Talk:The Mamas & the Papas

message: Added here from the album talk page:
I have come across this album page and found a bit of a problem with a lot of what is written. It goes into who sang on the album given that Michelle was fired in June 66 and even has books discussing what happened. However, despite the listed August 30 release date (which I assume is the US release date) - the album was actually first released in June in the UK. So it's most likely that Michelle features on all of it. The album enters the charts on 19 June 1966, which would suggest it had to have been available for at least a week beforehand. Highly unlikely any work could have been done on the album after 4 June. As for the talk about the album cover, well that's even more confusing. Here is the UK release of the album, which seems to be the same as the album featured here. Anyone any thoughts as to how reference books could actually have ignored that this album was effectively already released by the time she was fired.Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mamas and the Papas album 

message: I am aware that what I am about to do has the possibility of being controversial, but I am going to change the way the band's name is written throughout this article and even in its title. The official name of the band is "The Mamas and the Papas." To support this assertion, I refer you to the band's website https://www.themamasandthepapasofficial.com/content/about. While the band has used the ampersand in its name and in its albums, the official name of the band, as referenced not only on its website, but also in Rolling Stone magazine and in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, is "The Mamas and the Papas." One must assume that the band's name as inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (https://www.rockhall.com/inductees/mamas-and-papas) is its correct name, since the RRHF would have had to have had the proper spelling of its name confirmed by the members of the band, its management, record label and any entity with a legal interest in the band. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should use the official name of the band and not the more casual version, even if the band has used the casual version, itself. I don't want to start an editing war, here, so I encourage any changes to my edit be discussed before a reversal is made. There are many good references that could contradict my editing. However, again, I believe we should defer to the band's official website and the manner in which it refers to itself when describing who it is. Thank you. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for working hard on this article, !  I appreciate the attention to detail. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! It isn't often someone gets a "thank you" on Wikipedia. Usually, all we get are complaints. Your kindness is much appreciated! MarydaleEd (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting the band's name

message: Please do not shorten the name of the record label. This is formal writing for an encyclopedia, not casual prose. Dunhill Records is an entity, not a person. It is proper for the full name of the company to be used in all references. I do not seek an editing war and will not participate in one. I am putting the name back as it should be and ask that further attempts to shorten it to a casual reference cease. I have worked hard to make this a better article, as have the good people who came behind me and corrected my mistakes. I will make no further edits. You can shorten the name, change the name or delete the name. However, it is my position as a professional editor with 40 years experience that the entity be referred to by its proper name in all references, Dunhill Records. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That position seems extraordinary to me.  I've raised it for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Referring to record labels, so you may wish to comment there.  Regards (and thanks for your improvements to the article otherwise), Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of record label

message: I am aware that there was a short discussion about removing Wikipedia's acknowledgement of a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee, but it is my assessment that there was not enough time or input from enough editors to call such a decision a "consensus." The short discussion that occurred appears to have happened over the course of two days and saw the involvement of only two participants other than the person who suggested removing the designation. Before such a policy is adopted, there should be a robust and hearty discussion over the course of time so that there is enough input from other editors. There is no urgency to support rushing through the process of instituting a new policy. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a huge achievement for the few who attain such status. Wikipedia acknowledges when a baseball player is inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, as it does when someone is an inductee into the Professional Football Hall of Fame. I refer you to the Wikipedia page of George Blanda, for example. I might note, also, that Wikipedia has at least three articles on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductees and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Covers. If, after a hearty discussion has been made and a consensus has been reached, Wikipedia decides to eliminate referencing when a band or a person is a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee, then I will be happy to abide by that decision. However, I do not believe that there has been ample time or input from others to, at this point, call such a decision a "consensus." I do not know how to initiate the process by which such a debate can be undertaken, so if someone will enlighten me on how to start that conversation so that others will know that it is taking place and so that several voices can be heard, then I will be happy to start the process. Until that time, it is my contention that the designation should remain. Thank you. MarydaleEd (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductees

message: I just wanted to quickly raise the point of issue between the subject and verb agreement within the first sentence of the article. ‘The Mamas and the Papas were/was... I realise this grammatical difference maybe contentious between Speakers of AE and BE. However, what is most important is that whatever form is used there is consistency, and ‘were’ correctly aligns with the rest of the article.
Generally, band names take a singular or plural verb based upon on the form of the name used. In this case the  plural noun is preceded by the word ‘the’ which describes the members that make up the group as a collective. Hence, I disagree that the noun is being treated as an impersonal singular unit, and as otherwise it sounds plural, and being a native British speaker I believe ‘were’ to be correct in this instance.
I won’t change it again. I’m not interested in an edit war, it’s only one word! But I just wanted to share my view. Hope you are good wherever you are. Peace out. Blackadder93 (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject and verb agreement 

message: In the opening paragraph it says "Their sound was based on vocal harmonies arranged by Phillips," but there are two "Phillips" in the band so it is unclear which one. Also seems slightly sexist that it seems to be assumed that it is John that is is referring to.--Rjhberg (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Now clarified.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Phillips 

message: As I remember Cass Elliot died from choking on food not from heart failure. It was a sad loss. 2A00:23C7:6E03:A101:9DC0:A4D3:B61F:E963 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to Elliot's autopsy.  See :Cass Elliot. General Ization Talk   20:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of Cass Elliot's death