Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The KLF/Archive 2

message: You were asking about citable chart numbers? I've been using  for Billboard (linked directly to KLF entries) but my main source for the UK charts doesn't cover the KLF era. The information is out there somewhere, though, I'm sure. (I've always been a bit annoyed that there is no centralized UK charts database. However, if we were talking about any other countries, we'd be having even more serious problems.) –Unint 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guinness Book(s) of Hit Singles/Albums in a good old fashioned library then I guess! --kingboyk 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got the Guinness Singles book - all our information is correct as per this.  It's charts other than UK/US that look to be the major problem.  I'll make some enquiries at various Wikipedia pages. --Vinoir 09:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anywhere where we use chart data which is in that book, we ought to cite it either as a footnote, or as a general reference. It's good to have a source for data, and it looks even more professional when it's from a book. --kingboyk 13:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess the info should be added to the discography, which would mean changing the template first. (Oh, by the way, I've put a mini discography back into The KLF). --kingboyk 09:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Derek R Bullamore just left me the following awesome link: http://www.lanet.lv/misc/charts/  --Vinoir 19:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts 

message: Since we already had a centralised discussion at Category talk:The KLF which was akin to a WikiProject, and as we now have a Featured Article under our belt, I thought it was time to formalise our efforts as a micro-WikiProject. Welcome! --kingboyk 12:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful idea mate. As usual your momentum-gathering organisational skills are shining. --Vinoir 10:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome to the new WikiProject 

message: Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index_of_subjects#So.2C_how_do_we_use_it.3F is worth a look/perhaps watchlisting. --kingboyk 11:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created :Category:The KLF articles by quality, as much out of interest in seeing if/how the bot picks it up than anything else. As stated at Category talk:The KLF articles by quality, I don't think we need to waste our time assessing articles which aren't GA or FA, but when we get new GAs/FAs we may as well tag them. (I might create modified talk page templates to do it, for now I've just plonked each talk page into the relevent category). --kingboyk 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, here's an idea. Add an optional parameter to . If the parameter is "FA" or "GA", the FA/GA category is used. If the param is missing, the article goes into an (as yet uncreated) "unassessed" category. I'll see if I can find a way to code such a solution... --kingboyk 12:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Woot! See  for usage instructions :) --kingboyk 12:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent stuff. --Vinoir 04:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a gander at the bot-created table and stats I've transcluded onto the Project page. Now is that cool or what?! Target of course is for all "unassessed" to become GA/FA :) --kingboyk 11:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if that'll be some kind of first if we achieve it? --Vinoir 13:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, maybe - but perhaps we ought to bear in mind that Military History has over 6800 articles (79 of which are FA, and 41 of which are GA). We on the other hand have 40 articles! Of course, there's only 2 seriously editors active here, and we're already at 6/40 (you do the maths, please!) which I reckon is a pretty good percentage. --kingboyk 14:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually only 37 now, as I've removed some redirects from the unassessed category by retagging their talk pages with . On that note, I'm thinking of creating a :Category:KLF redirects category to track our redirects. Would be useful or not? --kingboyk 10:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Smart. 7/37 articles is 19%.  And a few more coming soon, hopefully. --Vinoir 10:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 1.0 

message: After seeing what Mathbot could do, I figured why not classify all of the articles? I think it's a great way of keeping track of where we're at, as with the simple retagging of each talk page we get a pretty table which is updated every night. I've also given the 1st batch of articles an importance rating and will do the rest today or tommorow.
If you disagree with me on quality or importance, by all means feel free to change them - it was a rush job anyway! Also you can add your own comment if you like but keep them short. Likewise, if an article improves to the extent that it moves up a grade it needs to be reclassified. How to change:
*To change the classification, edit the  tag on the article's talk page. See instructions at Template:WPKLF.
*To make a comment or alter the importance, edit Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The KLF articles by quality.
*If you want to keep track of Mathbot's work, watchlist these: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The KLF articles by quality, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The KLF articles by quality log, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The KLF articles by quality statistics.
Very cool stuff. I hope nobody thinks we're taking the piss by using the system for such a small Project, but I think (so far) on the contrary, they're happy to have guinea pigs :)
--kingboyk 07:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be offended if you make wholesale changes to "importance", as it's entirely possible I've messed it up big time. Note that I've purposefully not rated anything as "low-class" because I've been told that's for the truly banal/trivial, and we don't have any of those (thanks to good management of course! :)). --kingboyk 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really great organisation. I like it a lot. I made a handful of changes to importance, mostly concerning the recordings, hope that's okay.  I agree with most of the classifications. Very impressive. --Vinoir 10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at least some of those were... erm... intentional mistakes to see if you're on the ball or not! How could Chill Out be Mid-class?! Doh! Feel free to add comments for uncommented articles or additions to the comments I've already made. --kingboyk 10:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article classifications 

message: I've awarded a Barnstar to User:Drstuey for his work on KLF articles and for his creation of the Library of Mu. --kingboyk 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoroughly deserved too. --Vinoir 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar 

message: I was hoping to get a confirmed date for the James Anderton quote used in All You Need Is Love (The JAMs) whereupon I discovered that I have online access to a database of most UK newspaper articles going back several years!! (but not, alas, to the 1980s). As I will be here for less than a week now, I'll try to grab as many citations as I can. Those I can't use immediately I'll place on this page. (To this end, I've just stubbed up 45 (book), as there are a lot of reviews of that book showing up). --kingboyk 12:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fantastic news, good work.  Out of interest, did you manage to confirm that Anderton date? --Vinoir 12:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet. I didn't get any further than typing in "klf" and getting back nearly 600 results! You can see the first fruits in 45 (book). The Anderton quote might involve going to the library and seeing if they keep old Guardians or Times (I imagine they do). --kingboyk 12:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh man, nightmare. Well, the joy of creating one of the best KLF resources is yours forever, bear that in mind. :) --Vinoir 16:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, I will also be creating some kind of table of articles cited soon, on the project talk page probably, I'm not 100% sure why but I feel it must be of benefit to know what we have and (through missing Mu resource numbers) haven't got. --Vinoir 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I ought to be pumping new articles into the Library of Mu really. Hmm. Does it have a submission page? As for your list, I'd suggesting putting it into a project sub page, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF/List of citations, Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF/List of articles cited, Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF/Citations, whatever... not sure why we'd want it but if it floats your boat go for it! :) --kingboyk 16:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice one, you're a star. Will do... --Vinoir 11:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arse! I just discovered that a load of em got error pages. Dammit. --kingboyk 12:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, hopefully they worked second time round, and a copy is en route to you, Vinoir, now. Of course the objective is to cite uncited facts and to add anything fantastic/amazing to articles, not pad out unnecessarily any existing articles which are already of a good length. There's a lot of text there, not sure how to proceed... I guess when I get home and next have a moment I will, for my part, read through and delete the garbage and articles I've already used, which are in the Library of Mu, etc, and see how many remain. --kingboyk 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper sources 

message: hi, just browsed this cool project as requested... klf discography could easily become a "featured list" once the chart position question marks are filled in or removed... k foundation is already close to FA material... surprised that their biggest chart hits (3am, last train, wtil and justified) are not marked with "(FA)" - maybe no sources exist? same with white room... doctorin the tardis is probably best bet for a song to become FA mainly because the title doesnt contains swearing!... finally anything can be put on peer review at any time so why not just put all the ones marked (FA) on there straight away? cheers. Zzzzz 15:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again, Zzzzz, very much appreciated.  We haven't ruled out their big hits as FA candidates yet, it's just that we haven't ruled 'em in... "3 a.m." in particular is a bit rough.  I guess if "WTIL" and "FTM" get through GA (they surely should!) we can put 'em straight up for peer review.  With "Doctorin'" and "Justified and Ancient" there's still some identified work outstanding. --Vinoir 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks zzzzz. I don't think the "bad language" would prevent an FA (I've checked the criteria, and it would go against the "Wikipedia is not censored" mantra). It would of course mean they can't get on the front page but, in all honesty, I doubt they would make that anyway. I'm well aware that we're documenting a weird and to many people obscure band :) We should get the yay or nay on the current GAs today or tommorow Vinoir, as they're at the front of the queue. I think WTIL? is a bit "technical" at the moment, FTM and All You Need are better. 1987 is pretty good too. --kingboyk 10:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: potential FAs

message: See this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Multiple_requests_for_peer_review.2FFACs. Basically, we can have one FAC each at a time. --kingboyk 09:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay by me.  We'll have to make it clear when we nominate FTM that we appreciate its potential unavailability for the front page. --Vinoir 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which reminds me. Given that the name is 50/50, it might be better to switch the article and the redirect, i.e. name the article ***K the Millennium (capital K??). Wikipedia isn't censored but since we don't know the name for sure, I think err on the side of not offending anybody. Just say the word and I can delete the redirect and move the page. --kingboyk 18:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, (thinking aloud) Drummond calls it "Fuck the Millennium", but the song seems to be either "***K the Millennium" or "***k the Millennium".  Okay, if you think it's better that way round, go for it. --Vinoir 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, well, gosh, now I don't know! Bill ought to know what his own song is called! --kingboyk 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's right, but I've never seen an official track listing calling it "Fuck the Millennium".  That said, the article covers not just the single but the full 2K and K2 enterprise, which is definitely better described as "Fuck the Millennium".  I would rather leave it be for now. --Vinoir 21:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the intro probably needs a rewording, as it currently says the article is about the song whereas really it's about the whole shebang, of which the single was only part. --kingboyk 09:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point.  I'll see to it. --Vinoir 09:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FACs 

message: Died in 2002 (see 2002 in music). Apparently was one of the J&A singers. Know anything about this/her? --kingboyk 12:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've never heard of her! Interesting. Do you know which version she sung on? ("Hey Hey" or the single?) --Vinoir 12:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not offhand, no. Oh, another one who links to The KLF - and doesn't she get a mention on The White Room sleeve?? - but who we don't link to from anywhere is P. P. Arnold. --kingboyk 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right.  She's "Mu Mu" and backing vocals on "Church of The KLF".  I guess she deserves a mention. --Vinoir 14:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doreen Waddell 

message: Guerrilla communication links to The KLF, and I wonder if we ought to link back from The KLF and/or K Foundation. "The terms guerrilla communication and communication guerrilla refer to unconventional forms of communication and/or intervention in more conventional processes of communication.... forms of guerrilla communication include adbusting, graffiti, hacktivism (notably cyber squatting), and reclaiming." Added bold (wtf is "adbusting"?). --kingboyk 12:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, I'll get it into a couple of the articles. --Vinoir 12:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Guerrilla communication]] 

message: Such articles make me go cold, so I dunno how important it is and whether worthy of a mention or not. It seems there's an anime which has reused various words and phrases from dance music, including "KLF". Could be mentioned in "Influence" or you could choose to walk on by... :) --kingboyk 13:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a long article that is.  I don't think the mention of KLF is sufficiently noteworthy for us. --Vinoir 14:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eureka Seven]] 

message: A nice quote from Alex Paterson about the Land of Oz sessions, lifted from The Orb's Adventures Beyond the Ultraworld which we might want to borrow in whole or in part. Probably for Space, or perhaps Chill Out. Saving here as a reminder. Oh, btw, the venue of these ambient DJ sets? The White Room at Heaven. (I've been to the chillout room at that club... have I been to The White Room?! hmm...)
Paterson says: 
Also a URL: http://www.thedjlist.com/djs/PAUL_OAKENFOLD/  --kingboyk 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It gets better and better! And I think that you have been to The White Room, man! Were the Mu Mu at play, as per "No More Tears"?  :)  We'll have to mention the name of the "chill out" room.  --Vinoir 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Land of Oz

message: I'm hoping we can soon leave The JAMs behind and get onto Chill Out, The White Room, the Stadium House trilogy, etc. After listening to some of the later work yesterday I'm worried that our articles give the impression that The KLF were soulless, plagiarising piss takers. Of course on the latter 2 charges they were often guilty, but Chill Out is a work of beauty, and so is The White Room in my opinion - and not just in my opinion either, Chill Out was Mixmag's #5 album of all time!! Just a little note to remind us to restore some balance when we get onto the later works: most people have never heard The JAMs, and a lot of JAMs work was conceptually interesting but otherwise crap... --kingboyk 09:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absolutely right.  That said, I've always admired the production and sound of "Whitney" and "Down Town", and while writing, I've certainly gotten to appreciate the whole lot except for "Rockman Rock (Parts 2 and 3)" which is diabolically atrocious.  But Space, Chill Out and The White Room are inspirational long-playing masterpieces full of originality and light.  I'm waiting for a burst of inspiration to complete the Who Killed The JAMs? article, and Disco 2000 isn't be too far away from completion either.  I'm also working off-line on something for the ==Context== section of Chill Out, which will probably be added this evening. --Vinoir 10:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The KLF's later work 

message: Resumed my trawl through the ProQuest media clippings today, and found a quote about Bill I wished to use. This inspired me to refactor his article and write a synopsis of his career from the 70s through to The Timelords (rest to follow). I've brought in some of the key quotes, and have sections in place to take new material, such as details of his various art "jobs". I think this way of building an article is pretty good, so if you fancy tackling Jimmy Cauty in a similar fashion go for it! :) --kingboyk 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bill Drummond]] 

message: Hey KLF guys!  Just wanted to say that an article I've been working on is up for peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Alexander Coe/archive1) if you guys would like to add anything.  Anyways, I used your The KLF article as a basic template and starting point for the work I've done.  Just wanted to say thanks for some great work on that article and contributions to electronic music in general.  Cheers!  Wickethewok 04:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Alexander Coe]] (DJ Sasha)

message: Could you do something about this page? Make it at least a solid stub, merge, redirect, delete? —Centrx→talk • 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A redirect is fine for now. The page was created by a new user; we'd planned to tackle the KLF films as a single article at least initially. --kingboyk 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Waiting (KLF film)]] 

message: Please note that I have made some major changes to . In summary they are:
*Switched to named parameters, so instead of  we now need to enter 
*Incorporated the article and classification categories of the electronic music, biography, album and song WikiProjects, and messages about scope. What does this achieve? It means our articles are already assessed for multiple projects, and it means we have only one WikiProject template on our talk pages not many.
--kingboyk 22:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to {{tl|WPKLF}} 

message: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography. --kingboyk 12:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The KLF discography]] 

message: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song). --kingboyk 10:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song)]]