|Welcome to Duncan's talk page|
|Clickto start a new discussion.|
If you post a message here, I will reply here unless you explicitly ask me to do it on your talk page and please remember to sign your name at the end of your entry using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.
Duncan, why did you block users "Tanjo" and "Origamikitty"? Am I missing something?
User "Tictac" was already blocked for 2 years.
--Emdebe 10:10, 10 Mar 2006 (PST)
Yes. They are probably all one person, one of whom pretends to clean up spam - although makes no other contribution - presumably in the hope that we will not notice the bulk of the spam remaining.
Duncan 13:22, 10 Mar 2006 (PST)
I agree, this might be a new spam technique based on confusion. Including a picture reading test on the subscription page should prevent robots spam.
Maroual 19:38, 10 Mar 2006 (PST)
UPPER/lower Case mAMa mia!!!
Trying to answer your question "Should title be capitalised?", I found a lot of guidelines on the Wikipedia such as:
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)
Though I could not find the case detailed, it seems that a title itself is not a citation. So the usual rule should also apply to it: only the first letter would be upper case (except if it is an acronym of course).
Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe we already had similar discussions with Emdebe and then we chose to capitalize the first letter of each word (the American way).
Please also note that the Wikipedia guidelines also recommend to make exceptions for foreign titles if they are not commonly used in English dictionnaries (for instance Art Nouveau is preferred vs Art nouveau).
Maroual 15:20, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)
hi duncan i'm hermann propellerkuh can you please specify on which articles you want to have sources named? second: sorry, i am not acquainted with wikifying articles yet ... hope the texts will do in the meanwhile ...
Wikipedia Does Suck, Yes It Does!!
I'm aware of that, especially after looking their webpage for Guitar Player and finding my prejudices about FZs reception hardened. Of course, it is like it ever was: "... featuring all famous guitarist from Gilmour to VanHalen ..." and like Holy Writ NO FRANK ZAPPA!
Pity is that it is one of the most complete sources easily reached ...
So let them suck!
- Propellerkuh 03:39, 21 Apr 2007 (PDT)
I tried to clear up a little bit of the "wanted pages" and found "Who Are the Brain Police?" (no capitalised "t"!) but when searching the Wiki no page with that exact name was to be found. If you know how to solve that let me know.
Talking to myself :-)
I borrowed the box thingy at the top from Wikipedia. Pretty neat eh?
Duncan 04:25, 25 Sep 2007 (PDT)
Wow this is cool stuff. I will do the same ;)
The Significance of Insignificance
What is the significance of "insignificant reference in TRFZB"?
It seems to me, that this is a rather subjective statement which I can’t really agree upon, objectively speaking... ;-)
--Emdebe 09:02, 10 October 2007 (PDT)
If there was any significant linkage to anything else here I would have made an article but they are just oblique references of no significance to a Zappa wiki that could be linked out to wikipedia from a (vaguely) more relevant article. e.g. The quote with the Night Of The Living Dead reference could be included in an article about Zappa's attitude towards Christians and TV evangelists - with a link elsewhere for anyone who did not know the reference but it does not deserve it's own article here - but that does not exclude anyone from re-making the page and writing an article about it if they really wanted to.
Duncan 09:39, 10 October 2007 (PDT)
Hi Duncan just mail me your street address to "firstname.lastname@example.org" and i send you a cd
Propellerkuh, Hermann Schindler
To the meandering sounds of Lumpy Gravy pt 2 I'm writing this: I see what you mean with the Saturday Night Live Interview and Article ... thing is, when one sees the "Saturday Night Live" article part ending with "Frank Zappa - Interview Stereo Review 1979" one might look for that article and be left with a feeling that there could be more – – – I have a hint that this is MY idiosyncratic urge to be COMPLETE, to have COMPLETE collections of my object d'desire – – – but, what the fuck, kill the stump.
- Propellerkuh 23:05, 25 Mar 2007 (PDT)
Yes I guess there is more - judging by the cover the article could be called "A little Talk with Frank Zappa" but we can change it when we know for sure.
Good to hear you refer to Lumpy Gravy as Part 2 rather than this silly idea that it is made up of individual tracks that have names! I still think of it as Side 1 and Side 2. Still sounds good after all these years.
Still enjoying your CDs - Is there a listing of the track names anywhere?
Duncan 02:13, 26 Mar 2007 (PDT)
Happy to hear you like my music ... I myself am very split about it. sometimes I like it, sometimes I'm not so sure ...
01 Ohren Feigen 7:20
02 88-10-10 1:16
03 Immaschlimma 2:51
04 Netzbrumm 0:31
05 Mundharmon 0:07
06 Aiff, aiff! 0:04
07 Den Web (523) 1:07
08 Den Web (52) 0:34
09 Callipygian 0:17
10 Callipygian ev 4:11
11 Ballet für Cyborg 2:54
12 don't copy! Paste! 1:58
13 Name 2:29
14 The Roxy Suite 1: Millie Jay 4:01
15 The Roxy Suite 2: 2 Doppler aus der Sonnenstadt 3:29
16 Aiff, aiff, aiff! 0:04
17 Basilisk 6:58
18 Das Leid der Anden 3:02
19 Ants at Home 5:10
20 Consterned 0:10
21 Choir of the Bios 4:22
22 The Audience Goes Ooooh! 3:52
23 Lazy Dialog 0:08
24 Callipygian 0:04
25 It's been a Hard Disk’s Nite 1:58
26 How To Live with such Eyebrows 2:00
27 You-Nique! 3:06
28 Die andre Backe 3:02
01 XXXX 5:15
02 Kroko* 3:09
03 Juli 75 3:21
04 Peters* 2 0:32
05 Summa 2:56
06 Two-dimensional Clothes 4:28
07 Brrrr* 8:47
08 oms clix 4:07
09 Holiday* 2:55
10 Peters 5* 2:03
11 I Need Your No 5:55
12 Casioaudio(modoinfernoalfornoporno)* 1:25
13 62song* 0:48
14 Tauwetta 11:13
15 Im Westen nichts Neues* 3:18
16 Morgenstimmung 8:09
17 D'Sogbradn 3:30
01 Kuhl, Kuhl, Two 2:22
02 Loop your Own Loops, Think Your Own Thoughts 1:25
03 While You Were Arf 0:37
04 Schmutz in den Rillen I 0:04
05 Steeldrum 1:43
06 Rabies & Rigor 3:47
07 3-3-4 0:17
08 I war so gern in Dataland 2:20
09 Wie die Marmelade in die Welt kommt 4:29
10 Bon Giorno, Signore Boccherini 2:25
11 Schmutz in den Rillen II 0:10
12 AreYouMehrheitsfähig? 1:45
13 RipApArt 3:10
14 Mean Time Bevor Fehler 1:02
15 Was schreima üban Tzappa 1:10
16 Suite zur Kuckucksuhr 2:46
17 Promenade der Enzesfelder Schlurfe, Chop Suey 3:49 18 6-6 4:04
19 Pneumonia 2:07
20 Dataland 3:42
21 Wut & Unterhosen 2:07
22 Mei Tritoñ, Willis Walk 4:09
23 Wazziz? 4:18
24 Frohes Schaffen 4:15
as you can see on my website "rock'n'marshmallow" is a cooperation between peter hadamitzky and me. I like his tracks* very much!
- Propellerkuh 12:45, 26 Mar 2007 (PDT)
Left Picture vs. Right Picture?
Just wanned to ask: What's the best way to place pictures in articles? I always thought it best to place them to the right side ofthe page with the benefit that sees indented text as such, whereas when the picture is left side you cant see the indented text.
What do you think? ~~Propellerkuh
Thanks for your guiding hand. I've just posted Maroual's User Talk an outline of what I was trying to achieve regarding Beefheart.
Everything Beefheart ONLY RELATING TO ZAPPA on one page. Pure Beefheart only stuff would be found as links to external sites, nothing of only Beefheart consequence here in the ZWJ site.
What I was also trying to emphasise was the early teen years together, Frank's almost fatherly control in respect of CB, '66-to'69 the Trout period, then the latter stuff that popped up on Grow Fins- while keeping EVERYTHING Beefheart that was Zappa related on one page.
There aren't other musicians in the Zappa stable that are quite so intertwined or formative in the emergence (and divergence) of them both. Jointly they had no previous history. Other Magic Band members appeared with FZ, such a page enables overview/aliases list.
Only just beginning to appreciate the enormity of what you guys have achieved and trying hard to get on your wavelength.
I don't see a problem if something small 'doubles up', as long as it's in context with the subject. ie What I'm suggesting under Captain Beefheart would result in the appearance of Orange Claw Hammer as a click-thru to it in Category:Tracks.
I put in 'possibly' as a lure for someone to edit & say it's true, or correct it. Realise now that this isn't Wiki- should have asked first in Talk.
Please consider the merits of my Captain Beefheart page suggestion & what I've done to date/suggestions to Maroual. I promise not to make any more entries in this respect until I see the judgements from you & Maroual.
--Tonefish 10:12, 13 May 2008 (PDT)
- We need a good Beefheart article (I have started it a couple of times but never got very far with it) which would link out to individual pages. The everything on one page approach creates large unwieldy articles which can cause more problems than they solve. We do not know what people using the wiki are looking for and where they have come from sending them to a page with too much info on will not help them. Sending them to a page about a track they just heard and then following the links back as far they want to go will be of more use to them.
- I am not so sure about the magazine articles either. They would need their own page too bit do they add much to the Zappa content?
- Sorry have not covered all your points have to dash out again.
- Do not worry about making more entries - we can always undo them ;-) Duncan 13:03, 14 May 2008 (PDT)
Song vs Track, ie Orange Claw Hammer
Duncan, I'm being a Big Pane In Your Window.
What's the difference between a Track and a Song? By the wiki layout definition I'm on a Track Page here at Orange Claw Hammer, talking about one Song (written & performed by Captain Beefheart) released in two Track Versions, one played only by the Magic Band and produced by FZ (on a Side Project/Beefheart album), the other played by Beefheart (on a Beefheart compilation) that 'features' FZ on guitar.
It's also a Track (the original) that also appears on the Beefheart compilation The Dust Blows Forward: An Anthology that contains Bongo Fury tracks. On this wiki's Bongo Fury page the Tracks are referred to as Tracks, while on the Trout Mask Replica page they're Songs but, if you click the Song The Blimp, it's a Track page... I'm confused, but think Orange Claw Hammer is now almost there. Do semantics divide Us or Them?
PS: Before anyone says it, I think a Song is a set of Lyrics (with musical annotation) & a Track is a musical/audio interpretation of that Song (or words to that effect). --Tonefish 08:00, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
- Welcome to the never ending discussion The wiki is slowly evolving into some useful form but still has some way to go. You make valid points which, I am sure, will be addressed someday but for now I would go for content over semantics. Duncan 12:11, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
Yellow Shark photo "by Rien Post"
As a consequence, should we replace it with a color version and maybe use it in an article? Or should we just delete it?
Have a nice weekend ;-)
Maroual 16:47, 22 May 2009 (PDT)
- As most of the stuff here is a copyvio (this is not Wikipedia) it should stay for now and we could add a colour version at some point. Duncan 04:17, 25 May 2009 (PDT)
Interviews excerpts in MOFO
Hi Duncan, as you might have witnessed I transcribed the interview excerpts tracks on the MOFO page.
It would be very kind of you if you take your time and read into the texts and maybe fill in the words I did not understand correctly, as my native language is not English and couldn't understand some words.
Thanks and have nice days.
--Propellerkuh 00:58, 4 January 2010 (PST)Hermann (Porpellerkuh)
Useless stuff and so on...
I got your point Duncan, but there are more constructive ways to express it, for instance by discussing on the Wiki Jawaka Talk.
Also, even the stuff you wrote regarding Aramis and Brut Cologne is not completely uninteresting and useless. At least, I learned something. But it would have been better if just explained at the end of the article. IMHO, it is more a matter of shaping than a matter of contents.
The purpose of the article Cologne was to have only one central article and avoid the creation of articles such as Co-log-nuh, Aramis and so on. Now you know my opinion about CC articles, I am not too much into that stuff, although I recognize it could be interesting if properly shaped.
Maroual 18:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I am not trying to say here that the article Cologne is essential. But it is true that people who are not native English speakers may like to have a few explanations when hearing "Co-lug-nuh" in Galoot Up-Date. It is not obvious for everybody.
Maroual 18:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- My problem with this kind of thing is that we are adding weight and significance to stuff that may well be (probably are) just throw away lines... noodling around, playing with words, looking for a rhyme with pathos leads you through the three musketeers and onto "The great smell of..." Brut. It is not significant or profound. But once we start down this road we are open to anybody coming along and adding their own interpretation / pet theory / unique insight - as is the case with much of the CC stuff. Happy to say I have never heard Galoot Up-Date. What is "tainted CO-LOG-NUM"? Surely the crux of the biscuit is the "You can't even speak your own fucking language!" line. Can't we just leave it at that? Duncan 20:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, but at some point, the sooner the better, we will need to clean all that mess. So I think that a good step in that direction would be to start deleting all useless categories. So I propose two things (1) first, we need to stop or block any categories creation attemps and (2) then the admins vote for the categories to keep/delete/replace with an article/other until a deadline. And I summarize the votes in a table on my user page. Then as a second step we shall clean the useless articles starting from the ones which belong to the targeted categories to delete. FYI, as of now only 68 articles are uncategorized, but most of them should. What do you think? Maroual 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Zappa Picture Database
Do you think is would be possible to create a picture database where as much as possible pictures of FZ are gathered in one place, from each foto shooting the best resolution, as least cropped as possible, along with as much ownership info, dates, places attached?
I recently acquired Linda McCartneys picture book with the one (at least to me) well-known picture with FZ and Gail (I think in New York) and a second picture I have never seen before on the Web! I was baffled and surprised that this picture has never seen a monitor from inside, so this idea came up to make everything available that was ever shot …
Please eMail me if my idea makes any sense at all after I don't check this page not too often, although I am a great fan of this Wiki.
email@example.com Thanks Hermann
Honestly Duncan … really??? Your Postman?
As a Dadaist statement that’s okay, but for a larger public that tends to be seen as batantly irrelevant, thus dimishing the to-be-taken-seriously content of the Wiki … Please reconsider the page, or I may make a page with my toast looking like Jimmy Carl Black :-)
Propellerkuh 05:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It was just a prelude to the deletion of all the irrelevant piffle that has been added lately.
Duncan 21:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This just in...
Note to self...
Duncan 23:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)