Talk:Don't fuck with the formula

This redirect is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pop music This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Rock music This redirect 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 California: Los Angeles This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles This redirect is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance). This redirect is a selected article on the California Portal.

I fail to see how this article can be categorised as a 1966 controversy (in the end-of-article categories). Firstly, the lead states that the comment was made by Love "circa 1967"; then, we learn that it was only made public in 1971. But aside from the year given in the category, why is D-f-w-t-f a controversy at all? The statement, or rather what it represents, has invited plenty of commentary from Beach Boys biographers and music journalists, but it's hardly an issue that's reverberated outside of that context to become a public controversy. It's just intra-band rancour with repercussions. Along with the level of detail that's given in much of the article, which gives the impression of padding out the piece, the approach here seems to be to hype up the point and its importance. JG66 (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is your point that, because the controversy did not rise to the level of cross burnings or public letters of apology, that it's not a "real" controversy? Obviously there has to be some preamble to explain what "the formula" was, what it meant to "fuck with" it, and why Mssr. Love would have felt a need to preserve it. As it turns out, there's a lot of different interpretations, contradicting viewpoints, and oft-overlooked aspects to consider.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Don't fuck with the formula/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reviewing music articles is new for me, but I remember reading about the whole Smile saga, and how this quote struck me, so I don't feel wholly out of my element! Surprised to see there's an article about it, but then, it was a very memorable quote (or misquote?)

1a Generally good. "

, place punctuation outside quotes. 1b Fine on layout. Note 11's "noted" it a bit of a

WP:WORDSTOWATCH

when it could be "added"

Verifiable with no original research

2a Thoroughly referenced 2b Footnote 3 contains stray ]; 2c. Checked links verify content; Mike Love is a bit of a primary source, but there are other secondarys. 2d. Earwig concerns are attributed quotes.

Broad in its coverage:

3a. thorough coverage 3b. Tough one considering a lot more than the quote is discussed. I suppose it's unavoidable.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. Can appreciate the efforts for balance in describing band squabbles with no witnesses, or evaluating the subjective value of "formula" vs. "fucking with it". 5. No horrific edit wars

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as

audio

6. Images are free

Further comments @Ilovetopaint: Under "Early success formula" the long Love quote "I was not happy about it but in the case of Roger Christian I wasn't as into the terminology of cars as he was. ... he provided some lyrical content to support Brian's musical abilities, so that was good" has some of the same jarring grammar of the Pet Sounds quote above. Can it be concisely reworded? It would also cut the redundancy to concisely reword the Flory quote in the lede. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think I addressed every issue except for reducing the Flory quote, because I'm not entirely sure how to properly rephrase it in Wikipedia's voice.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to mention this earlier in the Pet Sounds section: is "but not Dennis nor Love" proper grammar, as opposed to "but Dennis and Love were not" or "but neither Dennis nor Love were"? It sounds funny even if technically grammatical. Re the lede quote, why not "Flory writes in later years music journalists associate the band's legacy more with its experimental work than its

WP:LQ concerns, at least in the Pet Sounds and Origin of quote sections are still outstanding. Thanks, Ribbet32 (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

 Done I had to look at

logical quotation before I knew what you meant.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

 Not done The Wikipedia norm would be to place the punctuation outside of the quotes, unlike what's in the lede and Early success sections. For example,in the lede, we have "undone by his own family," which not only places the comma inside the quote, but doesn't reflect the source, which uses a hyphen. There are still instances in the Pet Sounds section, for example, "which we'd had so much success with." and no period in source.

Note 1 also includes a

WP:WORDSTOWATCH

: "noted a pattern where Wilson would" instead of "opined Wilson would tend to".

Regarding the Dennis Pet Sounds quote, I still think concisely rewording is better than sicing it- both to make it more readable and to avoid the POV issue noted by our Sic article: "Sic may also be used derisively by the proofreader, to call attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes and erroneous logic or to show general disapproval or dislike of the material". Ribbet32 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetopaint: Lede was taken care of for LQ. Just noticed this- "Love recalled that he 'was not happy about it' when Wilson would collaborate with other lyricists—except in the case of Roger Christian, whose special knowledge of motor jargon he says benefited"- switches tense between "recalled" and "says". Hate to seem anal, but I do think this will be an easy job to wrap up. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I'm still not sure if I get WP:LQ, or why Wikipedia defaults to British English over American in this one particular instance. Sometimes it's correct to put punctuation inside quotes and sometimes it isn't...? The original quote, "even though I never said it", originally ends with a period, but JG66's edits changed it so that the period is outside. Is that actually the preferred way?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Smile! Ribbet32 (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge Consensus

@

Collapse of Smile. Where did that discussion take place? I don't see any AFD, nor could I see it on this talk page, or that talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Several editors voiced their concerns on

Collapse of Smile, where all of the line's context is enumerated. ilil (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

ILIL, well from a New Page Patrol perspective I agree with you. However, given the disagreement here and there to such a move it seems that it will need a formal merge discussion. I'll start one in just a moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or not as I see you've gone ahead and done the redirect. Should that be reverted again it really should have a formal move discussion on the two affected articles talk pages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

• Merge Per #2–4
  WP:SIGCOV). ilil (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge. Per WP:OVERLAP. The subject can be covered adequately at
  Collapse of Smile and perhaps at Mike Love also. I don't know why we ever had an article dedicated to this phrase/theme. As mentioned elsewhere (at Talk:Brian Wilson is a genius#not encyclopedic, I think), there could easily be articles on statements made by members of the Beatles: Harrison's "I'm not a Beatle anymore" from 1966; Lennon's "Genius is pain" in 1970; McCartney's "It's a drag" (off-hand comment made straight after Lennon's murder in 1980). Biographers and pop culture historians have got plenty creative with those statements and their significance, but that still doesn't warrant treatment for each in a Wikipedia article. JG66 (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]