Pugsly8000

Grrrreat Job!

	Major Amazing Stellar Work
	Thanks for the great work you've done here! Elisunshine01 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pink Moon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• very fitting for a beautiful drive in the country on a very special night."<ref name="Pugsly8000">[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/milky-way-is-the-first-volkswagen-ad-to-launch-on-web-sneak-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Pink Moon

Hello Pugsly, thanks to you and Elisunshine for the work you've done in trying to improve the Pink Moon article. As a (British) Nick Drake fan myself, I've been keen to do something to the articles for all three of his albums for some time: the big problem is a lack of information from the time of the albums' original releases... with just one Nick Drake interview and very few reviews in the music press during Nick's lifetime, it means that most of the details have to come from more recent retrospective articles. For Pink Moon it's even more difficult, as only one other person was involved in the recording of the album, so there are few details available. Hence my suggestion that you try and get hold of the other two Drake biographies to see what's in them that could be useful.

My comment about not using the Sputnikmusic review comes from this page - as you see Wikipedia only accepts reviews from Sputnikmusic if they have been written by a staff member, and the review you quote is clearly from a fan, so Wikipedia won't allow it.

Personally I would hold off on attempting GA status for a while until some more sources can be definitively cited - my personal belief from having worked on other album articles is that it will not make GA status in its current state, and in fact if you look at the ratings on the Talk page for Pink Moon you will see that it has been rated C-class but failed B-class status (the level below GA) on three out of the six criteria that they rate it by, so it's probably a long way from GA status as it stands. As I mentioned in my review comments, referencing is one of the failed criteria: you haven't followed the Wiki Manual of Style for many of the references and just linking to a page on the web where you got the information is not acceptable (not trying to be difficult or insulting, I just know how Wikipedia views these things)... give me a few days and I will see if I can tidy them up to Wikipedia standards.

I may be able to get hold of those biographies and music magazine articles at some point as I'm a member of the British Library where they hold copies of old music magazines... the trouble is I am currently in South America until about May so it may be a while until I get to the Library. Still, no rush... Best wishes. Richard3120 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As you've seen I've made a start on tidying up the references. I also need to work on the release history: usually this is presented as a table, rather than the list currently shown. I am also of the opinion that "Reception" and "Legacy" should be split into two sections, to compare the original reviews from 1972 and the retrospective ones, along with the "Milky Way" ad - not sure what you think. Richard3120 (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

An additional (belated) note...the article hasn't been reviewed for B status since all of the edits were recently made, although I have made a request here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment (granted, the list seems to be moving at a snails pace). Additionally, I am delighted by the feedback and help on this, no offense taken on any of your comments, Richard3120. --Elisunshine01 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We debated splitting that section into two sections, the coin just fell a different way. Your experience and counsel may change that. I'll run it by Elisunshine01. Seems logical to me. Besides the references fix, you caught a couple typos...that was embarassing. Pugsly8000 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right about the Sputnikmusic review - I wasn't planning on deleting any of them for the time being anyway. I strongly suspect that when I'm back in the UK I can get hold of reviews and quotes from Q and Mojo which will be the two principal music magazines that deal with more adult-oriented rock/pop and reissues. Richard3120 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I've just realised it won't be worth splitting the section into two just yet as there are no quotes from recent reviews to go into a Legacy section. All the more reason to get hold of those magazines in the UK... Richard3120 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Good call. We went with the two initial reviews and didn't want to get "review crazy." If we split the sections it would be appropriate to add another review in the "Legacy" section. Pugsly8000 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to you, Pugsly and Elisunshine, I did not realise that the previous B-class rating had been made before your edits were made. I agree, it will take a while before you see a new rating... I currently have three album articles pending a rating for B-class level and have no idea when they will be reviewed. Pugsly - I have seen you've moved the release history into a table: this is the normal way of presenting it in Wikipedia and I think you'll agree it makes it much easier to follow than the list that was previously there. I agree with your comments about whether the "notes" for each release are really necessary - in any case there are a couple of things I'd like to tidy up on the table so I will have a look at it. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. We are new to this and your veteran counsel is such that if you told us Nick Drake was a blue martian on sabbatical we'd have to run off and see if it was true. As for the table, when you said it needed to be done I figured I'd give it a try and do my best. It was a bit tricky, but not too bad. I don't like that Elisesunshine01 and I have only Years and not release Dates, but I'm not sure how to find the exact dates. It doesn't seem to be something recorded exactly for albums of this time and perhaps that is just how it is. How important is the actual day after all? We know the initial release was February...perhaps that is sufficient. I'm learning that one can get caught up in details that perhaps may not be worth it. A learning process. I'm so getting into this Wikipedia thing! Pugsly8000 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I hate doing release history tables - they are by far the most time-consuming part of an album article to get right because there is so much to check and make sure it's right. I have this so far, but I'm not putting it in the article until I'm sure I've got it correct - please do NOT consider this to be correct, I may well have some parts wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Region	Year	Label	Format	Catalog	Notes
United Kingdom	25 February 1972	Island	LP	ILPS 9184	Re-pressed 1976, 1978 and 1989 with different Island Records logos
United States	1972			SMAS 9318
United Kingdom & Europe	April 1990		CD	IMCD 94/842 923-2	CD release within the Island Masters series; Discogs
United States	22 June 1992	Hannibal Records		HNCD 4436	Discogs
United Kingdom & Europe	26 June 2000	Island	remastered CD	IMCD 94/842 923-2	International re-release within the Island Masters series now labelled "Island Re-Masters" with additional slip cover, and original label reprint on the CD.
United States	6 May 2003			422 842 923-2	Discogs
Canada				4228429232
United Kingdom & Europe	18 May 2009		180 gram LP	1745697	re-pressed 18 November 2013
Worldwide	12 November 2012		Remastered LP box set	0602537134335

Nice. I like how you use blocks instead of repeating (like I did). Pugsly8000 (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You got your B-class assessment. :-) My three all passed as well - I have another two B-class and two more C-class currently awaiting review! When I get back to the UK later this year I will revisit the Pink Moon article and see what else I can find to add. All the best for your future editing. Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Richard3120 You are the best! Thanks for all your guidance. Not to be greedy...but do you think this could go to FA? I compared it to other WikiProject Albums that are FA and I think it is comparable to them and at times superior. The ogg file about the song itself from the BBC I think really makes it shine. Let me know your thoughts. I'll be watching this more closely now. My new lesson is that you must have patience (and not a little of it) in the review process. Thanks again. Pugsly8000 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment - I think you mean GA, not FA... ;-) but it's probably worth sending it for peer review anyway: even if it doesn't get accepted for GA, at least you'll know in which areas the article needs more work. I take it you have seen the note below asking for permission to use the image that you uploaded - Wikipedia is serious about this and it will be removed if you don't comply. In the next week or two I will add the quote from the Island Records publicist that proves Nick did not deliver the album anonymously - I am thinking that perhaps the part about the song's use in the advert could have a section of its own, and that in due course the contemporary (from 1972) and legacy (modern day) reviews of the album could be separated, but that can wait. It would be interesting to see what comments come out from a peer review. Regards. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pugsly, I think the article will make GA status eventually, it will just take a few months more work on it. As I said, I think it will be another three months before I can look for other reviews of the album on its 1990 and 2000 releases - in the meantime I'm considering adding a paragraph on Joe Boyd's move to California in 1971, as I think this is important background information to Drake's state of mind prior to recording Pink Moon, and I'd like to add a section on the little that we know about the writing and composition of the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Street Mix CD from 2001 and VW.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Street Mix CD from 2001 and VW.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:2001 VW Cabio Promotional CD.jpg

The file File:2001 VW Cabio Promotional CD.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Incorrectly described as promotional release. The product is the commercially released Street Mix: Music from Volkswagen Commercials (volume 1) (discogs, eBay). The album release not yet proven notable unless otherwise. Fails WP:NFCC#5, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10. Even the actual promo release of "Pink Moon" song wouldn't be suitable for the said album article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)