Talk:John Lennon's psychedelic Rolls-Royce

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

Did you know candidate?[edit]

Dear Cullen, Thanks for this very attractive article. It's fab! Can I please suggest (beg) that you nominate it for DYK? If you do not care for nominating, I ask as a courtesy if you mind if I do? It is such a wonderful candidate, of broad interest and has a just-perfect free image for Main Page appearance. It screams to be shared. JennyOz (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you like the article. Go right ahead and nominate it, JennyOz. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cullen, before I complete the nomination I have two questions.
I don't think Rolls Royce name is rendered without a hyphen so should article be moved? (Eg here)
Also, the article has US mdy date format and US spelling (driver's license, honors). I want to designate the English variety and date format at its top to make the author's (your) intent clear and head off any warring. So, were those US formats intentional?
Once I know your answers to these two questions, I probably won't need to bother you again. Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JennyOz. I have moved the article, adding the hyphen. I simply didn't notice that error. The question of which variety of English should be used is an interesting one. The car was obviously built in the UK but spent only five years there. It was then brought to the US for about 15 years and has been in Canada for nearly 40 years. Lennon himself lived in the US for the last nine years of his life. Date and time notation in Canada speaks to the variety of ways that dates are rendered in Canada. So, without being at all an expert in English variations, I tried to write in North American English. If you want to change the date formats and spellings, I certainly do not object. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the move and comments on styles Cullen. I am happy to keep your chosen formats. Per MOS:TIES, MOS:DATETIES, MOS:STYLERET, MOS:DATERET and MOS:RETAIN any editor/s seeking to change can discuss on this talk page. I'll finish the nomination tomorrow. It will be transcluded on here. Do let me know any comments. JennyOz (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 18:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
John Lennon's Rolls-Royce
John Lennon's Rolls-Royce

Created by Cullen328 (talk). Nominated by JennyOz (talk) at 06:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Lennon's psychedelic Rolls-Royce; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Interesting detailed article, on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. One para ends without citation (look for Julian) which can probably be covered from the existing sources. I agree about the lead image being better: please get it to the nomination. A promoter will not hunt for it and its caption. - Sorry, I'm not happy with the hooks. The anecdote has probably been told so often that everybody knows already. The purring is nothing specific to this unique car, and the description from Rolling Stone remains a mystery to foreigners like me. Can we have something more unique?? - Not needed but to be considered: How do you feel about an infobox? - How about a voluntary qpq, even when technically not required? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love the "purrs like a kitten in a creamery" hook. Does it not translate well on your end? However, I see your point about it not being unique to vehicle. I'm just a sucker for feline similes. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gerda, I have read your comments. I will reply soon, when I am less stunned by your remarks. JennyOz (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jenny, can you at least switch out the photo up above for the lead image? I think there’s a consensus for that at least (which I concur with). Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read your comments on the talk with interest, Jenny. Get the "swine" here if the principal editor likes it, and I'll approve it. Get his preferred image here, and I'll approve it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Viriditas, You may think you are helping. I asked Gerda for time to present my reply. She has done two more things since then. What is the rush? I am extremely upset. I am not ignoring the nomination. In fact, I am about 15 minutes from finalising and adding my comments. I have been working on them all day. They are very long and if we end up at ANI or similar, so be it. I am not sure why you are getting involved in my nomination? (I don't think we have crossed paths before?) I see you have just spoken to Cullen too - I have had his talk page on my watchlist for years. I have kept in touch with him on the article talk page but for reasons you can't know, have tried to keep him out of this mess. JennyOz (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are offended. I think you may be taking this far more seriously than me. I saw that three of us supported the lead image and decided to change it in recognition of the consensus. If you don’t like that, feel free to revert me, as I won’t change it back. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also sorry, extremely sorry, to have upset you. That was not my intention. I have no time to read below, sorry, and I think we had some misunderstandings. "You condescendingly trashed" hurts, really, I had no intention to do that. - Today is Sunday, I have company ... - we can do two things at this point.
  • We ignore that I ever reviewed this, and you deal with someone else.
  • I approve hooks and pic as they are, ALT0 preferred. They are not impossible, just not what I would think could be better, and what I felt Cullen thought could be better, but sowhat? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, as I mentioned in my first reply to you, I was stunned by your remarks. You condescendingly trashed my work from top to bottom. You didn't like the image. You were not happy with the hooks. You suggested I consider an infobox. You suggested I should have done a qpq.

  • Image
GA: "I agree about the lead image being better: please get it to the nomination."
JO: The image was the least of my concerns when I read your comments. The "get it to the nomination", even prefaced with a "please", I found rather rude.
  • Hooks
GA: "Sorry, I'm not happy with the hooks. The anecdote has probably been told so often that everybody knows already. The purring is nothing specific to this unique car, and the description from Rolling Stone remains a mystery to foreigners like me. Can we have something more unique??"
JO: I spent a long time creating about 10 possible hooks. I considered a number of factors for each. I whittled it down to the 3 I used in the nomination. That was literally 2 or 3 hours' work. And you simply dismiss that preparation with "Sorry, I'm not happy with the hooks." I wasn't trying to make you happy. I expected whoever picked up the review would collegially discuss the hooks with the nominator, not outright reject each of them with such contempt.
First hook - about the woman who lost her temper. I don't know why you say "The anecdote has probably been told so often that everybody knows already." I have read many books on the Beatles and on Lennon, watched and listened to many interviews etc and don't remember coming across that anecdote. What makes you say "everybody knows already"? My thinking on this was that readers might click to see exactly what she did. But apparently you think everyone knows already.
Alt 1 - purrs like a kitten. You say "nothing specific to this unique car". Maybe, but that a car that had belonged to John Lennon still purrs might make people wonder who owns and maintains it. They'd have to read the article to find out.
Alt 2 Rolling Stone's description. You say "remains a mystery to foreigners like me" What? If it's a mystery people might click through to the article. But I really don't understand the relevance of "foreigners". Are you saying you don't understand any of the words in "lurid Romany floral/zodiac hybrid"?
GA: "Can we have something more unique??"
JO: The anecdote is unique. Do you know of any other famous cars that have provoked a woman to lose her temper on sight? Do you know of any other cars that have been described in the way Rolling Stone did? Sounds pretty unique to me.
I have to wonder if I'd put up all 10 possible hooks, if you'd have so summarily trashed the other 7 too.
  • Infobox
GA: "Not needed but to be considered: How do you feel about an infobox?"
JO: Why do you assume when an article does not have an infobox that the principal editor did not consider one? Do you think they forgot? Do you think they don't know about them? Do you think they don't know how to add one? It's very patronising. What would you think if another editor said to you on one of your nominations, "How do you feel about removing the infobox?"
Of course I considered whether an infobox would be warranted. I looked at a couple of possibilities and decided one would not be an improvement. (And, if I had thought one might be a good idea, I would have politely discussed such with the article creator.)
  • QPQ
GA: "How about a voluntary qpq, even when technically not required?"
JO: Not intent with rubbishing the image, rubbishing all three hooks and saying I should have considered an infobox, you then knock me out with "How about a voluntary qpq, even when technically not required?"!!!
As you well know I usually work at the other end of dyk noms, checking their articles (usually) before their main page appearance and fixing typos, dabs, adding templates and categories, etc, including many many dozens of your own nominations, as you know. Your suggestion seems to insinuate I was too lazy to provide a qpq. I so hope that is not right. I just have no idea why you would mention that. Is it your duty as a reviewer to publicly shame and insult nominators? It is very hard to AGF when you have asked such a completely unnecessary and bad faith question. Like most other (ie other than paid) editors, everything I do on the project is voluntary.
Yes, next time I make a dyk nomination, (if I'm game to after this experience) I will learn how to do a dyk review. Am I for some reason exempt from the up to 5 rule??? I just happened on a new article I thought might be great to bring to attention of readers. I did the polite thing and asked the author before nominating. I was busy juggling a number of other things on here and in RL so thought it would be okay to quickly add a nomination. I don't agree with adding noms saying "qpq to come" and then having to be reminded, so I gave my last freebie to an article I hadn't written. Is that not allowable? You think I should not have done so? Obviously, if it had been an article I had written, I'd have made sure I had time to include a qpq with the nomination within the 7-day time limit.

I cannot tell you how insulted, hurt and angry I was when I read your review. I have read thousands of dyk nominations and reviews (I always read them before doing in gnoming edits on next queue/s' articles so that I don't compromise the hook content and its ref). I am not sure if I have ever seen a crueller dissemination of someone's work. I'd have thought a review was to check compliance and perhaps make suggestions not to belittle, shame and generally air a superior attitude and wanting to change simply because the reviewer 'would have done it this way'.

After reading you review I acknowledged it and said I'd reply soon when I was less stunned. That was on 13 October.


  • Article changes
Also on 13 October, I started doing a series of minor changes to the article. Suddenly, within minutes you turned up at the article and started doing changes. Did you not notice I was in the middle of doing edits? Did you not do any previews and notice you were continually edit conflicting? I had to back out of edits multiple times and wait for you to stop fiddling before starting my changes again.

Edits you made were to change the principal editor's content. I guess you choose to abide by your claim "the principal editor's wishes are my command" selectively, i.e., unless you decide you know better!

My opinion (I think I am entitled to one) is that three of your changes are wrong or unfounded. Dare I undo them or will you demand I get them back?

1. In this edit you unilaterally decide to remove "Ornament in the 20th Century" Exhibition from the poster caption. (Your edit summary did not explain why.) That caption tied in with the mention of the "Ornament in the 20th Century" in the prose. The caption formerly explained the image was the poster for the exhibit but now we have an erroneous caption "Poster for Cooper-Hewitt Museum, 1978–1979". No, the image is not a poster for the museum, it is for a specific exhibition.
2. In this edit you added a link that is of no benefit to readers. Why would you link to such a list page? Did you even check the link you were adding? Your edit summary was "at least one link to company, no?". Lennon did not previously own a used Rolls-Royce company. So, in answer your question, I say no.
3. In this edit you changed the principal editor's spelling from Romany to Romani. Your edit summary was "why redirect?". "Why" should have been obvious if you'd read the article. Here are four reasons "why":
i Every single one of the sources use the Y spelling
ii The article uses 4 direct quotes with the Y spelling
iii As the Romani people article says "also spelled Romany"
iv Per WP:NOTBROKEN
  • Your last message

On 14 October, you come back to this review page, before I had the time to calm down, gather my thoughts and finish the reply I had said I needed time for. Firstly, your edit summary "the principal editor's wishes are my command" seems rather contrary to the article edits you made on the 13th. Was your new comment friendly or polite? No. It was gobsmackingly uncivil! It was the absolutely rudest thing anyone on here has ever said to me. You made strident curt demands!

GA: "Get the "swine" here if the principal editor likes it, and I'll approve it. Get his preferred image here, and I'll approve it"
JO: Frankly Gerda, I don't give a damn if you do or do not approve it. What could have been a simple nomination with a friendly and collaborative discussion resulting in a great and fun article being displayed on the main page has become my worst experience. I have done the right thing from the very start when I asked the article's creator about a nomination.

I wish my note to you was not so long but you did not have the grace to allow me the time to digest more. There is possibly a bit of sarcasm in here. If there are questions in my notes, don't bother to answer them, they are rhetorical. I was not allowed the time to check the wording. I was not allowed the time to trim it. It could have been a tenth the length. Three days later and I am still shaking and nauseous and I just want to get this note onto this page in case you do something else to trigger me.

If you are not happy with this message call the dyk admins, take me to ANI, do what you will but do not ever again order me to get things done! JennyOz (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz, Gerda Arendt, Viriditas, and Cullen328: It is Difficult for prep and queue promotors to wade through the extracurriculars. Reading the talk page and the nomination has cost me 20 minutes of my life that I am not going to get back. I suggest that the admin who promotes to queue just skip it. To the participants, comment on content please per WP:AVOIDYOU. Gerda approved ALT0 and I find it is interesting and confirmed. The Earwig score is 47 but it alerts to long quotes and titles rather than WP:CLOP. The image is attractive and used in the article. I think the hook and image will do quite well. Lightburst (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hook 'n' pic[edit]

Hi Cullen, thanks for your comment on the nomination. I'm making this note here rather than clutter up the nom itself. I fully agree that the "swine" and umbrella are the interesting bits. I'll be very happy for any changes to the hook for your fab article but this was my reasoning... I often read hooks and their article and blurbs the day before they appear on main page to help avoid mp errors.(There are a few of us that do this.)

Unlike the blurbs for the other main page sections (Todays Featured Article, In the News, On This Day and Today's featured picture), the DYK questions are hooks specifically written to bait readers, to make them say "What?! Must read that article!"

From what I see, some hooks try to be a precis of the article. At the other extreme, some hooks give a very enticing fact, eg "dyk that Bob Smith wore blue and orange striped shoes to a council meeting?" That certainly sounds intriguing so I click to read, only to find a sentence that simply says, "He once wore blue and orange striped shoes to a council meeting." with no further context or info. I feel cheated! The precis-type DYK is not hooky and not likely to get many visitors other than those already interested in the subject. For the other type, there's no more to learn about the what and why of the strange shoes.

The fact that Lennon liked to tell about the woman's temper seemed it might hook people in to read what she actually did that was worth him enjoying relaying the story. (And the reader won't be disappointed when they get to read about "swine" and to visualise the umbrella attack.) All that said, I think that because firstly it's about John Lennon and secondly about a fascinating sounding vehicle, a hook that simply asked "dyk that John Lennon had a psychedelic Rolls-Royce?" would be enough to attract a lot of clickthroughs! (I also played with 'dyk that JL donated his pr-r to a museum and it was later sold for US$2,299,000?' and 'dyk that JL's pr-r had a public address system, which allowed him to shout out to passersby?' and a few more. There seemed endless possibilities.)

Regarding the image, funny you should say that because when I first read the article it was the poster image that made me think "That's a perfect DYK image!" It'd work well at the tiny size, great contrast with no busy background and would face into a hook. Again, I'm not wedded to it, the lead image would work well too. (Of course the hook may not be granted the image top spot which would be disappointing but it's up to the prep builders.)

Cullen, this is 'your' article. If you prefer a different hook and/or to change the image it's all doable timewise and I'll only be relieved that you are happy! I went through the article today and will do some minor MoS-type tweaks. Reading all the sources was another delight. Sorry about the length of this, we can hat or archive it after mp appearance. Thanks again. JennyOz (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz, sorry to be slow to respond but I did not notice your comments until now. You can handle this however you see fit. I have not been active at DYK for a long time. If you need any input from me, please ping me. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cullen. I should have pinged you. I'll let you know if I need your input. JennyOz (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by original author[edit]

I enjoyed writing this article and am pleased that it is getting interest and attention. But I am saddened and disappointed that the DYK nomination has led to disputes and bad feelings among other editors. I have already expressed my preferences about the DYK, and am not going to respond to every point of dispute raised above, but will, of course, respond to any specific questions directed my way. So, the DYK editors can resolve this as they see fit. I do not have strong feelings about any of it. I am just sad that this is happening.

Pinging JennyOz and Viriditas and Gerda Arendt. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so, the white one....?[edit]

wow- didn't expect all this when I got here.... just re-read the article, & wanted to point out some possible ambiguity. a second car is invoked, the white one, & then "they moved the car to new york, lent it to bob dylan" etcetera, without clarifying which car. presumably it's this 'fool' one, but so what became of the white one? duncanrmi (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Duncanrmi. None of the reliable sources that I found discuss what happened to the white Rolls-Royce. Cullen328 (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting a line[edit]

'Lennon delighted in repeatedly telling an anecdote about how an older woman had lost her temper upon seeing the psychedelic Rolls-Royce, and had called him a "swine", and struck the limousine with her umbrella'. REALLY?

Given that Lennon loved shooting a line, the story sound like Beatles bullshit and there is little or no evidence to support it, should not this nonsense quote be deleted? Just because editors need a story to be true, does not mean it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.164 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three different reliable sources discuss Lennon telling this anecdote. Its truth is not relevant, and the article does not say that it is true. The fact is that Lennon told the story. Cullen328 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

That car is colourful and highly ornate, but not psychedelic. Only one of the refs uses the word at all, and then only says "elements of the psychedelic era" without specifying what. It seems to me that a better title for the article would be simply John Lennon's Rolls-Royce. Awien (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awien, Lennon owned two Rolls-Royces. Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, many of the references use the word "psychedelic", not just one of them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, enough sources use the word psychedelic or "psychedelic" even though it isn't that there's no point getting into a fight over it. Cheers, Awien (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Lennon%27s_psychedelic_Rolls-Royce&oldid=1182705461"