Talk:Technical Ecstasy

message: *All song titles serve as redirects to this album or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <^>v|This album is connected|v<^>

message: :Image:BlackSabbathTechnicalEcstasy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BlackSabbathTechnicalEcstasy.jpg

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Technical Ecstasy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "MusicMight":
From Black Sabbath: 
From Ozzy Osbourne: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Technical Ecstasy]] 

message: The pages for Rock 'n' Roll Doctor and Dirty Women are stubs with little room for expansion. There's very little content about the songs on the separate articles that isn't already expressed here. It seems very clear to me that they should be merged. I was tempted to just go ahead and do it but I decided to formally discuss it first. The discuss will be kept open at least a week. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge all as nominator. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Merge all per Wikipedia:Song#Notability. ChakaKongtalk 16:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion, March 2013 

message: It is time to move on this unsettled disagreement. User:Pigsonthewing and User:BrunoMacDonald have had plenty of time to properly source the contested material (a week and a half over the originally suggested one week). Pigsonthewing, the issue is settled pretty clearly by WP:BURDEN. You've not offered any counter interpretation of that policy that maintains your position. Did you read it? Did you read my comments regarding it? Your demands for resolutions on other topics such as the sourcing for the rest of the article are red herrings that only serve to de-focus the discussion. Despite this, I have offered some response to them, which you've also not indicated you've read (e.g., the pull quote being a large, direct quote makes its need of proper citation even more important). I have no doubt that you wish to make the article better but I see no reason to circumvent policy and guideline here by invoking something dramatic like Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which, given the clarity of WP:BURDEN, you'd have to do to successfully argue for keeping the material at this point if you do not wish to give a more precise citation.
Here's a summary of the situation:
# the material is challenged by ChakaKong
# the citation is not precise, and does not seem direct either
# adequate time has been given to properly cite the material
# the citation is too vague to be verified with reasonable effort
# adequate discussion has occurred to point out the problems with such a vague attribute
# the onus is on "editor who adds or restores material", which was Pigsonthewing, to provide a proper citation
# the material is a large block quote that makes up a large portion of the article and need proper precise, direct citation
# a proper citation has failed to be given within reasonable time
By the wording of WP:BURDEN, this material can be removed. Plain and simple. I think any appeal to dispute resolution process would be a waste of time to other editors, would also be clear-cut to the point of WP:Snowball, and have an obvious quick outcome. I have tried to be fairly neutral here and guide the discussion by policy. There was some initial confusion due to improper talk-page editing but overall ChakaKong and myself have been rather patient and coherent. (ChakaKong, at times your tone reads somewhat aggressive and that could be improved.) Yet I feel like Pigsonthewing has instead preferred to find malice where there's none (as with my comments) and offer obstinate and uncooperative resistance. That's unfortunate. Pigsonthewing, you mentioned WP:GOODFAITH, earlier. Where's your good faith in our intentions? We too wish to improve the article but by adhering to the standards set out in the policies and guidelines and the spirit in which they are written. I think the discussion shows we've wished to cooperate through proper dialog and debate.
After BrunoMacDonald's comment I'm inclined to trust him that the material is real. Maybe ChakaKong is too. But there's the rub: we shouldn't have to rely on trusting an editor for the accuracy of a block quote. If need be, we should be able to go and look it up ourselves with reasonable effort. I suppose at the heart of this dispute is the notion of what constitutes a "precise" citation for reasonable effort. Presently, I don't know if Zoom magazine was monthly, quarterly, weekly, or whatever in 1979. Saying "Zoom magazine in 1979" is too vague and potentially requires too much effort for a reader to verify the material with reasonable effort. Whatever the publication rate is, I'd have to flip though all magazines from 1979 to verify the quote. That's unreasonable. This is very clear if instead the citation were "The New York Times in 1979". This problem of reasonable effort is why a "direct" citation is demanded by WP:BURDEN.
The quote would be a nice thing to have in the article. It needs a precise citation. It'd be great if one of us went to the library and actually found it. Pigsonthewing, why not you? Or does it also sound too laborious to find and flip through an unknown number of magazines? (Rhetorical question but real suggestion.) I do not intend to make further replies in this thread and have written this comment as my judgment of policy on this issue. But I shall read a response or two before removing the quote. As explained above, ChakaKong may do so as well, if he wishes, at any point. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm baffled by the disproportionate time and energy that has been expended on this. To clarify as much as possible: I can't remember how I found the Zoom magazine in question. I imagine it was lurking in the art department of an advertising agency in which I used to work. To the best of my recollection, it was an oversize glossy effort typical of art publishing: I've no idea whether it is related to any extant publication or website of the same name. As a fanzine editor, I was accustomed to labelling cuttings as fully as possible, so it's possible that the magazine bore no date other than 1979 (it may even have been an annual publication). I highly doubt that Pigsonthewing would be able to source the original even if he had the time and inclination to do so. To delete information that would be of interest to Black Sabbath fans, that I would have to be deranged to have made up, and which I sourced as best I could, seems rather shortsighted. BrunoMacDonald (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Jason (having been canvassed in his talk page) is misinterpreting policy; the quote is cited; and the issue is not "settled" as he supposes. It is not for him to sit in "judgement". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pigsonthewing seems quite willing to engage in edit warring for no apparent reason other than to win. It's absolutely puerile. Andy, I understand you teach a course of some sort related to editing Wikipedia? If that's the case you should be ashamed of how you've handled this. The very first thing most editors discover when they begin editing here is that anything they cannot source is likely to be deleted. That's Wikipedia 101. ChakaKongtalk 12:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

text: ChakaKong seems quite willing to engage in edit warring for no apparent reason other than to win. It's absolutely puerile. ChakaKong, you should be ashamed of how you've handled this. The quotation is sourced. That's Wikipedia 101. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow. ChakaKongtalk 15:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I have addressed the issues, above. Your denying that I have done so is unhelpful; as is your reliance on your own idiosyncratic reading of the Wikipedia policy which you quote, but appear not to have understood. Allow me to add emphasis: "specifying page, section, for such divisions as may be appropriate". The quotation in question has "a reliable source directly supporting it". Your "it's in a book" example is an appeal to a logical fallacy. It is indeed unfortunate that you two are tag-teaming to remove this cited material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoom magazine article (take 2) 

message: This album is more hard rock than heavy metal. It's way too upbeat and light to be classed as heavy metal. This Sputnikmusic review; http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/35098/Black-Sabbath-Technical-Ecstasy/ "[Technical Ecstasy]... takes a more traditional rock approach"... thoughts? Mrwallace05 (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be more appropriate to call Never Say Die! a hard rock album rather than this, since this album has some very heavy, traditional-Sabbath sounding stuff. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard rock 

message: There's some uncertainty over the spelling of Gerald's (the keyboardist's) last name. The Technical Ecstasy CD (for at least one printing) gives his name as "Woodruffe" while he presently appears to go by "Woodroffe" (bolding mine to highlight difference). A previous discussion about this was covered over two talk page threads (here and here).
As I recall from the previous discussion, a web search seemed to turn up roughly equal matches for each name. I'll try to gather some more information.
There are several possible explanations for the two spellings. Maybe the CD has a misspelling. Maybe Gerald has used both spellings professionally at points in his career (changing the way one's name is credited is not an uncommon thing to do).
It would be great to find out how his name is spelling on the vinyl releases (especially the original printing) and also the cassette version. If it really is a clerical error, we can note it in the article (credited as...'). It would be great to find good reliable sources around the time of the 1976 release which give his name. There are tons of web matches to both spellings of his name on lot of sites of relatively low reliability. There's no need to be hasty to solve this but it would be good to get to the bottom of it so that it doesn't come up again. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I contacted Woodroffe himself and received a personal e-mail. He says that it should have been "Jezz Woodroffe" but Ozzy and Butler always called him Gerald and that "Woodruffe" is likely due to an Ozzy spelling mistake. I'm now convinced that the proper solution is to change the spelling as Ewen  (and as previously JohnnyangelNIU ) and add a note. This seems to be an uncontroversial change but we do not yet have a good secondary source. I think this may be an appropriate situation to utilize Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. As per WP:BLPSELFPUB, we can also use people to correct certain information about themselves in limited circumstances and hopefully nobody will object. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now I can sleep at night. I thought a simple (sic) was adequate after the 'Woodruffe' spelling, which linked to the WP page about Woodroffe anyway, but hey-ho. Ewen (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with adding (sic) at the time, was we didn't know for sure that the spelling was in error. Sic is not usually used to indicate alternative spellings. Now that we know that it is not an alternative spelling and was in error, your original solution is fine too. In any case, it's nice to have this resolved. Thanks for your patience and for spotting the trouble. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the update guys!  [[User:JohnnyangelNIU}} 1:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerald "Woodruffe" or "Woodroffe"?