Talk:Green Apple Quick Step

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

Willman's collaboration on Calm Down Juanita[edit]

I've added a little detail, refining it after the revert to include a much briefer summary. The source material at allmusic.com, which is a Biography of Green Apple Quick Step by Ron DePasquale, is incorrect in identifying Calm Down Juanita a solo project, as it was not. The Asher cite shows otherwise and both albums' liner notes clearly state that they were co-written by Willman and Guess, and both liners go on to list a host of other notable players. There are other references too, and I'm working on have posted a separate articles on Calm Down Juanita, Tyler Willman, and Kevin Guess to be posted soon, as that project was notable (and good!) in and of itself. Want to help with thoseat? =) duff 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the Borzillo article also gets it wrong, calling it a solo project. It was not. duff 22:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a 2nd revert of the now-shortened sentence about Willman's work on the Calm Down Juanita project, User:HrZ's edit summary note says, "If there is an article for it now, there is no need to also mention the albums Calm Down Juanita released. The projects only need a brief mention. +linked in infobox." I do not see the same level of abrupt rigorousness being applied to Willman's and Braeden's outside work on Gossard's Bayleaf album, nor am I grasping why there would not be good reason to include the cited fact that Braeden was also involved in the Calm Down Juanita project, particularly given that Gossard also participated in that project, and that Steve Wilmans, (who also engineered a song on Bayleaf), engineered it. Perhaps HrZ will elucidate? duff 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willman's contribution to the Bayleaf album is mentioned in the more suitable Post–breakup activities section. A section for such details. Adding more details on Calm Down Juanita (released albums, band members, contributors, etc) to the New Disaster and lineup changes doesnt further the history of Green Apple Quick Step at that point so is not needed. These can be moved to the afore mentioned Post-break up section, seeing as how they were released during/after the breakup. Should have made that more clear, sorry if confused you. Two sources also state that Calm Down Juanita was a solo project [1] and [2] per WP:V it should be called a solo project. Unless you can find other sources that say otherwise. Restored some of the content. HrZ (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will move the information on Willman's work with Calm Down Juanita to the to the post-breakup section, as I think that actually may be more accurate, date-wise, though it's darn close, so let's try to nail down the dates, please, as tagged. I inserted it where I did, because that was where CDJ was noted in this article in the first place, and I hadn't had time to read all the attached sources. I still haven't read them all. That's why I was reading all your source material written by Reading, and why I added tags for dates needed, and why I clarified some dates there & in other places.
As for the sources for the accurate information on Calm Down Juanita, I did provide them, they are WP:V, and you've again deleted those sources. The definitive source for the fact stated is the liner notes for the albums themselves, not the incorrect reporting of information by sources unfamiliar with the work. I'm correcting the incorrect material again, and will seriously consider adding a line that says something like..."various sources incorrectly state that, yakyakyak,", with citations for those sources that are incorrect, though I think that may be excruciating enough detail that it is best added to the Calm Down Juanita page, if you think it's a significant enough controversy to document.
Also, you may not have noticed that when I edited the article, the information that you've now restored was actually kept in the article, so that your restoration then duplicated the material. I've restored back to where I left it & will proceed with the changes you made and suggested that I agree with, and then let's take it from there. Thanks for joining me here...you've done some fine work on this article, I can see that that will continue, and I intend to do some more. duff 22:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, as a pointed and pertinent example of the level of scrutiny required to source facts from AMG (bless their hearts); please note that Willman is listed variously there as Ty Willman, Ty Wilman, and Tyl Wilman/Willman(?), with 3 separate artist numbers, all covering his material with various bands with their own artists numbers as well, which is spread out across the three artist #'s (one artist) in a way that is BOUND to lead to confusion. I sent a message there at (corrections?), about those errors, as well as the error in DePasquale's AMG article, both of which I expect will be rigorously scrutinized and then corrected, by some time in 2015. =D (jk, really..they're pretty good about such things.). We shall see, but the liner notes still take the RS role, until we can also add the AMG sources as anything but incorrectly stated facts (and phrased as such) from a source that is notably not entirely reliable. The Rolling Stone clip at google books is not clear as to its source for the statement, but since I've also found another important source (pre-dating both, I think) that makes the same mistake in, like, 6 places on the same page, it is not surprising that the wrong information has reflected forth on several other sources. I have also sent a message to the aforementioned source, asking the author to look over the correct information and consider updating that page, so that we can properly use that as a source too, without having to make the same disclosure as to its veracity.duff 05:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few other comments on the CDJ material can be found below in the section entitled "General article development covering many areas", for other editors who would like to follow that specific topic.

~==General article development covering many areas==

First line in WP:V, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Unless someone owns a copy of the album(s) how can anyone check if the information you provided with the linear notes is true? I know I used them in the article also, but that was for who album credits and where it was recorded, but the credits can also be found here [3] [4] [5] if they are removed.
The only person saying that the sources are wrong are you, while I am not doubting that you are correct, just because you say they are wrong doesn't mean they can't be used. The fact is that two sources pass WP:RS (see here for Allmusic). If Allmusic is corrected, then the article can be changed accordingly.
Now as for the positioning of the Musical style section. It is common place for it to be after the band's history while also linking the band members in the band members section. If it is linked in the lead, doesn't mean it should be unlinked in the main article. Mike Squires wasn't mentioned earlier in the article, therefore should be linked in the Reunion section. See featured articles such as Alice in Chains, Nirvana, Metallica, R.E.M. for examples.
I'm not seeing what you mean by duplicated material, do you mean the hyperlinks? Also reverted some stuff and made some changes that work. Willman and Braedens projects should be mentioned briefly (as they were before) in the previous section because that's when it they started (according to the source), not after they broke up. However, I kept the info you provided in the post-breakup section. I propose that we cease from editing the article for the time being, create a a sandbox of the article in its current state, and discuss and make changes to that article, then update the current when it's done. We appear to be the only editors contributing to this article, so maybe it would be best to take our time, and get this right. What do you think? =) HrZ (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created a Sandbox here. HrZ (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order of the points you made above...
  • Yes, that is the relevant policy & yes, we both agree with it. Someone does have copies of the albums (obviously not just me, but I do.)...and that's where I got the information, and that's thus far the only place I've found that has the correct information. I don't know if you're questioning my good faith & accuracy in gathering and posting the information, but in case you are, anyone can look at a copy of either album for verification. They occasionally come up on amazon [6], which, by the way, both sports an editorial comment that makes the same mistake, AND lists Gossard as an author, which he wasn't.
    • On the first album, the band consisted of Willman, Guess, Peterson, and Willmans, with, quote from the liner: "additional players", including Gossard & the others listed. On the second album, the band consisted of Willman, Guess, and Feasley, with, quote from the liner: " *special appearances by* " all the other artists.
    • The other sources got it wrong. It happens. As one of the RsN commenters noted in the conversation you linked, "The discographies in allmusic, however, are not reliable and better sources should be found." That's what we have here; a better source. We should not keep the wrong information and perpetuate its wrongness. The question is not whether AllMusic is a reliable source. The answer to the that question is obviously "yes, sometimes it is." Nor is the question whether the band is notable, as neither incorrect source is being used to establish the notability of the band. In this case, we know from the liner notes of the albums that AllMusic got that important point about this band wrong. Thus, the questions are, "was it a solo act or was it not?" (It was not), and "Shall we continue to state that it was a solo album, when we know that it was not, from more reliable sources than those used to support the incorrect point?" (We shall not)
    • I'm not suggesting that we remove the incorrect sources, as they do document Willmans involvement in the project. However since they are incorrect as to the nature of the project (verifiably so), if we are going to use them in the article, those citations must simply be placed differently, so as to source his involvement in the project, but not to source the nature of the project. We should also reflect the correct nature of the project accurately, with the accurate source that documents it properly located as well. It's really not a controversial point at all, nor should we present it as one. If AllMusic is corrected, the presently-incorrect-on-that-point citations can then be moved to document the other point as well. I'm fixing that, in that specific way.
  • As for the positioning of the Musical style section, it is just as commonplace, if not more so, for the Musical style section to come first. As a reader, I'm more interested in reading that paragraph first, before wading through the long and illustrious history of the band. It also flows better in that order. I'm switching that section back, and yes, we can discuss it further. I also think that the short Band members section should then immediately follow the musical style section, both of them before the detailed History of the band.
  • On the wikilinks, there is a WP guideline on repeated wikilinks, WP:REPEATLINK, which says clearly that " only the first occurrence of a term should be linked" and "As a rule of thumb, link on first reference only." There's also a bot project that aims to reduce overlinking, which I think is good. There are exceptions to that guideline on repeated links, which include "each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links", which covers the list of bandmembers (and which makes good sense because they're so useful consolidated right there in that list). Another exception is "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first.", which is neatly remedied by simply placing the sections in the order I'm recommending, with the Band members list right up under the Musical style section, immediately following the lead.
  • As for Mike Squires, he is linked in the infobox (which he should be and which does not count against WP:REPEATLINK, due to the third exception to the guideline on repeated links, which excepts "where the first link is in an infobox, navbox or similar meta-content or an image caption." He is also linked in the lead (first reference) and he should be mentioned (IMO, in more detail) in the main body of the article, but not then also linked there again, as that would clearly fit the definition of overlinking.
  • By duplication, I was referring not to wikilinks, which I addressed separately above, but to a specific diff where your edit summary seemed to indicate that you thought I'd deleted some material, which you then readded, (duplicitously, since I hadn't deleted it but moved it). I'd have to locate the diff and insert it here, but we have already moved past it anyway, as I rolled back that specific change, as I noted above, and for that reason. I'll look over your new changes also (I haven't yet). It sounds like we agree that there may be some uncertainty in timing, etc. around the breakup time, but I'll look over those sources carefully, since as I noted, I haven't studied them all yet. We should get that timing right, and it needs to be properly and accurately sourced. Have you had a chance to consider the tags I placed, aimed at that?
  • I'm not at all in favor of the "sandbox" approach you propose, nor of ceasing editing the article. This discussion and this editing belongs on the article page and here in the talk page for this article. What you've created is actally a subpage of your userpage (not a WP:SANDBOX, which is a temporary page for experiments), even though you've titled it sandbox2. There are guidelines on subpages at WP:SUBPAGE, which discourage using them in this way and for this purpose, because they confusingly duplicate work; because they can come up on Special:Random, where they can easily be mistaken for the actual page; and because they can also be challenging to find and reference in the future. Please delete that subpage from your userpage before it causes problems as described. We can still take as much time as is needed to get it right (but here), and there's no hurry. Also it would be great if some other editors would join us! duff 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the entire change you made, not because I necessarily disagree with all of the content changes you made, but because we do not delete the otherwise invisible editorial notes that other editors have painstakingly gathered to help with future development of articles, which you did....all of them. I am still assuming good faith, but please do not do that and please read the instruction on that here:WP:HIDDEN I will try to add back the other changes you made that we share consensus on.duff 23:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're questioning my good faith - Certainly not, sorry if it came across that way.
Ok which hidden notes? As far as I was aware there weren't any, so I apologise on that front. Thanks for also pointing out the WP:SUBPAGE, was completely unaware. I have read over what your reply, and see your points so I can move on.
  • The Musical style section, I've rarely seen it come first, never on the (what is considered) higher standard of article. As a reader, I'm more interested in reading that paragraph first, before wading through the long and illustrious history of the band. You see, we disagree here, but I will also state the obvious in saying that it is not what you or I are interested in as readers. Surely if someone wanted to read up on Green Apple Quick Step, they would want to read the history first? While they wouldn't have to wade through the content to see that section, they can click on the Contents at the top (assuming they know they could do that)! Band members I think they should be moved to the bottom. It is really close the both the Navbox and the lead which already mentions the all the band members and their positions. What do you think?
  • Redlinks. Just to ask do you plan on making articles for them? I don't want to unlink them just for them to be linked back! I might be able to make a stub about Kevin Wood.
  • After the dissolution of the band, both Willman and Braeden continued improving their song-writing skills - The main problem I have with this is that the source says they were formed while GAQS were active. Not sure how this would be solved and again it falls under the whole timing thing. The [when] tags, it would be a bit difficult to get an exact date when the album was pulled. Same with Devilhead, there are little sources (that I could find) on that article, so hard to know when he would have joined.
  • Minor issue: but not then also linked there again, as that would clearly fit the definition of overlinking. - as you mentioned, an exception is where the later occurrence is a long way from the first. surely the first mention of Squires in the article is a long way from the lead? Geoff Reading is closer to lead and he is also linked here. Obviously he can be unlinked as well.
  • Source issue - Cmoore.com was unsure wither to use that the first time because it appeared to be a blog which could fail WP:USERG.
  • The lead, you trimmed it before. No disagreement there except that perhaps it can be seperated into 2 or 3 paragraphs? Having one large paragraph doesn't look right to me.
That's pretty much the only issues I have at the moment. Nothing major. Also I noticed you used the Loser book as a source. Would it be possible for a scan of the GAQS info provided in the book? For my own reference if anything (also, is the book worth getting?)
  • On a side note - Also it would be great if some other editors would join us! look at the history... it might be a long wait before another editor contributes, it was over a year after my first edit that you contributed sir! =p HrZ (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the hidden notes, the diff is here, and hidden notes are marked by the following wikicode <!--yakyakyak-->, which causes those notes to be only visible to editors, not general readers. Very useful. Apology totally accepted & let's move on! =D
  • Section ordering. We have a not-so-important difference of opinion, in that I think those two sections are short enough to not hinder leaping to the history, if so inclined. On my screen, all three sections appear at the same time, as well as the TOC, the infobox, & the lead, but other screen resolutions or zoom ratios would show it differently, for sure. I'm not necessarily against having the Band members section below the history, although putting it above does neatly solve the overwikilinkification issue, and allow the history section to be presented without further wikilinks to those artists with separate articles, which I like because the history section is super linky already. I have posed this question over at Wikiproject Rock Music, here and I'll be very interested to hear their thoughts on this. Might attract a new editor or three from there, too. =D
Ok, will wait and see what they say =)
Cool!duff 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlinks help grow wikipedia and are ok There's a guideline on this too, at WP:REDLINK, which basically says "do not fear the redlink!" Yes! Please do something on Kevin Wood and please also fix the multiple non-linked instances of his name in all the articles his name comes up in. He's certainly notable enough to have his own article and it would have plenty of content available. I plan on doing an article about Steve Wilmans, and about Aroma Records, so those are good to keep. Really any redlinks that point at non-existent articles about notable topics are ok, because they help build the wikiweb.
Indeed I am aware of WP:REDLINK (led to me creating the article for Jonathan E. Steinberg, redlinked for ages on the Human Target article)! Kevin Wood should have enough sources + is obviously notable. Will get to it as soon as possible.
Also, Cool!duff 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lead. Although I like it tight, WP:LEAD says yes, "no more than four paragraphs", so I'll give that a shot (I see possibly 3) and see what you think. I am not for making it any longer though, as I think it does already nicely meet the standards at WP:LEAD. We should source it though, perhaps, per those standards...though again, I like it tight and clean with all the sources below in the details.
Looks better to me, wasn't looking for it to be made longer =) We pretty much share the same views, I prefer to have the citations in the in the article body than the lead.
Great! Let's run with that and wait to be challenged. I'll move the one(s) I stuck.duff 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronological location of After the dissolution of the band, both Willman and Braeden continued improving their song-writing skills. Hmmm. We should look this over closely, as the timing is a little fuzzy and I agree, hard to pin down using current sources. There may be a better way to word it that wriggles around that. Is it clear in the source(s) you mention? I did not think so on first reading, but I'll go read that/those again more carefully.
The source pre-dates the set release date (March 3, 1998) of New Disaster which is January 31, 1998 - not long after they signed with Columbia Records (I'm just assuming that). This would put the beginning of the projects somewhere after the completion of the new album. I made a change before the the two sections (would need to be reworked into the current content) that I thought solved that issue. Mentioned the projects in the New Disaster section but kept the details to the Post-breakup section. See what you think
I reworked that again last night, in that very direction. That led to moving Willman's (much less lead-ly) work with Devilhead too, which was much earlier. See what you think now?duff 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works better. HrZ (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • on Squires, he's a good example of why I think the list of band members might work well above the history, because we won't hear of him again, following the lead & infobox, until the end of the history, when he enters the scene. (I de-linked the Reading link you pointed at...good catch: my error.) Also, now that I'm digging into it..it's not clear that Squires is actually a member of this band, and I think he may not be. He appears to have played at the Hell's Kitchen gig (only?), but I'm not yet seeing any clear indication that he is a member. Neither This Volcano ref reviewing the show (in our reflist as Izenman), nor this one (also already in our reflist as Driscoll), state that he's a member, and these are the sources we're using to establish the point. Squires' article at Mike Squires (musician)#Other work says "performed with" and refers to Reading as his former bandmate in Loaded, in which Squires is clearly a current full member (of Loaded). I think he just filled in for this show. That should be clarified swiftly and the infobox & lead fixed, if that's correct. I did both for now, citing what we know from cites. I also took the liberty of renaming both the Izenman & the Driscoll citations @ Volcano to more distinguishable refnames, and I plan to do the same with the remaining Volcano refnames, specifying ReadingVolcano1, ReadingVolcano2, etc., or somesuch, to make it clearer from an editorial research standpoint which is which.
That would be my fault there, the Mike Squires needs to be updated a little bit. I was unsure on Squires' position before in the band, I thought it was also just temporary but on first read of the article (way, way back), I thought it was permanent. I believe that his position was only temporary. Another note: Is Christa Wells also a permanent member of the "reunited" lineup?
The Loaded (band) article puts Squires squarely in that band, so I think we're on target with that, per sources. On Wells, we are on the same page, here. I think she may also have simply been filling in for a few gigs. Unless we learn more, I think the text is ok for that (I tried to make it so, anyway), and we ought to take her out of both the infobox and the memberlist until we know otherwise.duff 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: Where is Braeden, anyway? She merits a separate article. I'm redlinking her too, and Steve Ross and I may get to those articles, if someone doesn't beat me to them.
No idea, would have thought she would have be involved in the reunion.
I'll poke around a little. She married, according to a previous diff on this article, and may not be playing any more...not sure. It'd be good to get some more detail at Celebrity Damage too, but I haven't found anything further. duff 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loser. I think it's worth getting, so I've got a request in at my local library, through the interlibrary lending program, to get a copy, which I'll be glad to scan for GAQS references & email those to you when I do, if you wish. The current sourcing uses, I have culled from old diffs of this article, which show when that ref was added, by which editor, and which information that editor added in connection with their access to that ref. That preceded the current reflist format, so they did not specifically cite their points, other than to leave that trail of breadcrumbs the link under Further reading. The other two links that remain under Further reading are, I think, of similar heritage, in that early versions of this article were written with those as sources, so they may also merit procurement for further development of this and other articles. (I won't be able to help with the Italian language one though.) There is another option too, which is a consult with the venerable WP:LIBRARY, of which I'm a member. That's done by placing a request for source material at WP:REX. I initiated a request here & we'll see what that yields, too. One of our fellow editors may have it at home & be able to send scans to both of us.

ps. I got the real title and added that: Loser: The Real Seattle Music Story and here's the Google Books link (sorry, no preview) with some reviews. Now I definitely want to find this book.

  • I've taken the liberty of resectioning this very interesting and detailed ongoing discussion, since we've covered a lot more areas than CDJ now. I put a little note at the bottom of the CDJ section indicating that there are a few more comments below. If you want to move the CDJ-specific comments from this section, up into that section, with repeated sigs etc., that's ok with me, but I probably won't bother with it. duff 21:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. =) HrZ (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Onward through the haze...duff 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel My Way album cover art?[edit]

Was there a fourth album, then? Photo caption at one of the sources (currently #8) in the article Coming home Green Apple Quick Step's Ty Willman and his Tacoma roots By Matt Driscoll on March 17, 2010 [7] What are we to make of this? Any other sources say fourth album, or is this possibly a retitling for re-release of New Disaster? duff 06:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Willman[edit]

This man is definitely noteworthy, having played in a number of different notable bands and collaborated with numerous other noteworthy artists. Lots of citations out there... Anybody want to help? duff 21:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Gig?[edit]

I don't find any reviews of the March 20, 2010 gig at the Crocodile Cafe, so this may be tough to source properly. However, they did play that gig and videos of them there are at Alligator and Dirty Water Ocean and Sleeper. It's not clear what the lineup was for that gig, but the youtube video for Alligator starts with Willman saying "It's the last show you'll ever see, ever."<--forgot to sign: 14:51, June 18, 2011 Duff

Other Credits[edit]

This may be already listed somehow, but I found it poking around for Tyler Willman at Discogs, so just jotting a note here, one song on a compilation album: Green Apple Quick Step Title: Party Dream Written-By – Kempthorne*, Braeden*, Martin*, Ross*, Willman* Producer – GAQS*, Phil Ek Engineer – Phil Ek Album: Home Alive - The Art Of Self Defense Label: Epic Catalog#:EPC 483820 2 Format:2 × CD, Compilation Country: Europe Released: 1996 <--forgot to sign: 17:50, June 18, 2011 Duff

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Green Apple Quick Step. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green Apple Quick Step. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Apple_Quick_Step&oldid=1194188085"