Talk:The Boys Are Back in Town

message: Has anyone ever heard of this song being mis-labeled as by BTO?
76.65.20.250 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was paired with BTO's "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet" on a British oldies vinyl single, which may explain any mix-ups. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BTO 

message: This song came out the same year I entered The Citadel and there was a long standing rumor that song was about the school. There are numerous vague references and "Dinos bar and grill" was a popular cadet hangout for many years.  Must have just been coincidental.23.24.109.165 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  other rumors 

message: Originally, this song was called "G.I. Joe is Back in Town" and there are references out there that suggest the song's original lyrical intent. It referred not only to the popular toy line but also referred to all those soldiers returning home from the Vietnam War. I hope someone familiar with the song adds this information in the future.
WikiPro1981X (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He called the song "G.I. Joe is Back" It was a weird anti-war song. The Vietnam war was over and American troops had been returning home. The song’s melody and chords were good, but the lyrics needed work. (Scott Gorman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.110.20.236 (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  G.I. Joe is Back in Town 

message: The single was #98 in the 1976 year-end charts in the UK. I've just tried to add this info myself, but as usual the vagaries of wikitables have scuppered my efforts. Would someone with more competence be able to make the needed addition? Thanks. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year end charts 

message: The Cardigans recorded a version of this song, which appeared on the soundtrack of the film Trojan War (film) and their album The Other Side of the Moon (album) It should be noted in the "covers" section of this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penpusher (talk • contribs) 03:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be included unless notable - please see WP:SONGCOVER. There are 45 cover versions according to SecondHandSongs and about 40 according to AllMusic - that is probably worth mentionng. - - DarylKayes (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardigans Version 

message: This article includes a quote containing a profanity which seems jarring in context.  Wikipedia:Offensive material says "offensive words ... should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate".  The article notes that the song is used in Toy Story 2 and mainstream advertising, therefore should editors consider the increased likelihood of children visiting this page and the language they may stumble upon?
If the quote was changed to say "They fell in love with the song and played it incessantly..." this does not appear to less informative, relevant or accurate.
Note that:
* The profanity was removed in Feb 2018 and immediately reverted by  "Wikipedia is not censored" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Boys_Are_Back_in_Town&diff=826201290&oldid=826200796
* The profanity was censored (against Wikipedia policy) in April 2019 and quickly reverted by  "As sourced; Wikipedia is not censored" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Boys_Are_Back_in_Town&diff=890841901&oldid=890808303
DarylKayes (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Due to no objections, I removed the unnecessary profanity eight hours ago.  It has not yet been reverted!  --DarylKayes (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been away. The guideline you have used also states: "rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline". This is a quote and has to be reproduced verbatim, hence my revert. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we include the quote on the article, it's necessary that we faithfully reproduce it, curses and all. Per WP:LONGQUOTE, I think the paragraph in question should be rewritten in prose, either omitting the quotes, or significantly shortening it? Something akin to,  RoxySaunders (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be against that, so long as the earlier part of the quote (or prose paraphrasing it) was also included. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And then can we use the opportunity to remove the unnecessary profanity?  Such as:  DarylKayes (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally got round to implementing this. DarylKayes (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is profanity necessary to be encyclopedic? 

message: I've listened to a lot of blues rock in past 2 years but this doesn't sound like it at all. Although It's not surprising since cause someone been labeling pretty much every albums of thin lizzy from 70s as blues rockProgrock70s (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This genre was added in Feb 2014 - please set out reasons explaining why it doesn't suit the blues rock definition.  You might think it has the up-tempo driving rhythm of something like Cream's Crossroads but with little improvisation and boogie jams, instead overwhelmingly using repetitive riffs?  Is that significant?  Tagging musical genres is a tricky business - to be encyclopedic the best solution is always to have a reference from reputed sources, such as the authors in the blues rock bibliography - do they explcitly include or exclude it? - DarylKayes (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "blues rock" on genre section?