Talk:Hello, Goodbye

When a questionable edit was made, I deleted it because it lacks a verifiable supporting citation. The editor restored his questionable edit, but instead of adding a supporting citation, he inserted a 'citation needed' tag. I have warned that editor on his talk page that if he does not add a verificable supporting citation to back up that edit, it will be deleted in two days. Of course, other editors are encouraged to either add that citation or to delete the questionable edit in question before then. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

When the editor in question restored the material adding his citations, I looked up the citations and they did not verify the edit as factual. Again, the citations must be verifiable. Linking this article to material found on line about the relevant material is paramount to proving that the material given in factual. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. What happened to your two day rule? (And Good Faith, Common Sense, etc.?) Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If an editor consults a source and it does not support the material cited to it, the material can (and should) be removed. That is common sense and it is not bad faith. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, because citation is not necessarily required. Citation is required according to `any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation' and so far, the validity of the material has not been challenged, only labelled questionable (which is unhelpful since arguably, everything is questionable). And anyway, I was referring to to the Good faith of the original edit, not its removal. And anyway again, the point is moot (since the source did support the edit) and lesser to the main point which was "What happened to your (Steelbeard1's) two day rule?" And furthermore, why does the two day rule apply (or so it now seems, not apply) here, when other citation-needed edits are allowed to remain for months? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The material was challenged, and a citation added in response. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A responsible editor when challenged with a citation request would simply insert the verifible citation. Inserting a "citation request" tag instead or inserting a non-verifiable "citation" raises a red flag which causes speedy deletions of disputed material. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, I ask again: what happened to your two day rule? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The non-verifiable citation got the edit in "speedy delete" mode as stated above. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Which of the two citations given was, in your opinion, non-verifiable? It might also help to clarify if you could refer to clauses or statements rather than just "the edit". Thanks, Wrapped in Grey (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Both. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you just provide a source or give it up? Sheesh. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, I did provide a source. However, life's too short; I give up. Here is the main fact and source in case anyone else fancies trying to get Steelbeard1 to explain his objections:

For the single cover in the US, Capitol used an old photograph from the photo-session for the Penny Lane single^[1]

• "January 1967". The Winter of Love: A photo diary of the making of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. 2006. Retrieved 30 January 2010. {{cite web}}: ref stripmarker in |ref= at position 1 (help)

— Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You cited only the first part of the material you added, and Steelbeard1 said that source didn't support the material that was challenged. It looks shaky to me, too. The cited text was "For the single cover in the US, Capitol used an old photograph from the photo-session for the Penny Lane single." The page shows multiple pictures from a photo shoot but it doesn't say who chose the photograph (Was it Capitol? How do we know it wasn't Parlophone, EMI, Epstein, Martin, The Beatles?) Was it a photo session for "Penny Lane", or was it a photo session for something else and someone decided to use photos from it for the single covers? The page shows a bunch of photographs from a photo shoot, but you can't learn anything relevant about the photos than you can from looking at the single covers. Lastly, the site appears to be user-contributed material that is not subject to fact-checking and not written or edited by someone notable or known as an expert in the field. Based on a quick once-over, it probably doesn't quality as a reliable source'.

If I found that sentence cited to that source in an existing article, I'd probably leave it. I'd have the same opinion of it—shaky—but the assertion is probably correct. Maybe a "cn" tag would be appropriate to signal another editor that a better source was necessary. For newly-added material, I think it's better to set the bar higher. The editor who wants to add the material is part of the process and may be motivated to find a proper source. If he/she can't supply one, then maybe the material is not worth adding. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the German cover of the single look very Monty Python-ish? I know they couldn't have designed it because the Python's came two years later, but it does look like it. --TheWalrusWasPaul (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This NY Daily News article describes "Hello Goodbye" as psychedelic, so I'm combining it with the current tag of "pop rock" to call it psychedelic pop. http://m.nydailynews.com/1.160983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbrito162 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

George Ho I'm starting a discussion here, which you should've done after my first revert. I don't care whether the image is deemed free content, I'm objecting to its inclusion, full stop. I don't think the generic face label adds anything to a reader's understanding when a picture sleeve already serves to identify the song – that's the first point. And secondly, the image looks terrible, imo, blown up to such an enormous size. Meaning: I'd still be objecting to its inclusion even if it found its way to Commons. You're blatantly edit-warring and justifying the image remaining here so you can discuss its copyright status elsewhere. JG66 (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Having a discussion here isn't effective as having a discussion at FFD. Leaving the dispute up to us isn't helping ease the situation. In fact, we asked the administrators to help us determine the image's use. WP:non-free content review is discontinued, and talk pages are seldom visited. Therefore, I thought that FFD is the best way to go. Yet ignoring the FFD discussion isn't helpful either. We should continue discussing this at FFD unless you want forum shopping. You don't want that, right? As for adding it, The Beatles are British. Their intended audience was... global(?) but initially British. However, the British didn't have a picture sleeve at the time of release. Also, using the American image for identification of release... seems not a reflection of the band but a mere intent to identify. George Ho (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the page is now fully protected, leaving administrators with absolute access to editing it, for just one week. Again, I invite you to FFD discussion unless you still dare to make more comments here. George Ho (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw how you dressed up the matter at Requests for page protection. But there, here, and at my talk page, you've carefully avoid the issue of WP:BRD and how you're violating that. You're making out that the only pertinent discussion is one for FFD – but all that determines is the image's copyright status. I wouldn't be so averse to the label's inclusion if it didn't look so gigantic on the page – it's an eyesore, makes the article look totally amateurish. If the sizing parameter were reinstated for temp:Infobox single (we sill have it for temp:Infobox song), I admit I'd withdraw any objection. But again, this issue has got nothing to do with FFD. JG66 (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Violating the essay? Hah. It's not even a rule yet. What about being careful? And WP:image use policy#Adding images to articles? And consensus building? George Ho (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that anything I'm saying goes against WP:CAREFUL and WP:image use policy. As for WP:consensus – er yeah, but you just seem to be focused on gaining consensus regarding its copyright status. As Nakon worded it in their edit protecting the page, the reason is "Edit warring / content dispute", not "So that discussion of an image's copyright status can be determined at FFD". And where else would article content be discussed but the article's talk page … JG66 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nakon must have had some protection configuration not shown to us. The bot must have automatically done the edit summary for Nakon. I don't think that Nakon could have done the edit summary like that. On the next point, if the article content dispute is nothing more than disputes about just images or other file type, the discussion here would not have gotten anywhere other than at FFD. Here, it's best to end discussion here and then go to FFD, but try continuing to discuss with me until we are exhausted from each other. We might dispute the copyright of the American front cover afterwards? --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"Nakon must have … The bot must have automatically … I don't think that Nakon could have …" Are you for real?! At Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#Hello, Goodbye, you introduced your request for temporary full protection by citing "Content dispute/edit warring", for god's sake! And your last comment above shows yet again where you're choosing to focus: "the copyright of the American front cover". I'm not talking about the copyright of the Parlophone label – that's for FFD, agreed, but nothing to do with article content. You appear to (appear to) have justified the image's inclusion by opening a discussion at FFD and then being the one to request admin protection of the page. But that's just the spin you're bringing to this; it's got nothing to do with reality. And given how this issue has endured since you first tried to add the image, in early April, I think an admin would see through the spin too, if I'd taken our dispute to WP:AN/EW before you went to WP:RPP. JG66 (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

See my comment way below. George Ho (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I almost overlooked and neglected to discuss image size. Unsigned editors and readers look at the images at already 220 horizontal pixels. It's not that big. Per WP:THUMBSIZE, either "upscale" factor should be used, or "px" must be not used for anybody with user size preferences. What's your thumbnail setting? Mine's 400px (and very big). George Ho (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've got thumbnail size set at 220px. To repeat, my main objection to including this Parlophone label is how it appears on screen, given the removal of the infobox sizing function, I guess. If it were possible to decrease the size, or better still perhaps, find an image that achieves this by including a portion of vinyl or white space around the label, I think it would be fine (though hardly a necessary addition). So, I'm approaching this from an aesthetic point of view – I get this Woah, what the? moment whenever I open "Hello, Goodbye" and see the label image. (I've just tried viewing it with my setting at 400px – it looked just the same as at 220.) And because of that, I don't see it as an improvement to the content of the article at all and I've been reverting the edit you first made on 8 April. JG66 (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh... the maximum size is now 316px. Theo's bot must have done that. I'll have the previous version undeleted if the label is declared below the original threshold in the UK. George Ho (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So what are you saying – that by Theo's bot reducing it to 316, the image appears smaller on the page? If not, I don't see the relevance(?). JG66 (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why an American image of The Beatles is considered more substantial than a UK side label. There is no need to identify and illustrate The Beatles as much as there is need to illustrate a song's release as a single, right? I had the same situation at Finally (CeCe Peniston song), where some user thought a French front cover that shows the artist's face is better than the American cover showing just the sunflower's head (yes, that sunflower). George Ho (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, I understand your point there – British band, so why shouldn't UK artwork not just be included but in fact take precedence over a US cover. (The same point was raised by SilkTork in the GA review, you'll notice.) I'm just saying: "Woah, get that massive image out of here – altogether, or by reducing its size." (I thought the same thing with the labels you've added at other Beatles song articles.) It makes the article(s) look cheap & tacky. And if quality prose and editorial standards generally are encouraged here, then why shouldn't we also be mindful of aesthetics – be discerning about how an image effects the article visually. In fact, I know we do: I've seen FACs where choice, sizing, placement and cropping of images have been discussed and debated by editors/reviewers. JG66 (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

To me, it's not about looks but about helping readers substantially understand the song and/or the single release, not the image unless it is the main topic of the article (exempli gratia Death of Alan Kurdi). Off-topic, but I made a gruesome, weird image of Rebecca Howe just to illustrate the fictional character's personality. Anyway, a non-free content must typically follow all criteria, such as proving that an omission severely affects a reader's grasp of the main topic. I believe that omitting the US front cover doesn't affect it as much as the UK side label. George Ho (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

All I know is, from pretty much always working on song and album articles from start to finish, that the inclusion and look of images should work with and within the article as a whole. That goes for block and box quotes, charts and certification tables, (album) reviewer ratings, infobox genres too – each of which are areas that many editors here focus on exclusively (in some cases to the point of obsession) but, since those editors rarely write or significantly expand an article, they're perhaps unable to view their specific area of interest in the context of the whole piece. I don't mean to assume that you're such an editor, but on the other hand, all I've seen you do at Beatles song articles is add those gigantic face labels. It's disappointing that you don't consider the look of the page, but I know many do. But seriously, as an alternative to a sleeve on which the song title appears prominently, that contains a contemporary picture of the artists, and is designed in a style that (usually) reflects their artistic direction at the time, you believe the inclusion of a standard Parlophone face label "helps readers substantially understand the song and/or the single release" … Good luck with that. JG66 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A free image of The Beatles is adequate enough. A non-free image of The Beatles on the front cover of the single is unnecessary and might fail the "irreplaceable" criterion. If the US cover is more substantial, reliable sources must discuss (or significantly cover) the US artwork. On the other hand, if the US cover is no longer copyrightable, then we might use it for free. Statistics show that readers primary and tremendously go to the band article fiftyfold more than some song. The readers can see free images of the band without having to go to the song page just to see The Beatles on the US front cover. The main goal of the readers is learning about a topic. Readers reading this article are learning about the song and its success. Readers reading The Beatles article are learning more about the band as a whole. But if you insist on keeping the US image, as said before, I'll put it up at FFD. --George Ho (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, let's just be clear on something, returning to where we came in on this: You seem to be under the impression you're on secure footing regarding the label image being retained in the article – you're not. You obviously don't care for WP:BRD but thankfully the vast majority of editors (in my experience) do, as it's a sensible way to contain conflict and hash out ideas and compromises. The compromise I've offered, for instance, is to use a pic where the label itself is reduced within the overall image; having found one on eBay, I've just cropped and swivelled it in iPhoto.

You may have slapped an FFD tag on the current image and obtained full page protection for a week on the strength of that, but all it's achieved is delaying the need for you to respond adequately to my objection regarding the inclusion of the image. In the meantime, you've wormed your way around treating this as a content-related discussion, unless I "still dare[d] to make more comments here", of course; and you've completely (and laughably) misreported the situation regarding the page protection rationale ("Oh, I don't think that Nakon could have done the edit summary like that …") – having already, I suggest, misrepresented the situation at WP:RPP in the first place. You're like a moving target, trying to bluff your way out of everything. Now it's: "If the US cover is more substantial, reliable sources must discuss (or significantly cover) the US artwork." Rubbish. JG66 (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You accused me of violating the essay, which becomes unfortunate. In return, I'll try to give you my second-person narrative. You removed the image without notifying me. When I added it back, you removed it again and again, especially when I invited you to another venue. You should have discussed this with me rather than removed it, but you did the reverse. Now we have administrators involved, whom you'll thank later. And I've not yet seen you comment at FFD. Fortunately, there is no deadline on your involvement there; I won't rush you this time. George Ho (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well of course you violated BRD. There's no requirement to notify editors when reverting their changes, whether it involves removing an image or not. I removed it again and again? – well, I imagine that would be becuase you violated BRD again and again. You invited me to another venue? Yes, a venue where the discussion concerns the image's copyright status – once again, you're acting as if this is the main issue, when you know it's not. You keep suggesting I should participate at FFD – why? I've got nothing to say about, and little interest in, its copyright status. I did mention the inclusion of the non-free promo image in the comment with my 16 May edit, yes, but the non-free/copyright side was clearly secondary in that rationale. What you should've done is first address any challenge regarding article content, by starting a discussion here, and only then taken it to FFD. Instead, you've repeatedly misled people – the image is here under false pretences (subject to full page protection for a week), so the FFD discussion is similarly bogus, and you then claim that the page protection enforcement can't possibly be related to a dispute over article content when that's the very reason you gave in your request at RPP. JG66 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say I claimed that the article content dispute is not the real reason for protection; actually, the content dispute was the reason for protection. I said that Nakon selected an option and... well, "bot" wasn't the right word when I said that. I should have said that Nakon barely explains details of the dispute other than just "edit warring/content dispute". George Ho (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, contact you? The way you said sounded as if you are the owner of this article. If that's not the case, I don't know I feel as if you assume that I deserve bad treatment, like incivility and bad faith, for adding the UK image as the second image. I could not contact you because you did not upload the US image. The original uploader was gone, so I didn't think contacting someone else was necessary... until edit warring came along. But I still think this discussion, which is going nowhere as I predicted, is unnecessary. George Ho (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that you have symptoms of ownership behavior, like your tone against me and your reluctance to converse with me when you removed the UK image the first time. This is policy, not an essay. George Ho (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about when you mention contacting me, nor the relevance of whoever it was that uploaded the US sleeve image.

You shouldn't confuse WP:OWN with a situation where someone is being discerning about article content. On many other Beatles articles, for instance (the band's main article, those for the individual members, album and song GAs or FAs), changes are routinely reverted by one of several regular editors on the project, accompanied by a request to take the issue up at the talk page. Personally, I find that slightly over the top, but the point is, none of those editors are displaying ownership behaviour (as far as I'm concerned – and that's even when they're reverting me); they're just being discerning about what's added to a popular article that's been through the review process and has been the subject of scrutiny regarding content. I had a situation a while back when an editor removed a Commons image of the Beatles from an album article I was working on. A few of us discussed its inclusion on the article talk page and the matter was solved – no one was owning the article by either wanting the image in or wanting it gone. It was a content-related discussion and it took place on the article talk page. You seem to think your addition to this song article falls outside that.

Also, in your latest comments, you appear to be sidestepping around your own role in all this. You haven't attempted to address my suggestion (which was a compromise on my initial position, please note) that perhaps an image could be found that sets the label back slightly, effectively reducing the appearance of the label. I said I'd found such an image on eBay (here), and that I'd just edited in iPhoto. So how about that? You get what you want, and my objections would be reasonably satisfied. JG66 (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No deal with that version, JG. The closeup of the side label is clearer than the one with generic label. I had a third party involved with us (see below). If you remove and I reinsert cyclically, we both risk getting blocked. Let's reply at the bottom then. George Ho (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

JG66 and Aquegg wanted a discussion right before reinserting it. Is FFD not enough nowadays? How do we notify readers about the this side label without canvassing? I just wished... never mind. We don't want to edit war anymore, but I still think it should be reinserted for a while with the FFD caption. But if you don't want that, what else do you want? Delete the UK side label right away? --George Ho (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I still think that the FFD is a side issue, but okay, l've put the image back pending its completion.Aquegg (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but can we have clarification on this situation. As Aquegg noted when removing the label, there is no consensus for the image's inclusion in the article. It is only here because the FFD is ongoing – right, George Ho?

I'm still confused about what exactly the FFD will achieve with regard to the label ever being included here, when the consensus is not to include it … Not only that, but I can't see there's anything ongoing at the FFD – it's been inactive there since 20 May. Stefan2 has already given his advice. JG66 (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There's not an established consensus yet here, JG66. BTW, as I remind you again, you can comment at FFD (to make it no longer inactive) and declare it either free or non-free. Please? George Ho (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No, do not turn this around. I have objected to the image appearing here, and Aquegg has removed it separately: there is no consensus for the image's inclusion in the article. That has been established. And why on earth would I want to keep the FFD active? JG66 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks poor, there is clearly no consensus to include it, and the wikilawyering with FFD is both disgraceful and irrelevant to said inclusion. I'm sorry you've had to endure this, JG. I'm removing it from the article again, and it should not be re-added without clear consensus here on this page. Shame on you, George, wasting so much of people's time like this. Begoon ^talk 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that, Begoon, much appreciated. I'm similarly anti all the other Parlophone labels that were added to Beatles song articles at the same time (e.g. All You Need Is Love, Paperback Writer, Eleanor Rigby) – they add nothing to a reader's understanding of the subject when a picture sleeve already appears, and they're far too large on the page. (And I know the problem's not confined to Beatles articles. The addition of a label at Marvin Gaye's "I Want You", accompanied by a proposal to let FFD decide whether the existing sleeve or the new label should be retained, has proved similarly unwelcome.) JG66 (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Agreed. Ping me on my talkpage if you need help at all. Begoon ^talk 11:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hello, Goodbye. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/60s_files/19671230.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.musicline.de/de/chartverfolgung_summary/artist/The%20Beatles/2278/?type=single
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905202820/http://www.austriancharts.at/1968_single.asp to http://www.austriancharts.at/1968_single.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hello, Goodbye. 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/20151018093318/http://www.infodisc.fr/SongMp_60.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/SongMp_60.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a much longer article than it needs to be. How many times is it necessary to mention that it's about duality, and that Lennon didn't like it? Some other repetition too. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:JG66: What is your reason for saying in a recent edit summary that "linking book publishers is unnecessary"? I find no such guidance in WP:CONTEXT, and your view appears to be shared by almost no other editors on the English Wikipedia. Harfarhs (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What I said was "linking book publishers is unnecessary & makes for a potential sea of blue (with authorlinks, ISBNs, urls for book title)". I find no guidance in WP:CONTEXT for linking book publishers, either, and it does come down to how effectively (or ineffectively, through a mass of links) information is conveyed – which is a personal call, I know. Take it a step further, and the location could also be linked, in which case the entire entry might be rendered blue.

I strongly disagree that no other editor on English Wikipedia shares this non-linking approach for publishers, because I read and work on no end of articles where the book publisher is never linked in the source. In my experience, it's far more common that editors present sources containing author links, but very rarely with links for publishers. JG66 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds odd. I could present you with a list of many English WP articles (on which I have made no edits) which have publishers' names linked in the 'Sources' or equivalent section. Moreover, I've seen only one previous example of reversion of such links after they have been added - this in seven years of being an almost daily editor. Without wishing to overstate matters, I think you're in a minority on this one.

To raise the idea of location links seems to me largely a strawman argument. Not only are such links in my experience already rare – though not unknown – I think the fact that they are demonstrably of negligible value to the user (in stark contrast to linking the names of publishers) means we are in no real danger of seeing them added in any appreciable number. Harfarhs (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, thank you so much for your opinion; obviously I disagree. And, as I've said, my position is also based on my experience here over many years. JG66 (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you're so unwilling to engage constructively on these issues, instead simply restating what you previously said. Try Women's Equality Party as an example (which I just happened across today) of my points. Harfarhs (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@JG66 and Harfarhs: I agree with JG66. See MOS:SEAOFBLUE. And by the way, not agreeing with you is not the same as "unwilling to engage constructively". JG66 responded to your comments but disagrees. That is perfectly acceptable and happens thousands of times every day on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts; note the word "constructively". Merely asserting that a MOS:SEAOFBLUE might occur is worthless; evidence is required, and none has been presented. JG66 has not adduced any real argument, indeed has attempted to pass off a strawman as one, nor have they produced an example - in stark contrast to myself.

Please think again, bearing in mind the vast number of articles that support my view. Harfarhs (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I included your use of the word "constructively" in leaving my comment. Responding to your comment yet disagreeing is "engaging constructively". You can consider MOS:SEAOFBLUE worthless but that doesn't mean everyone does. This is my last comment unless someone else weighs in. Sundayclose (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite.

Harfarhs, all I'm seeing from you is a consistent dismissal of any view but your own. You're saying you've put forward an argument; I'm seeing it as an opinion. No one's been "constructive" but you, apparently – well, that's because you're choosing to dismiss other views as invalid.

And what, citing an article that reflects your approach on this issue is "evidence" that you're right? Wow ... Try Bob Dylan, an article I've had very little input on but is well-watched and -maintained. Or Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, an article that I am heavily involved with, because of several content-related issues going back years. While I've had plenty of complaints about the FA writer's choice of sources there, I'd seen them congratulated at FACs for their clean and correct approach to citations and source layout, and when that article made FA in May 2014, book publishers weren't linked then either.

Another article I watch (but have made little or no contribution to), Jonh Ingham, had no links for book publishers until you added them recently. So it's hard to view your contention that almost no other editor in the last seven or whatever years shares my approach on this, because it's an approach I've inherited from others' work and from reading hundreds of articles here even if I don't edit them. Your experience tells a different story, you say. Fine, but you are actively imposing the approach you prefer across the encyclopedia where previous editors had obviously felt differently on this issue. JG66 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The music video on youtube is a remastered version in much higher quality than the image used in the Promotional film section, while this song didnt have a MV originally I can only assume it exists from reclaimed & remastered footage, nonetheless It is the same scene and general setup and includes the shot in the image, should the image be updated to the higher quality version of the exact same image despite being a later created music video rather than the original promotional film? Narazia (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)