Talk:Good Times!

“Single”…?

The first track released “She Makes Me Laugh” is described here as a “single”, but is that the correct term these days? Apart from it being literally a single track, with no “B Side” (as the traditional “single” would have), it has been followed mere days later by a second track, “You Bring the Summer”, which would seem unusual if the intention was for these to compete with each other. Might it be better to say that they are being used to promote the album (given that those who pre-ordered the album digitally are given these tracks as part of that purchase). Is there a distinction to be made here? Jock123 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She Makes Me Laugh was refered to as a single upon release by Rolling Stone and other sources. But you're right that the lines are blurred as to what makes a single in the downloading age. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems reasonable! Jock123 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singer?

Can we have some information about who is performing on these songs please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:F126:7400:ED8F:48A4:187:F1AF (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the album is released, we'll know Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further release information.

Just a few notes of what has recently happened, which might usefully be added as the article matures. Me and Magdalena was given an unexpected early release, when NPR’s World Café programme of the 9th of May, 2016 included it after a repeat of an old interview with Michael Nesmith. Nesmith then linked on Facebook to a copy which had been put on YouTube by a fan, followed by his issuing an apology for the confusion, and the track being removed from YouTube. Nesmith apologised for a second time when it was realised that he has mistakenly said that the track would be released officially on the wrong date. The track was officially released (and made available through on-line retailers) on Friday, May 20th; further confusion was caused when Amazon.com inadvertently made the wrong track live, making "Whatever's Right" active instead, allowing pre-order customers for the deluxe version and early buyers to get that track. This mistake was later rectified, the track withdrawn and the correct track made active. The same day, an official preview of the entire album was streamed to the Canadian audience of CBC Music. Jock123 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Hughes of Rhino Records has said (quoted here) that Whatever’s Right would have been released as a fourth “single” in the run up to the album’s release, but that the bringing forward of the planned release date thwarted that; he also revealed that the decision to give it a single release had been debated within the company, because it was thought that it might be assumed to be a 1960s track. The history of the song is that it had been attempted in the sessions for the debut album, but never finished; however, unlike the tracks which have been completed from archive material for this project, the session tapes had been lost very early on, and nothing survives. Instead, the whole song has been re-recorded in 2016, in a manner intended to emulate the group’s sixties sound. Jock123 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of (The Monkees album)

(cur | prev) 05:51, 7 June 2016‎ Ss112 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,323 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Ss112 moved page Good Times! (The Monkees album) to Good Times!: "Good Times!" is a redirect to Justin Lee Collins because it's the title of his autobio, but it doesn't have an article and doesn't look like it will be created.) (undo | thank)

Am I wrong, it looks like the article was created with the band name per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:Naming conventions (music). Does the ! really identify the band? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stone article doesn't use the ! in title, but does later on in text In ictu oculi (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The front cover, its listing on iTunes and other retailers online all contain the exclamation mark. One Rolling Stone article or even a few articles removing the exclamation mark for whatever reason does not mean we should omit it. Also, WP:SMALLDETAILS seems to support moving it to Good Times! By your reasoning, editors should have moved Airplane! to Airplane! (film) or even Airplane! (1980 film) years ago. Ss 112 07:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topic[.]" Typing in Good Times might then lead one to Good Times (disambiguation) to find other topics, then to the link to the Monkees album, at Good Times! as no other thing exists with the exclamation mark. Ss 112 07:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane! is a noted exception isn't it? But the point is here that Rolling Stone shows the ! isn't always used. Also the ! isn't unique. Also this article was created with the band name. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, as I moved it months ago. It doesn't mean whoever created the article under that disambiguated namespace was necessarily correct in doing so, in that we have to maintain how it was created. There are many exceptions to where titles are spelt differently on other websites. I just don't see how this is an argument to moving it to anywhere. If anything, Good Times (The Monkees album) without the ! should redirect here (and it currently does). Ss 112 07:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]