Talk:Technical Ecstasy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<^>v|This album is connected|v<^>[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BlackSabbathTechnicalEcstasy.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Orphaned references in Technical Ecstasy[edit]

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: Sharpe-Young, Garry. " Black Sabbath Biography".
  • From Ozzy Osbourne: Sharpe-Young, Garry. " Black Sabbath Biography".

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)[reply]

Merge discussion, March 2013[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Technical Ecstasy. -- Jason Quinn (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge all as nominator. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per Wikipedia:Song#Notability. ChakaKongtalk 16:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zoom magazine article[edit]

There is a rather superfluous interview with the designer of the album's cover art which I attempted to abridge on the basis of multiple issues. First, what the heck is Zoom magazine? Is it a reliable source? I can find reference to magazines by that name devoted to half-nude women and sportcars; I assume the interview originated in neither of these publications. Secondly, is it really most beneficial to the article to dedicate more space to the album art than to the music? This particular album cover isn't particularly notable. Lastly and most importantly, this information is not properly sourced. The editor's claim that it is "quite clealrly, if imprecisely, sourced" (Sic) doesn't hold any water when no source can be found, aside from a statement in the prose that the interview comes from "Zoom magazine in 1979".

Any thoughts on this? ChakaKongtalk 20:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Zoom magazine in 1979" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know as well as I do that that's not properly sourced. ChakaKongtalk 00:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might re-read my edit summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any intention of discussing this? Or do you feel the guidelines don't apply to you? ChakaKongtalk 11:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing, could you please be more specific about the Zoom reference? ChakaKong's original edit summary may have wrongly stated that your additions were "unsourced" but it's clear that by the time he started this thread he had noticed it. Replying "Zoom magazine in 1979" and "re-read my edit summary" wasn't very helpful and didn't address any of his concerns.
As ChakaKong pointed out, a Google search finds many such magazines. Do you know if this magazine is still published? Does it have a website? How many issues were released in 1979? Just one? How did you come across this interview? Do you still have access to it? I think it's pretty clear that the reference given so far is inadequate to identify the source with reasonable effort.
ChakaKong, my guess is that Pigsonthewing's curt responses are a result of your original "unsourced" claim. It suggests you reverted so quickly that you hadn't even properly read the material he added; so I can understand if Pigsonthewing felt irritated by this. While I too, find his replies to you above inadequate, your replies are kind of abrasive. Just keep in mind that this is a fairly inconsequential article in the backwaters of the encyclopedia.
As for my opinion on the disputed content, all I care about at the moment is that we get a more accurate reference to the source. It's seems to me that Wikipedia:Verifiability has not been satisfied so the ball's in Pigsonthewing's court to satisfy that. Only once verifiability is satisfied can the question about source's reliability be answered. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please read my comment below before you read the rest of this one. Thank you. I can't be more specific, because I didn't add the quote or reference, and don't have access to the original. I have asked the editor who did so to provide more details; while we await that, why don't we assume his good faith? The information is hardly likely to have been made up, and gives a useful insight into the intent and meaning, and technical creation, of the sleeve design. While the text needs better sourcing it is not unsourced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ChakaKong's comment to which I replied has been removed, and replaced with something altogether different, leaving my reply out of context and leading to Jason's not unreasonable, but wrong, assumption that I was "curt", wasn't very helpful and didn't address concerns. Changing comments after they've been replied to in this way is utterly unacceptable; for ChakaKong to then accuse me of not discussing and feeling that the guidelines (whichever they may be) do not apply to me; doubly so. The original to which I replied is in this version of the page. I invite ChakaKong to show good faith by restoring it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I saw absolutely no need for you to start a second discussion when you could/should have just replied to the one I started to discuss the issue. Your edit didn't make it clear that you were replying to the same discussion I initiated. To be perfectly honest, I did what I did in an attempt to place your reply in the correct context. You were still replying to the same essential question, so nothing was "replaced with something altogether different" as you claim. I apologize if that offended you but it doesn't change the context of your reply in any significant way at all. I see no need to revert it, but if a show of good faith is what you require, you have my blessing to restore it. Please, can we now discuss the issue of sourcing and reliablity? ChakaKongtalk 13:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a flying proverbial whether or not you saw a need for it. I note that you have not restored the comment which you removed, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to thank Pigsonthewing for explaining what happened regarding this thread. ChakaKong, the talk page guildlines clearly state, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". Your edit Pigsonthewing's new thread caused confusion by changing the context which ultimately escalated the disagreement and took focus away from the content. This is why you need to be very careful when editing other's comments and generally only do if there's a very good reason. It would have been appropriate merely to point out your other thread and ask Pigsonthewing to reply there, not to condense the two threads. That's the past though. Now is now and both are you are allowing your emotions to start to rise and are using unproductive language. Don't forget about Wikipedia:Civility. (Wikibreak?)

I only now realized, after Pigsonthewing mentioned it above, that the material was added originally by User:BrunoMacDonald with this edit back on 1 April 2013‎. (I hope that's the original addition and this onion doesn't have more layers.) Look at the date. It is possible that the entire thing is a April's Fool prank! (Robots having sex is pretty funny, after all.) The user even claims to be a "freelance writer". Perhaps we are wasting our time over the musings of a bored writer. This new possibility makes the need for a reliable source all the more urgent. I would go so far to say that the material should be shelved for now, especially for this reason. I will invite BrunoMacDonald here and (maybe later tonight) take a look at his other contributions.

Anyhow, now is a good time to restore earnest, calm discussion. (A day-long Wikibreak really isn't a bad idea for each of you.) Presumably we are all united by our love of Black Sabbath's music! Jason Quinn (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS We may as well keep the thread as it is. Trying to restore the original structure now would just make the whole thing even more confusing to a newcomer. All three people presently involved are now aware of the actual discussion, i.e., I too know. The comments above explain enough of what happened that a person can reconstruct the original edit order if they desired. Let's not make it even more difficult. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an April Fool's prank. Bruno is indeed a freelance writer; we cite his books in other articles; and he's easily found on Amazon or suchlike. I have already asked him, as I said above, to provide more details. Your comments about him being a "bored writer" and removing content on that basis are grossly against policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same Bruno MacDonald who wrote the user's guide to Air Guitar, is it not? ChakaKongtalk 18:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing I didn't accuse him of being a "bored writer": the keyword in my sentence is "perhaps". It means I merely suggested the possibility, which is entirely distinct. Noting the April Fool's Day date is relevant and poignant to the discussion at this point in time. Does it mean it is a prank? No. Can we eliminate the possibility it is a prank? No. Your accusations of WP:AGF are overly defensive. Regardless, the edits would not be removed because we're assuming it's a prank (we're not) but for being inadequately and questionably sourced in a way that violates WP:V, and, if the magazine exists, there's also a concern about WP:RS by ChakaKong. At the very least the material ought to be tagged now. The most relevant policy section to this entire discussion is WP:BURDEN. And if the material isn't confirmed within a reasonable amount of time (one week?), it would be completely in line with policy to delete it. Note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material (WP:BURDEN), in that case it's you or BrunoMacDonald. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that you "accused him" of being a bored writer; I referred to "your comments about him being a 'bored writer'". You did make those comments, did you not? It was you who suggested removing the content "especially for this reason". Yes, we can eliminate the possibility of it being a prank; I've already told you that it is not; and WP:AGF still applies. Other than a vague assertion, ChakaKong has not advanced any case that the journal in question is not a reliable source. If you're so concerned about WP:V, perhaps you could address the completely uncited majority of this article, rather than something that is sourced, albeit incompletely? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As to Zoom not being a reliable source, and being "devoted to half-nude women and sportcars", it takes a few seconds on Google to find that it is an art photography magazine featuring the likes of David Bailey, Andreas Heumann, Jay Maisel and Helmut Newton; still in production. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing: I have "not advanced any case that the journal in question is not a reliable source" because I have been attempting figure out what Zoom is. Have you not been reading the discussion? So apparently the photography magazine I mentioned earlier, ostensibly full of half-naked women as far as I can tell, is in fact the magazine the quote originated in? Thank you for finally contributing something that actually addresses one of the questions this discussion was originally intended to address. ChakaKongtalk 20:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing No, I did not make those comments. I wrote, "Perhaps we are wasting our time over the musings of a bored writer." The word "perhaps" clearly shows that I am just suggesting a logical possibility. I was not advocating that he is a bored writer. You wrote, "Your comments about him being a 'bored writer'". The most straight-forward interpretation of this directly implies that my comments suggested he was "being" (i.e., is or exists as) a bored writer, which is sufficient enough to warrant me using the word "accuse". My words were strengthened unfairly. As for "especially for this reason", when I wrote it I was thinking about the possibility of a prank further questioning the quote's verifiability. I could have worded this better. I did not mean to imply "only for this reason". The extra skepticism I was implying was meant to be considered in conjunction with the rest of the V and RS problems under discussion, not in a vacuum. As for whether it is a prank or not, you've said "hardly likely to have been made up" and now "we can eliminate the possibility of it being a prank". Based on what? Why have you strengthened your own wording? Are we supposed to just believe you? Are you the reliable source?
The quote under question is a large block of text that is a significant portion of the article and almost entirely the content of a section. The need for attribution is augmented by direct quotes, which is why WP:V makes special mention of them. It makes sense that it's attribution should be proper here. As per the lead of WP:V, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." I think it's clear that the material has been challenged by ChakaKong so it needs a reference that "directly supports" it; "Zoom Magazine in 1979" didn't pass muster.
I was starting to feel like you are being obdurate and uncharitable. You mentioned WP:AGF earlier and thought I violated it by what I view as an innocuous comment. You have two editors now try their best to gleam information from you but it's not easily forthcoming. Suggesting it is the art magazine is at least a step in the right direction. Just for definitiveness, is this the website for the magazine you are proposing supports the material?
I think WP:BURDEN is pretty clear here regarding the proper course of action. I also think a week is sufficient time for proper attribution to be made and the material verified. I do not wish to further quarrel about semantics and so forth so I intend to make this my last comment for now. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello chaps. Apologies for not formatting this response correctly, but this is my first post on a talk page, and I'm slightly baffled by the tagging conventions. I can confirm that the source is indeed the art magazine Zoom. I regret I cannot be more specific about the date, as I did not make a note of it (other than "1979"), on the original cutting from which the text in question is taken (which, in turn, I supplied to the Black Sabbath fanzine Southern Cross). I have endeavoured to find the specific issue online, but cannot. I would like to thank Pigsonthewing for defending me against the outlandish suggestion that I posted the piece because I was bored, or as a prank. I posted it because, as a Black Sabbath fan, I thought it was interesting and relevant. The fact that there may now be more about the artwork on Technical Ecstasy than the music is a) not my responsibility and b) in keeping with the album's lesser status in Sabbath's discography. I'm sorry that you've all been caught up in this dispute, but perhaps this time and attention could have been better expended on additions that are not sourced at all, rather than something whose source may be incomplete but is nonetheless accurate. For the record, I would never add anything that I have "made up" to Wikipedia. Best wishes to you all, Bruno MacDonald.BrunoMacDonald (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that this material simply cannot be verified. ChakaKongtalk 14:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can. Just not yet. We know the journal and the year, just not the page number. However, most of the body of this article is completely unsourced; why don't you address that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Actually, no it can't, and you literally just said as much. Wow.
So, lets see...this whole thing began because Bruno and then yourself added improperly sourced content. I'm fairly certain that you know full well what the policy states in regards to sourcing and verifiability. I attempted to follow the guidelines and I reverted your edit, explaining why in my edit summary. You then defiantly re-added it, and I initiated this discussion in order to avoid the edit war you seemed all to willing to engage in.
Now you suggest we should just go ahead and revert everything in the article that isn't properly sourced? If reverting improperly sourced material were that simple, this discussion never would have been necessary. You seem to be attempting to bog the discussion down with ridiculous arguments intended to divert the discussion away from the original issues in order to blur the fact that your inappropriate edit was what initiated this whole mess.
This discussion has proven that as of right now, the content in question is incapable of being sufficiently verified. Source it or it's gone. ChakaKongtalk 16:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside all the things you accuse me of doing and saying, that I did not; your false assertions about how Wikipedia works; your misrepresentation of your own sorry actions; and the question I asked that you ignore; I can only... oh wait: there's nothing left to address. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Ridiculous. From the beginning you've been so preoccupied with avoiding accountability that you've failed to address much at all. My "false assertions about how Wikipedia works"? Are you saying I'm somehow mistaken about what the guidelines state in regards to sourcing and verifiability? You're an adult, I shouldn't need to literally show them to you, but I certainly will if you insist on pushing the matter. At any rate, you now have six days to sufficiently source your edit or it's being reverted per guidelines. I see no point in commenting further. ChakaKongtalk 21:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Pigsonthewing... SERIOUSLY!?!?!

It's becoming increasingly difficult to deal with you without resorting to personal attacks and name calling, but I shall try. Did we not have a discussion in regards to this and determine that unless you are able to properly source your edit, it would not be allowed to stand? Yet here we are, back at square one because you insist on acting like a child and reverting, even though you are clearly in violation of the guidelines. Please explain yourself. ChakaKongtalk 23:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We did indeed have a discussion, and it most certainly did not "determine" what you claim; indeed, it reached no consensus. You have not addressed the majority of the points I have made (not least the lack of sourcing for most of the rest of the article) and we do not remove sourced content just because it lacks a specific page number, nor because the rest of the article is too short. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any other issue you have can be addressed once this is sorted out. ChakaKongtalk 12:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom magazine article (take 2)[edit]

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:

  1. the material is challenged by ChakaKong
  2. the citation is not precise, and does not seem direct either
  3. adequate time has been given to properly cite the material
  4. the citation is too vague to be verified with reasonable effort
  5. adequate discussion has occurred to point out the problems with such a vague attribute
  6. the onus is on "editor who adds or restores material", which was Pigsonthewing, to provide a proper citation
  7. the material is a large block quote that makes up a large portion of the article and need proper precise, direct citation
  8. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wow. ChakaKongtalk 15:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing Again you have again chosen not to address the issues and offer still more perplexing obstinacy. You did not answer if you've read WP:BURDEN (which I point out is the first major section of Wikipedia:Verifiability). I was sincerely asking, so allow me to quote from it: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)" and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". The material is not precisely or directly cited to be considered a proper inline citation. I am a strong proponent interpreting Wikipedia:Verifiability as meaning "capable of verification even if difficult" when it comes to access to sources but not when it comes to vagueness of attribution. Citing "it's in a book" is "verifiable" under a perverse interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and would merely require flipping though every book in the universe. So as I stated, it's a matter of precision and directness that are the trouble. @BrunoMacDonald In your new comments, you say "I've no idea whether [the Zoom magazine I recall] is related to any extant publication or website of the same name." This further questions the sources' verifiability. You even say "I highly doubt that Pigsonthewing would be able to source the original even if he had the time and inclination to do so", which clearly means the citation cannot be considered a reliable source until specified more clearly. How can it be determined to be a reliable source if we don't even know what source we are talking about? It can't until we actually see the source in question. @Pigsonthewing As I write this, I notice you have re-added the material I had just removed and again when ChakaKong removed it. That's unfortunate. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hard rock[edit]

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; "[Technical Ecstasy]... takes a more traditional rock approach"... thoughts? Mrwallace05 (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Never say die is harder than this album. Plus, this album does contain a few heavy metal songs (Dirty Women, Back Street Kids), some hard rock (Rock N Roll Doctor, All Moving Parts Stand Still) and Pop Rock (it's Alright, She's Gone) TheEarthboundFan2001 (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald "Woodruffe" or "Woodroffe"?[edit]

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)[reply]

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 suggests (and as previously JohnnyangelNIU did) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for the update guys! [[User:JohnnyangelNIU}} 1:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyangelNIU (talkcontribs)