fact that they listed cause of death as "heart attack or liver problems" should have been a pretty big clue that it isn't reliable info. As for others on the site in general, with some they list a source, but many times it is an unrelieable source like a geocities page or even Wikipedia itself. So, no the webpage in question doesn't even have solid sourcing, much less any evidence of fact-checking, which is the criteria for determining whether a source is reliable. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately the McAvoy book contains an amount of detail about Campbell, some of which I've added to the article, including the causes of his death. The only information currently in the article that can't be sourced by McAvoy's book is Campbell's career after playing with The Wildcats, so if any further refs are required on the other stuff, I can provide them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent! Thanks for the great work. I just have one question, what are the numbers next to the refs? I've never seen that before. In the code there is the following after some of the refs, numbers like this: {{rp|121}} I think these should be deleted, they look confusing but wanted to check first to see if this is something relevant that I'm just not aware of. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks :) Those numbers are page numbers. I'm not really bothered how they are formatted but this seems like as good a way as any. If you want to set up notes sections etc and do it another way, go for it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- The relevant page is Help:References and page numbers. I'd be against the first method they use, because it looks rubbish in the references section, but any other method is OK with me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I think its fixed now. FYI, that code needs to go inside the brackets with the ref not after it. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, that doesn't work. It shows them all as page 44. The code goes outside the brackets as per the help page I linked to. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Crap. Thanks for checking more closely you are right. First, don't worry the info should still all be in the page correctly, its just not showing up right. Something like this happened to me before with named refs, I think they may be over writing each other, let me see if I can figure it out. MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, it took me a while to realize the way you had it was an appropriate form. I've never seen references like that before but its supported so good enough, I just rolled back all my attempts to improve that just broke it and brought it back to the version you had. Sorry for the mess up. MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, I didn't want to just revert you because it might look a bit argumentative. I thought the same about this method of referencing until I saw someone else do it. It does look a little unusual but after a while it becomes easy to use. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, it took me a while to realize the way you had it was an appropriate form. I've never seen references like that before but its supported so good enough, I just rolled back all my attempts to improve that just broke it and brought it back to the version you had. Sorry for the mess up. MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Crap. Thanks for checking more closely you are right. First, don't worry the info should still all be in the page correctly, its just not showing up right. Something like this happened to me before with named refs, I think they may be over writing each other, let me see if I can figure it out. MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, that doesn't work. It shows them all as page 44. The code goes outside the brackets as per the help page I linked to. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I think its fixed now. FYI, that code needs to go inside the brackets with the ref not after it. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent! Thanks for the great work. I just have one question, what are the numbers next to the refs? I've never seen that before. In the code there is the following after some of the refs, numbers like this: {{rp|121}} I think these should be deleted, they look confusing but wanted to check first to see if this is something relevant that I'm just not aware of. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Marmelade Skies
editThis is mdebellis (Nickname MadScientistX11) I had to change my old nickname (Mad Scientist) to differentiate from another editor. I started the question about the use of deadrockstarclub.com as a reference. I also think this reference: http://www.marmalade-skies.co.uk/jun1972.htm is questionable. The ref is used to back up the fact that Gallagher changed drummers from Campbell to Rod D'Auth and that statement does exist in a timeline on the page linked to but IMO this site is also not trustworthy. In any case there is an easy fix on this one, the change of drummers is documented in the book Rory Gallagher: His Life and Times which I have on my Kindle. I plan to edit this and take out Marmelade skies and replace it with a ref to the Gallagher book, given there was some controversy about my last similar change, I wanted to document this ahead of time. I plan to make the edit some time in the next few days perhaps today or by monday at the latest, but wanted to document ahead of time in case people want to discuss before hand. MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- If the interview source is considered dubious, then all the sources used are dubious and should be replaced, with the exception of the O'Halloran reference. I have not read the Gallagher book, but there should surely be some considerable info on Campbell that could be used here. I certainly have no problem with improving the sourcing, it's removing accurate information because some people don't like the sourcing that I find frustrating. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I made the change. I removed the marmelade skies references and replaced it with a ref to the Gallagher book. I moved the ref toward the end of the paragraph because it supports everything in that paragraph, about Campbell joining Gallagher and about him being replaced later. I also removed a sentence that talked about Gallagher's band and his use of other instrumentalists. It was about Gallagher and had nothing to do with Campbell and IMO the wording wasn't technically correct (won't go into why unless someone wants to debate it). MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. That final sentence wasn't really anything to do with Campbell, and was added by somebody else a while ago. I have no idea whether it was accurate or not anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I made the change. I removed the marmelade skies references and replaced it with a ref to the Gallagher book. I moved the ref toward the end of the paragraph because it supports everything in that paragraph, about Campbell joining Gallagher and about him being replaced later. I also removed a sentence that talked about Gallagher's band and his use of other instrumentalists. It was about Gallagher and had nothing to do with Campbell and IMO the wording wasn't technically correct (won't go into why unless someone wants to debate it). MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
not for the article, but...
edit... for those interested in the switch from campbell to de'ath, rory actually speaks to it very briefly in this doc which has just popped up on yt: