Talk:Big Star

No. 1

Is there a page for Number 1 Record? If so, the link name doesn't work very well because the pound sign tells IE and Firefox to go to the first occurrence of "1 Record" on the Big Star page. — Morypcaina

I saw that too just now. I don't know much about the wikipedia album project. Certainly that is a messed up link. – Bebop

Hey, Morypcaina, I just removed my little message pointing out your message I answered was by someone other than me; I only had it there so people wouldn't think I'd written both messages. — Bebop 01:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You can't use a "#" in an article title. I think we'll have to create the article calling it "Number 1 Record", mentioning the correct album title at the top. And pipe the links. Like, [[Number 1 Record|#1 Record]]. Or #1 Record. Does anyone have any objections? -Freekee 04:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Chris Bell

Can we say the true fact that Chris Bell not Alex Chilton was the genius behind this band?67.188.110.197

Yay wikipedias back! Hey is anyone else here or just me? can I just change things then? 67.188.110.197

Do you have a source that indicates Chris Bell was the driving or creative force behind the band?

You can just change things: Wikipedia:Be bold. They may get changed back though. See: Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. Hyacinth 09:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been said that Bell's contributions are underappreciated: "Chilton's past success in the Box Tops guaranteed him the lion's share of attention from listeners and critics, minimizing Bell's own contributions in the process" (Ankeny, Jason. "Big Star", All Music Guide). However, the same reviewer then calls their second album their "masterpiece". It may be more accurate to recommend the poppier first album to listeners who would prefer it, and the darker later material to listeners who would prefer that. Hyacinth 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied text

The second paragraph is very skillfully written but, haven't we seen it somewhere before... yes, sure enough, a search for "melancholy pop for the post-1960s generation" throws up numerous Big Star reviews where that entire paragraph is repeated. We won't be able to keep this in the article due to issues with WP:Plagiarism. In any case the style of that paragraph is not factual enough, which makes it difficult to provide citations. I suggest we replace the paragraph with some new text and I'll probably start to do so unless someone can give a reason not to. PL290 (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

GA/FA

I think this article is a good candidate for working on to take it to GA/FA status. PL290 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Update

OK, I will solicit some opinions...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Embedded media

I'm pretty busy at the moment, but I've had a quick read through and the article reads very well overall. An immediate concern is that the article does not meet WP:FACR#3. In particular:

• Non-free album covers are generally frowned upon in articles about bands, unless the cover itself is of great significance. There were no fair use rationales provided either, so I have removed them from the article.
• The infobox image appears to have just been grabbed from a random (now deleted) personal webpage and is almost certainly a copyvio
• None of the audio samples have a fair use rationale to explain why they are significant to the reader's understanding in this (or any other!) article. Each sample should make a very specific point about the band's musical style or history.

I suggest the following:

1. Look for an unquestionably free image of the band. Flickr is a good place to check. Alternatively, you might be able to find free images of individual band members and patch them together neatly as in the Radiohead article.
2. Pick three or four essential audio samples, which each illustrate a different, very specific point about the band's musical style or history. Add a fair use rationale using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template on the file description page, stating exactly what is the point of having that specific file in this article.
3. Remove any non-essential non-free media
4. Consider adding some more free media to brighten up the article

I know this is a pain in the ass, but there's no way you'll get through FAC without doing some serious work on the embedded media. Papa November (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK; the area of media policies is one I need to learn more about so I guess that starts now. But anyway, I'm pleased that your overall first impression is favourable and I very much appreciate the specific suggestions to help resolve the media issue. PL290 (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Once you have picked out the essential audio samples for the article, I'll gladly help with the fair use rationales. I've had a fair bit of practice! Let me know if you need any other help with media. I'll have a more thorough read through the article in the next day or two, hopefully. Papa November (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've picked my suggested samples and updated the rationales and article accordingly, but if you could check the rationales that's good to ensure they're sound(!). The following are in that case redundant so can be deleted: File:What's Going Ahn.ogg, File:Feel.ogg and File:Nightime.ogg. PL290 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the redundant samples. The rationale for File:September Gurls.ogg seems sound to me. It says exactly what point you're making by including it in the article (It demonstrates the "power pop" style" of the band). The other rationales all seem to say the same thing but you can't have more than one non-free media file performing the same purpose. The rationales should be more specific. e.g. "...illustrates the ballad style of the band's early records...", "...demonstrates the 'slower, darker style' which emerged on the band's third album..."

Also, the description in the sample boxes should be more enticing to the reader... tell them what they will learn about the band by clicking the play button! Papa November (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Much better :D Papa November (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I found two pictures straight away on Flickr: Big Star and also an interesting shot of Big Star's mellotron showing the inside of Ardent Studios in the background, where they recorded all this stuff - I haven't looked at Flickr before; do these seem OK to use? PL290 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to check under Additional Information section in lower right of page. Under it is copyright status. If it is "all rights reserved", then no, it has to be "some rights reserved" and allow use - the page is on WP:commons which I will fetch in a second. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of those images are marked as "all rights reserved", so they're non-free I'm afraid. Another good option would be to send an email to the official band website asking if they'd mind releasing an image of the band under a free license. A surprisingly large number of people will quite happily agree. There are some good templates for emails to send here. There are some more instructions available here. As usual, let me know if I can help. Papa November (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Now found on Flickr with what looks like the right copyright status: Big Star in 1972 and Chris Bell in 1969. Any reason not to use these? PL290 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are tagged with a suitable license but I'm not convinced the flickr account holder holds the rights to the images. The first one has a record catalogue number in the bottom right "CDWIK2 273", which corresponds to this compilation album released by Big Beat Records last year, featuring Big Star. I think it's pretty likely that the flickr user just scanned the image without permission from the copyright holder! Papa November (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've therefore removed them from the article; please feel free to delete them if applicable. PL290 (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions about feasibility of creating a composite from this and this (or others in the set)? I can try and do something in MS Paint etc. unless someone wants to try something better (not a major graphics hacker myself but can probably do at least something). PL290 (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin at Commons, so I can't delete them myself. The two concert images are a very nice find. I'll upload them to Commons and we can have a think about what to do with them. I don't recommend MS paint for this: I'll put something together with GIMP when I get a chance. Papa November (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• First image uploaded at File:Big Star at Hyde Park.jpg
• Second image at File:Big Star at Hyde Park 2.jpg Papa November (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole load of free images in the photostream. I'll grab them all and put them in a category on Commons :D Papa November (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All images now uploaded to Commons:Category:Big Star. Papa November (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks whoever rotated the images in Commons. I wasn't sure what to do about that. I've now incorporated a couple. As to the main one, I think it looks fine as it is, so unless anyone's started any alternative efforts already, I'd say it's good enough? PL290 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The images were rotated by an automated script. To use it on Commons, just stick {{rotate|90}} on the image description page to rotate the image 90 degrees clockwise. You can also use 180 or 270 degrees too. The script will automatically rotate your image a few hours later. Also, I think the article looks FA standard in terms of media now! Papa November (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything else before FAC?

I've made a couple of passes through the article and done quite a bit of copyediting. It struck me the chronological sequence was a bit confusing so I've tweaked the structure and section names to give it better visibility. I'll no doubt continue to tweak the article, but it's probably time for some fresh eyes to opine whether there are any particular shortcomings that still need addressing before this goes to FAC. PL290 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV introduction?

While having at least citations, the opening sentence is full of highly subjective statements. I don't think they warrant removal, but it seems to me as the introductory paragraph, reads as NPOV. pbryan (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an WP:NPOV violation: that would apply if other significant views had been published by reliable sources, but that's not the case here. Those statements establish notability in first sentence per WP:LEAD. PL290 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I wasn't suggesting it was a violation, just borderline NPOV-like. I understand the need to establish notability, it just seems a bit like fandom so early in the article. Just my opinion. pbryan (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue reverting 181.114.140.155 (talk · contribs), a persistent anonymous editor who characterized representative quotations from sourced reviews as "hagiography" and blanked them. I'll point out that this has been discussed and decided years ago, that this is a FA, and that a better way for the IP editor to address the perceived NPOV/lack of balance issue would be to find sourced and reliable critical responses to the contrary (ideally from a comparable source to Rolling Stone) and add it in an appropriate section. Other editors, please consider reverting the deletion. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Move to main?

Isn't the band of significantly more notability than anything else at Big Star? The jeans and magazine articles don't exist and the Markets article is quite clearly at "Big Star Markets". All we are left with is a Kenny Chesney song which barely scraped the top thirty in the Top 100. Surely this is an uncontroversial case of moving Big Star (band) to Big Star, and Big Star to Big Star (disambiguation)? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree. I notice this article has been move-protected since July 2008 so I'll ping the editor who took that action and see if there are any issues with the move. PL290 (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected, y'all work it out. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this page following the deletion request on the target - please go through all links checking that they are appropriate, and not intended for another meaning of Big Star. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest page protection following Chilton's death

I'm concerned about the number of edits that keep changing one part of the article or another to state that the band ceased to tour, or ceased to be active, following Chilton's death two days ago. They probably don't yet know themselves. This is unsourced speculation, which amounts to original research. With Chilton gone there seem to be two obvious possibilities:

• Big Star ceases to exist, or
• Big Star continues in some form, perhaps with additional personnel.

I don't think Wikipedia should preempt the decision by stating that the band is no longer active. It's too early to know. A lot of these are IP edits and I suggest page protection would be appropriate until things become clear and the article can be updated with the actual facts from reliable sources. PL290 (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is safe to say that Big Star no longer exists. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but we'll wait for a reliable source. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that there will probably never be a reliable source for. It's not like they are going to come out and issue a press release about it. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they? What Jody Stephens has actually said is that they'd like to find a way to carry on playing, so for now we'll take it that the band still exists. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's like expecting Robin Finck to make an announcement about the future of Nine Inch Nails after Trent Reznor dies it's not going to happen. I would suggest at least reformatting the info box to show years people were active and leave it that way, implying that there is a current version of Big Star is rather misleading and a tad bit silly. I would also like to see this statement where he talks about finding a way to carry on because I strongly suspect you are twisting a casual comment to suit your needs. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal opinion, a reliable source will be required to state or imply that Big Star are no longer active. I'm not sure why you think it's silly - Big Star have played gigs since Chilton's death and there's no reason to assume there will be no more. As for your last comment, you need to read WP:AGF before you strongly suspect anything like that - furthermore, I strongly suspect you haven't even troubled yourself to read the article, since the quote is right there for all to see. You have zero chance of implementing your POV without a WP:RS. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust

Who is playing piano here? Ceoil (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to be sure. The 1992 Ryko CD liner notes do credit Chilton with "Vocals, guitar, keyboards" (and credit no one else with playing keyboard instruments, other than synthesizer and Mellotron), so it may well be him. They are sketchy notes though (as witness the fact that they credit Carl Marsh with "string arrangements", but credit nobody with playing string instruments). PL290 (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks PL. I like to think its Chilton anyway. Ceoil (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I reckon it is. It's very expressive, in a way that seems inseparable from the vocal. I imagine that's how he wrote it, sitting there singing and playing the piano, even though the vocal was probably ultimately recorded separately. (Complete with noises off, opening and shutting doors in the background; these odd noises here and there seem to be an atmospheric feature of Third; never sure if it's intentional, or just what they ended up with from those sessions!) But going back to the piano, take those repeated C notes, for instance, that come from time to time (the first time being between "You look in the mirror" and the next line). Simple, but so expressive, and in such a very sparse way: to me, totally inseparable from the vocal. Must be the same person! Perhaps we'll never know for sure, but I like to think so too. If someone does turn up a source, it would be nice to get something about it into one of the articles. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Very good reasoning. They are so intertwined, one could not have come later than the other. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Looking at the picture in the infobox, I think that this one is more representative of the band: it features both Chilton and Stephens, the only two members that were part of the band throughout its entire run (unlike the one used now, which features two other members that weren't present on their most famous 1970s output). I'm going to replace it now. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Star. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bigstarthird.com/4-shows-in-august-and-september/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Changing the Header Image

Not sure if the current image being used is the most representative of the band and its history, without even featuring Alex Chilton himself. I'd recommend a photo of the original and most well-known lineup that includes both Chilton and Chris Bell, like this one: http://athenacinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/big-star-nothing-can-hurt-me.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.185.64 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Star. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050418004115/http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12043992 to http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12043992

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) 00:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Big Star. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ardentmusic.com/blog/2007/10/big_star_plays_at_the_filmore.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721013516/http://ardentstudios.com/2009/07/15/big-star-at-hyde-park-london/ to http://ardentstudios.com/2009/07/15/big-star-at-hyde-park-london/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120709204840/http://ardentmusic.com/products-page/vinyl/big-star-with-john-davis-live-tribute-to-alex-chilton-7-vinyl-ep/ to http://ardentmusic.com/products-page/vinyl/big-star-with-john-davis-live-tribute-to-alex-chilton-7-vinyl-ep/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308234815/http://www.ready-steady-go.org.uk/bigstar1.html to http://www.ready-steady-go.org.uk/bigstar1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050214092536/http://www.ready-steady-go.org.uk/teenage_fanclub.html to http://www.ready-steady-go.org.uk/teenage_fanclub.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140224143534/http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-03-16/music/big-star-s-third-onstage-in-new-york-at-last/full/ to http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-03-16/music/big-star-s-third-onstage-in-new-york-at-last/full/

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) 00:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Star. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112021516/https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10517415_780683705321918_7064453674494670549_o.png to http://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10517415_780683705321918_7064453674494670549_o.png

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) 16:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Big Star. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920081417/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/6862/35223/47022 to https://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/6862/35223/47022
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125030927/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/6862/35223/47504 to https://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/6862/35223/47504
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121081822/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/6862/35223/47704 to https://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/6862/35223/47704

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) 12:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)