Tumbling Dice (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 28 November 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve 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.
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
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
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
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 November 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
@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. --TheSandDoctorTalk 06:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly, and thanks for asking. -- 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]
@JGabbard:WP:HEADERS in MOS specifically states that captions should be used on all data tables. That's reason enough for me. Please re-add them. This -- nor Paint It Black -- is the appropriate venue to dispute/change MOS.
The article now has 3 sections for other versions of the song though, whereas before it had one. I fully support moving the section down, sure, but reverting it to having 3 sections is repetitive and a serious step backwards, probably just creating more work at FAC (the next stop for this article after GOCE).
"Commercial performance" and "Chart performance" are standards to have separate, as evident by numerous FAs (I could list more), including Paint It Black, Shake It Off, Blank Space, 4 Minutes, All About That Bass, Baby Boy (Beyoncé song), and Can't Get You Out of My Head. Precedent also shows with New Romantics (song) that "Commercial performance" can be merged with release, but none of these have it merged with chart performance (usually titled "Charts") and all have a separate section for charts. Please revert back to merged sections, though moving the section down is fine. --TheSandDoctorTalk 15:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Policy without clear justification or rationale is not enough for me, at least not in this case. I do not infer that these recent additions are what WP:HEADERS prescribes. They would more seem to actually violate the policy which states, "avoid redundantly including the subject's name in a header." Subheaders or captions are necessary, but double captioning is not, which is what this amounts to. I have nonetheless restored those superfluous edits. - JGabbard (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JGabbard: If you disagree with MOS or its interpretation, then we should open an RfC on the general topic as it appears most FAs on songs treat/interpret it as this article did prior to your edits. I am totally game and in support of an RfC to clarify this, I just want to comply with MOS as written and follow precedent set by other topical featured articles. If MOS were to change, I have no problem complying with said changes. The scope and implications (number of articles affected) are too broad to settle here, so thank you for reverting and restoring those captions.
I find it troubling that multiple FAs appear to interpret aspects of structure etc. of song articles far different from yourself. We should revert and start a broader discussion related to that so that there can be some consensus either set or reaffirmed on this. I know that you are editing in good faith and do not intend any of this to question that; we just need some broader clarifications as this impacts dozens of articles and is calling into question current precedent. —TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with SandDoctor on this. It's customary for charts and commercial performance sections to be separated (on both songs and albums). Also, MOS:TABLECAPTION is a written rule, so we, unfortunately, have to abide by it whether or not you like it or not. – zmbro(talk) 19:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restored prior to all concerning edits as this has gone ignored for nearly two weeks, it is now more than just me that has issue with it, and I'd like to get back to the PR. I have, however, expanded the section lead to make it more explicit relating to the different versions, though I don't really see how readers could be confused that when a section ends the topic changes. --TheSandDoctorTalk 17:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further to mention above of "the structural form of FA Paint It Black", can I ask why it is that some song articles have suddenly started including a track listing when a) for years they didn't, and b) the so-called listings add nothing, because singles from this era were just straightforward, A- and B-side (occasionally double A-side) 45rpm records? It's redundant here, as it is/was at Paint It Black, even allowing for the latter release's alt B-side in the US.
A track listing is only needed/useful for the multi-format singles from the '80s onwards – ie, when there is something substantial to convey, and often a potentially confusing combination of alt mixes and extended versions. Just because a song article from the 1980s, '90s or '00s might include them, and for good reason, it doesn't mean the feature is standard and is required for every song released as a single. Song articles from the '60s that have been FAs for many years, such as Like a Rolling Stone, Hey Jude, Something, don't include a track listing, and never have done as far as I'm aware (and I've worked on pretty much nothing but 1960s/70s music articles for about ten years here). I don't see any of the Rolling Stones song articles from the same era including them (eg, (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Honky Tonk Women, Brown Sugar) – apart from the recent expansions/nominations Paint It Black and Tumbling Dice.
These sections aren't needed and should be removed, in my opinion. It's as if, with their inclusion in the recent FA and this GA, it's becoming some sort of new standard and all the (many) other relevant song articles are somehow lacking and should include them also. But that's backwards – writers and editors of song articles from this era, including longstanding FAs and GAs, have never felt the need to add them, from what I've seen, so it's this new style that needs to go. JG66 (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above. Both new styles are 100% redundant and need to be eliminated, not standardized as GA format. Readers need to see simplicity, not clutter. - JGabbard (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, that's very good of you, thanks. (And sorry to go on above – laboured the point somewhat, I think.) I might weigh in at the RfC you've opened. Basically, imo, it's a case of only having a section – be it Background, Critical reception, Legacy, Cover versions, Charts – when there's sufficient content to merit a dedicated section. JG66 (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}