Talk:Too Much Too Soon (album)

message: Is it The New York Dolls in Too Much Too Soon, The New York Dolls' "In Too Much Too Soon or (as appears to be the case), The New York Dolls' "Too Much Too Soon? If so, what is the purpose of the  preposition? Is it to confuse us all? --Fantailfan (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title meshegas 

message: In response to this off-base remark and futile attempt to evade their block, I don't see their point; the piece of filler was added over a year ago in June when I made my first additions to the article (), and my expansion of that section happened this past May (). What's their point? Dan56 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: If by disbanding you mean the departure of Thunders and Nolan in Spring 77 (widely regarded as the end of the "real" Dolls) as opposed to Johansen and Sylvain finally ditching the bandname in '77 then the chronology is wrong - the Mercury contract was quietly left to expire some time after Johnny and Jerry quit.  Had the will been there on both sides, there was a period during which Mercury could have potentially released product by the "Dollettes" (as 1975-1977 lineups were unofficially known). 62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - edit carried out. If anyone objects, please post reasons below. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You revised the lead, a summary of the rest of the article, which includes this sentence (verified by two sources). "A few years later" (as the time of their disbanding) is a simpler solution, since you offered no sources. Dan56 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay by me personally, but expect a visit from the angry Thunders/Nolan hardcore unless you disambiguate between the end of that version of the band in '75 and the dropping of the bandname in '77. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia articles are written with the general audience in mind. Furthermore, this discussion touches on what constitutes the band and seems somewhat abstract. It could just as well be argued the original band was with Rick Rivets and Billy Murcia from 1971 to 72, before Nolan or Sylvain Sylvain. For those readers with a deeper interest in the band, the New York Dolls article would be the place to go for greater detail. Dan56 (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "were dropped by Mercury and disbanded in 1975." 

message: Well, now we're here; however this turns out, Dan56 is attempting to exercise ownership over this article. I'd like to change the caption for the picture of the band to "The band in 1973".  They're already mentioned in the lede as well as the infobox, and "The band" is clear enough in that context – it wouldn't refer to anyone else. Does anyone disagree? Esszet (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's avoid discussing the editors (and their supposed tendency toward article ownership) and stick to the edits instead. El_C 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I personally think that "The New York Dolls" is better because it is not the subject of the article. Referring to the New York Dolls as the "band" is ok if the full name has been said in the section before, and if there are no "competing" bands in that section. For images, I regard them slightly differently, but it should still be the "New York Dolls" regardless, because of the mention of the Shangri-las in the section that the image is in. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

text: It seems like we will actually have the discussion at the RfC below. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption dispute for the picture of the band 

message: Should the caption for the image of the New York Dolls in this article identify them by name? It's been argued that the caption should refer to the subject of this image as "the band" (). Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I personally think that "The New York Dolls" is better because it is not the subject of the article. Referring to the New York Dolls as the "band" is ok if the full name has been said in the section before, and if there are no "competing" bands in that section. For images, I regard them slightly differently, but it should still be the "New York Dolls" regardless, because of the mention of the Shangri-las in the section that the image is in. (this is basically just a copy & past of my comments below) RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: * Referring to the image subject by their name would clear up whatever confusion you think exists. You're reasoning is confusing. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am trying to get a solution that we can all agree on, and the image is providing extra information not there before. I would be ok with the wording you suggested (I thus changed my vote to "Maybe"), but it seems that some editors are opposed to it, so I was trying to present a solution. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: * (addition) - Also, referring to the band by name isn't exactly needed, and the text that I suggested could not possibly refer to the Shangri-Las, thus any confusion should be cleared up. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * This caption change isn't exactly needed; this discussion devolved from another editor's wounded ego and inability to grasp their change being undone. There's no harm in identifying the subject of the image by its actual name; there's a reason this didn't come up in the featured article review, or good article review; this is a whole lot about nothing. Dan56 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: You're being much, much too literal in your interpretation, and disruptive in your editing.  "The band" clearly identifies who is in the picture, since it is a synonym for the subject of the article, The New York Dolls. Effective and non-monotonous writing calls for the occasional use of synonyms and pronouns instead of the constant repetition of "The New York Doils did this, then the New York Dolls recorded that.  Two years later the New York Dolls rsleased such-and-such." That's plain silly and boring, and very bad writing, elementary school stuff.  The caption is no different.  As long as it's unambiguous who is being referred to, there is no need to be repetitive or strict.  We don't say "This is a picture of the New York Dolls in such-and-such year" and "This is a picture of the New York Dolls in so-and-so year", we can say "The New York Dolls in such-and-such", "The Dolls in so-and-so", and "The band in this date". Remember, we're not here to edit robotically, we're here to impart accurate information to our readers in an effective way, through referenced facts, good writing, informative images, and good visual design. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're being stupid; there is no constant repetition of the New York Dolls in this article; it's pretty split between the Dolls, band, and group, and this is the article on their second album; the article on the band is here --> New York Dolls. Dan56 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no "monotony"; "New York Dolls" appears 14 times in this article's prose, compared to 27 times for "band". Dan56 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Please stop this RfC. It is disrupting the discussion. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  What, so now I'm wrong for taking the initiative to start a discussion? LOL. Just redirect your comments here . A consensus won't be determined without an RfC IMO. Dan56 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that since the discussion has already been started, an RfC is unneeded. I'm assuming that you started constructing this to implement a discussion, which was the correct thing to do, but you likely did not realize/started this before the discussion by the other party was started. The discussion provides a less... for lack of a better word, disruptive feeling. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  What discussion? All I see above this thread is Esszet clearly not describing the issue neutrally, pathetically resorting again to ownership accusations while reductively promoting his point of view. You're the only one who responded in the above section. I don't see a problem. Dan56 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine... let us now shut up before we need dispute resolution for dispute resolution. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

text: The article is not about the Shangri-las, and the mention of them does not shift the locus of who "they" are.  "They" are clearly the subjects of the article, the New York Dolls, and not the Shangri-las.  If the image was of the Shangri-las, then, because they are not the subject of the article, the caption would have to say "The Shangri-las in so-and-so", but that is not the case for the band which is the subject of the article. This is basic stuff, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a better solution here then? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Maybe say "The band after their debut album"? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thoughts? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no objection to that (if it's accurate).  Giving the reader more information is almost always a good thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is accurate.  Is this ok with you guys? That statement can't be misinterpreted as applying to the Shangri-las. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  , and others... just *sigh*. You really wanna overcomplicate an image caption just to appease someone who started an edit war? I'll say this for the last time: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT ANY BAND; THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE IS TOO MUCH TOO SOON; THE SUBJECT OF THE IMAGE IS THE NEW YORK DOLLS. I repeat THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE NEW YORK DOLLS :))))) Dan56 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan56, it takes two editors to edit war. If you want to know who "started an edit war", take a look in the mirror. Despite what you may believe, and the way you act, you don't own the articles to which you contribute. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  , why are you here? Go away. Dan56 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He is just trying to tell you your fault here. I do point out that both of you were edit warring, not just Dan56, but not just Esszet either. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's also accusing me of article ownership. He's also being a hound, and a dick; not his first uninvited appearance at a dispute involving me... Dan56 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OWN much? This article has been on my watchlist for years. I'm sorry, Dan56, but it's time to acknowledge that you don't own Wikipedia's music articles. And more importantly, to stop acting like you do. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And even if the article hadn't been on my watchlist, you invited comments when you started an RfC. Remember that, genius? (PS - Thank you for your recent vandalism to the articles I edited recently. Real mature.) — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you for pointing all of that out. Now leave me alone. Dan56 (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, and can we just shut up about the edit warring now and the accusations? It is preventing a productive discussion here. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you all even forgetting that the image is the first thing that appears in the body? Why not also just refer to the Dolls elsewhere as band or group instead of by name? What is the point of using their name at all!!!??? Why not ditch "Johnny Thunders" name also in the next image and just refer to him as "the band's guitarist"??! Dan56 (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  And there's no "monotony", as  inaccurately describes; "New York Dolls" appears 14 times in this article's prose, compared to 27 times for "band". That's the problem with editors like , and the like, who just come around pushing the most trivial of changes in an article you may have not even read... THERE"S NO REASON TO CHANGE THE CAPTION, other than some ludicrous personal preference. You guys blow my mind. Dan56 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: We aren't discussing the editors, we are discussing the article. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to discuss both. Esszet (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  How's the view from your high horse, Esszet? Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is why we don't discuss the editors RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: *sigh* Dan56 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "*sigh*" indeed, but not for the reason you mean it.  The only behavior on this page deserving of a "*sigh*" is coming from the person doing the *sigh*ing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Boy, you really told me. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now gentlemen, this is not helping. Why won't we let the RfC run its course. El_C 00:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Captions should aim for succinctness; more than three lines of text would be distracting (WP:CAPTION#Succinctness) Dan56 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the link, but it doesn't really apply to my question. If the five names cannot fit on three lines, make the picture bigger. The advice to click through the image for more info doesn't help, since they aren't identified there, either. The only other page with the image is on the Spanish wiki. You were the one saying "the clearest way of identifying the subject of an image is by name." Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does apply to your question. I fail to see how it doesn't. The subject is the New York Dolls; the caption should read "The New York Dolls". As for increasing the size, that would not conform with individual user's preferences; forcing an image width is generally discouraged (WP:IMGSIZE). Dan56 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I explained how it doesn't - your link is the one that suggests making a picture bigger to avoid 4+ lines of caption and clicking through for more information. Your link does NOT make a case for failing to accurately identify the contents of the image, who are people. And if you read your new link, it only discourages forcing an image size, but not scaling it. Finally, I test-edited the caption "New York Dolls in 1973 l-r: Johnny Thunders, Sylvain Sylvain, Jerry Nolan, Arthur Kane, David Johansen", and it fit on three lines just fine at the current size, so neither of the links you provided apply to my suggestion at all. Are you deliberately being obtuse by pointing to these tangential guidelines instead of actually discussing my suggested caption? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This would not fit three lines: "The New York Dolls in 1973, left to right: Johnny Thunders, Sylvain Sylvain, Jerry Nolan, Arthur Kane, David Johansen". Regardless, this is not succinct. I don't see what problem you're trying to solve with a more elaborate caption; this exact caption is already atop the band's article, where readers should ideally go if they would like to know this information. Because reiterating the names of the band members would appear more appropriate at an article where they are the primary topic. I also don't know what you mean by "scaling it"; do you mean using the "upright" parameter? Wouldn't this cause the image box to bleed into the next section? Dan56 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - using that longer version of the caption would take 4 lines. The one I typed out (omit "The", abbreviate "left to right" as l-r) fits three. And yes, I meant the upscale parameter. Whether it would bleed or not depends on the reader's screen size and the degree of the upscale. I agree that the band members should be identified on the band's page, but that doesn't mean the information can't be duplicated here. Since the band members are mentioned by name in this article, and since the discussion above seems to revolve around overusing the band's name or not being specific enough, this seems like a valid third option to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such a long caption may be distracting as well, thus my reference to WP:CAPTION#Succinctness. Dan56 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I count 4 votes to 1... Dan56 (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, all three of you are not exactly being civil. Why don't we just all stop and close this before it gets too out of hand? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose BMK's and (maybe) MShabazz's don't count? And am I going to have to report you for administrative incompetence? Esszet (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  ↑ Dan56 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, a few things. First, I cannot be accused of administrative incompetence because I'm not an admin. MShabazz didn't vote. BMK gave reasoning for their vote, so that is good. Overall, it is the closer's job to weigh the votes, not mine. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should the caption for an image identify the subject by name? 

message: * Yes - I really thought something so self-evident wouldn't lead to a dispute and require a request-for-comment SMFH. Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I personally think that "The New York Dolls" is better because it is not the subject of the article. Referring to the New York Dolls as the "band" is ok if the full name has been said in the section before, and if there are no "competing" bands in that section. For images, I regard them slightly differently, but it should still be the "New York Dolls" regardless, because of the mention of the Shangri-las in the section that the image is in. (this is basically just a copy & past of my comments below) RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: * Referring to the image subject by their name would clear up whatever confusion you think exists. You're reasoning is confusing. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am trying to get a solution that we can all agree on, and the image is providing extra information not there before. I would be ok with the wording you suggested (I thus changed my vote to "Maybe"), but it seems that some editors are opposed to it, so I was trying to present a solution. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: * (addition) - Also, referring to the band by name isn't exactly needed, and the text that I suggested could not possibly refer to the Shangri-Las, thus any confusion should be cleared up. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * This caption change isn't exactly needed; this discussion devolved from another editor's wounded ego and inability to grasp their change being undone. There's no harm in identifying the subject of the image by its actual name; there's a reason this didn't come up in the featured article review, or good article review; this is a whole lot about nothing. Dan56 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: The guidelines on image captions say the subject of the image should be clearly identified by the caption (WP:CAP#Clear identification of the subject); the clearest way of identifying the subject of an image is by name, and I can't believe I have to explain this. Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being much, much too literal in your interpretation, and disruptive in your editing.  "The band" clearly identifies who is in the picture, since it is a synonym for the subject of the article, The New York Dolls. Effective and non-monotonous writing calls for the occasional use of synonyms and pronouns instead of the constant repetition of "The New York Doils did this, then the New York Dolls recorded that.  Two years later the New York Dolls rsleased such-and-such." That's plain silly and boring, and very bad writing, elementary school stuff.  The caption is no different.  As long as it's unambiguous who is being referred to, there is no need to be repetitive or strict.  We don't say "This is a picture of the New York Dolls in such-and-such year" and "This is a picture of the New York Dolls in so-and-so year", we can say "The New York Dolls in such-and-such", "The Dolls in so-and-so", and "The band in this date". Remember, we're not here to edit robotically, we're here to impart accurate information to our readers in an effective way, through referenced facts, good writing, informative images, and good visual design. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're being stupid; there is no constant repetition of the New York Dolls in this article; it's pretty split between the Dolls, band, and group, and this is the article on their second album; the article on the band is here --> New York Dolls. Dan56 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no "monotony"; "New York Dolls" appears 14 times in this article's prose, compared to 27 times for "band". Dan56 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Please stop this RfC. It is disrupting the discussion. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  What, so now I'm wrong for taking the initiative to start a discussion? LOL. Just redirect your comments here . A consensus won't be determined without an RfC IMO. Dan56 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that since the discussion has already been started, an RfC is unneeded. I'm assuming that you started constructing this to implement a discussion, which was the correct thing to do, but you likely did not realize/started this before the discussion by the other party was started. The discussion provides a less... for lack of a better word, disruptive feeling. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  What discussion? All I see above this thread is Esszet clearly not describing the issue neutrally, pathetically resorting again to ownership accusations while reductively promoting his point of view. You're the only one who responded in the above section. I don't see a problem. Dan56 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine... let us now shut up before we need dispute resolution for dispute resolution. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

text: The article is not about the Shangri-las, and the mention of them does not shift the locus of who "they" are.  "They" are clearly the subjects of the article, the New York Dolls, and not the Shangri-las.  If the image was of the Shangri-las, then, because they are not the subject of the article, the caption would have to say "The Shangri-las in so-and-so", but that is not the case for the band which is the subject of the article. This is basic stuff, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a better solution here then? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Maybe say "The band after their debut album"? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thoughts? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no objection to that (if it's accurate).  Giving the reader more information is almost always a good thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is accurate.  Is this ok with you guys? That statement can't be misinterpreted as applying to the Shangri-las. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  , and others... just *sigh*. You really wanna overcomplicate an image caption just to appease someone who started an edit war? I'll say this for the last time: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT ANY BAND; THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE IS TOO MUCH TOO SOON; THE SUBJECT OF THE IMAGE IS THE NEW YORK DOLLS. I repeat THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE NEW YORK DOLLS :))))) Dan56 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan56, it takes two editors to edit war. If you want to know who "started an edit war", take a look in the mirror. Despite what you may believe, and the way you act, you don't own the articles to which you contribute. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  , why are you here? Go away. Dan56 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He is just trying to tell you your fault here. I do point out that both of you were edit warring, not just Dan56, but not just Esszet either. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's also accusing me of article ownership. He's also being a hound, and a dick; not his first uninvited appearance at a dispute involving me... Dan56 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OWN much? This article has been on my watchlist for years. I'm sorry, Dan56, but it's time to acknowledge that you don't own Wikipedia's music articles. And more importantly, to stop acting like you do. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And even if the article hadn't been on my watchlist, you invited comments when you started an RfC. Remember that, genius? (PS - Thank you for your recent vandalism to the articles I edited recently. Real mature.) — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you for pointing all of that out. Now leave me alone. Dan56 (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, and can we just shut up about the edit warring now and the accusations? It is preventing a productive discussion here. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you all even forgetting that the image is the first thing that appears in the body? Why not also just refer to the Dolls elsewhere as band or group instead of by name? What is the point of using their name at all!!!??? Why not ditch "Johnny Thunders" name also in the next image and just refer to him as "the band's guitarist"??! Dan56 (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  And there's no "monotony", as  inaccurately describes; "New York Dolls" appears 14 times in this article's prose, compared to 27 times for "band". That's the problem with editors like , and the like, who just come around pushing the most trivial of changes in an article you may have not even read... THERE"S NO REASON TO CHANGE THE CAPTION, other than some ludicrous personal preference. You guys blow my mind. Dan56 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: We aren't discussing the editors, we are discussing the article. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to discuss both. Esszet (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  How's the view from your high horse, Esszet? Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is why we don't discuss the editors RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: *sigh* Dan56 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "*sigh*" indeed, but not for the reason you mean it.  The only behavior on this page deserving of a "*sigh*" is coming from the person doing the *sigh*ing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Boy, you really told me. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now gentlemen, this is not helping. Why won't we let the RfC run its course. El_C 00:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Captions should aim for succinctness; more than three lines of text would be distracting (WP:CAPTION#Succinctness) Dan56 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the link, but it doesn't really apply to my question. If the five names cannot fit on three lines, make the picture bigger. The advice to click through the image for more info doesn't help, since they aren't identified there, either. The only other page with the image is on the Spanish wiki. You were the one saying "the clearest way of identifying the subject of an image is by name." Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does apply to your question. I fail to see how it doesn't. The subject is the New York Dolls; the caption should read "The New York Dolls". As for increasing the size, that would not conform with individual user's preferences; forcing an image width is generally discouraged (WP:IMGSIZE). Dan56 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I explained how it doesn't - your link is the one that suggests making a picture bigger to avoid 4+ lines of caption and clicking through for more information. Your link does NOT make a case for failing to accurately identify the contents of the image, who are people. And if you read your new link, it only discourages forcing an image size, but not scaling it. Finally, I test-edited the caption "New York Dolls in 1973 l-r: Johnny Thunders, Sylvain Sylvain, Jerry Nolan, Arthur Kane, David Johansen", and it fit on three lines just fine at the current size, so neither of the links you provided apply to my suggestion at all. Are you deliberately being obtuse by pointing to these tangential guidelines instead of actually discussing my suggested caption? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This would not fit three lines: "The New York Dolls in 1973, left to right: Johnny Thunders, Sylvain Sylvain, Jerry Nolan, Arthur Kane, David Johansen". Regardless, this is not succinct. I don't see what problem you're trying to solve with a more elaborate caption; this exact caption is already atop the band's article, where readers should ideally go if they would like to know this information. Because reiterating the names of the band members would appear more appropriate at an article where they are the primary topic. I also don't know what you mean by "scaling it"; do you mean using the "upright" parameter? Wouldn't this cause the image box to bleed into the next section? Dan56 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - using that longer version of the caption would take 4 lines. The one I typed out (omit "The", abbreviate "left to right" as l-r) fits three. And yes, I meant the upscale parameter. Whether it would bleed or not depends on the reader's screen size and the degree of the upscale. I agree that the band members should be identified on the band's page, but that doesn't mean the information can't be duplicated here. Since the band members are mentioned by name in this article, and since the discussion above seems to revolve around overusing the band's name or not being specific enough, this seems like a valid third option to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such a long caption may be distracting as well, thus my reference to WP:CAPTION#Succinctness. Dan56 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I count 4 votes to 1... Dan56 (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, all three of you are not exactly being civil. Why don't we just all stop and close this before it gets too out of hand? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose BMK's and (maybe) MShabazz's don't count? And am I going to have to report you for administrative incompetence? Esszet (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  ↑ Dan56 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, a few things. First, I cannot be accused of administrative incompetence because I'm not an admin. MShabazz didn't vote. BMK gave reasoning for their vote, so that is good. Overall, it is the closer's job to weigh the votes, not mine. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion