Talk:Tumbling Dice: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:30, 19 September 2021

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tumbling Dice article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Tumbling Dice has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 29, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 2, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 17, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 31, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 2, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 16, 2010	Good article reassessment	Delisted
September 3, 2017	Good article reassessment	Listed
Current status: Good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tumbling Dice article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Songs GA‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The Rolling Stones GA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music GA‑class High‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Concerns about recent edits

@JGabbard: Could you please explain your recent edits to this article? It has diverged the article from the structural form of FA Paint It Black and undone suggestions made at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tumbling Dice/archive4. For example, the "debris" described are required captions for FAs and also present in FA Paint It Black. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly -- I believe all my edits are improvements, and am unsure which suggestion on that page might contravene anything I have done. The overarching principles of simplicity and minimalism require that redundant verbiage be avoided. I don't know who recently decided that such captions were a good idea, but I will have to see an excellent rationale before I stop removing such clutter on sight. It is not even excess detail, just lengthening pages with needless repetition. Number-one song categories of significant English language charts (Country, AC and R&B) were removed for the sake of brevity (while allowing foreign-language categories to remain) which chaps my hide to no end, so in that light it is difficult to justify these useless captions.

While it may be GA format, separating "Chart performance" from "Commercial performance" on this particular article doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, especially when the content in both sections is strictly about peak positions on various charts. Compounding this is the intervening Ronstadt and "Other versions" section above the Stones' chart performance section, disconnecting it from their narrative, and not even mentioning the Stones. The reader is left to deduce that we've reverted back to talking about the Stones' version again simply based on the year in parentheses. And yet here's this really super helpful caption mentioning "Tumbling Dice" again (and repeated over each chart box), as if after reading about the original and all the covers that our attention span is so short we've somehow forgotten what page we're looking at. No. Just no. All seven instances of this useless caption need to be removed from the "Paint It Black" article also.

Do you see where I'm coming from here, SandDoctor? - JGabbard (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 {{re|JGabbard}} Could you please explain your recent edits to this article? It has diverged the article from the structural form of FA [[Paint It Black]] and undone suggestions made at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Tumbling Dice/archive4]]. For example, the "[[Special:Diff/1045133616|debris]]" described are required captions for FAs and also present in FA Paint It Black. --[[User:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">The</span><span style="color:#009933; font-weight:bold;">SandDoctor</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 06:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
+:Gladly -- I believe all my edits are improvements, and am unsure which suggestion on that page might contravene anything I have done.  The overarching principles of simplicity and minimalism require that redundant verbiage be avoided.  I don't know who recently decided that such captions were a good idea, but I will have to see an excellent rationale before I stop removing such clutter on sight.  It is not even excess detail, just lengthening pages with needless repetition.  Number-one song categories of significant English language charts (Country, AC and R&B) were removed for the sake of brevity (while allowing foreign-language categories to remain) which chaps my hide to no end, so in that light it is difficult to justify these useless captions.
+:While it may be GA format, separating "Chart performance" from "Commercial performance" on this particular article doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, especially when the content in both sections is strictly about peak positions on various charts.  Compounding this is the intervening Ronstadt and "Other versions" section above the Stones' chart performance section, disconnecting it from their narrative, and not even mentioning the Stones.  The reader is left to deduce that we've reverted back to talking about the Stones' version again simply based on the year in parentheses.  And yet here's this really super helpful caption mentioning "Tumbling Dice" again (and repeated over each chart box), as if after reading about the original and all the covers that our attention span is so short we've somehow forgotten what page we're looking at.  No. Just no.  All seven instances of this useless caption need to be removed from the "Paint It Black" article also.
+:Do you see where I'm coming from here, SandDoctor? - [[User:JGabbard|JGabbard]] ([[User talk:JGabbard|talk]]) 12:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)