Talk:Billy Mackenzie

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Billy Mackenzie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

peter hammil[edit]

you can't cite whether someone has a similar voice as someone else. this is a matter of opinion. personally i don't particulary hamill and mackenzie have similar voices, but its not really something you can cite, unless providing audio linbks to each of their singig voiuces, somewhat tedious.

Fair use rationale for Image:Billymckenzie.jpg[edit]

Image:Billymckenzie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"William it was really nothing"[edit]

I would suggest taking out the sentence about The Smiths song "William it was really nothing" being about Mackenzie. I'm pretty sure that was just speculation and it's not cited. 60.240.75.73 (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacKenzie/Mackenzie[edit]

I believe MacKenzie is correct - this is how his name appears all the way through Tom Doyle's biography The Glamour Chase, and in the Guardian article referenced here. Both tribute sites created by fans also use MacKenzie, as does The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music.--Michig (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent article I added as a source used "Mackenzie", and so did the others I looked at for sourcing that item. Having said that, I can see that other sources do use "MacKenzie". I don't claim to have any personal knowledge of which is right, so I won't object if other editors prefer "MacKenzie" - but before my most recent edit, the article used both spellings indiscriminately. It needs to at least be consistent. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question in respect of WP:EL[edit]

RfC: Inclusion of a fan sourced playlist of Billy Mackensie's work linked to a second skin music steam system enriches Wikipedia's digital vellum. Please see following discussion / dispute[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Sorry, no. Please read WP:ELNO. These links are not appropriate. While well-intentioned, this is absolutely not what Wikipedia's external links are for. If you try this you'll likely end up on the spam blacklist, and I think you would not want that. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dmode (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Michig for curating this page but why would we remove a non-commercial playlist?

Noting from WP:EL:- minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.

None of the content is copyright-protected and made as tribute by a Billy McK fan.

HKgamer (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of the music on that site is subject to copyright and is likely used illegally there. External links should provide quality information that goes beyond what can be incorporated in the article. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Michig re HKgamer and linking to a second skin play list of Billy Mackenzie's music. YouTube has reached many different agreements with media and music recording companies owing copyrighted content. Typically arrangements pay the copyright holder, who in turn via contract law pays the estate of deceased artists like Billy MacKenzie. Please reconsider your position. Btw, I did knowingly add WC playlist to Billy's Wikipedia, I did so as a fan, because there is are no other comprehensive play lists of The Associates and Bill Mackenzie's work anywhere online. --boul22435 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.220.59 (talk) [reply]

This is an encyclopedia article. An external link to a dubious playlist someone put together simply isn't appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michig External links help enrich Wikipedia content. What is dubious about a playlist of popular Billy Mackenzie songs each with many views/comments on YouTube? http://billymackenzie.wave.cat/?playlist=clubcountry Thank you for input dmode (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any copyright information on the wave.cat site. It is not acceptable to link to sites that contain or may contain copyright-infringing material. And again, someone's personal playlist of Billy Mackenzie-related tracks is not suitable for an external link. --Michig (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michig The wave.cat site is a second-skin system curating content from YouTube.com (a Google company). YouTube protects Wikipedia against claims of contributory copyright infringement by complying with the notice-and-takedown procedures of the DMCA. YouTube also supports Content ID claims allowing owners of copyrighted videos to be paid for plays by listing adverts along side videos. If the wave.cat site shows adverts associated with artist videos does this change your decision? For details, see Notice-and-Takedown. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials. Thank you https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276 dmode (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube has done a deal to pay royalties for copyright material. Does wave.cat pay such royalties? You don't seem to wish to address the issue that this is a fan-compiled playlist, just like many others that exist on sites such as Youtube. If there was an official Youtube or Vevo channel to link to then that would possibly be a worthwhile external link, but linking to fan-made playlists simply isn't appropriate. Do you have an association with this site or the user that compiled the playlist? I'm struggling to understand why you feel a user-compiled playlist is a suitable external link for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michig My main motivation as software designer and music fan is figuring how independent bands and terrific artists like Bill MacKenzie can crowd source and share play lists of their work when its ignored by record companies and how compensation can be credited to the artists or copyright holders. Ward and other designers are working on software notions for forking wiki pages to support advanced sharing http://wardcunningham.github.io/ dmode (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michig The wave.cat site is a second-skin system curating content from YouTube.com (a Google company). YouTube protects Wikipedia against claims of contributory copyright infringement by complying with the notice-and-takedown procedures of the DMCA.(talk)

Isn't wave.cat operating in a bit of a grey area? It offers links to both YouTube and Soundcloud & so is a redirect service, as a search engine might be considered, only totally within web-audio. It isn't purely a second-skin because individual curators also post unique content (in so far as this is the case, Wikipedia is also unique content + collated/curated links). I'm a BMcK fan too and would like to ask you to reconsider the decision. As User:Boul22435 said this is a the only playlist of any note on the web (for Billy). That it is so far delivered without advertisements, but preserving the link to the source file on YouTube or SoundClou is an advantage for the listener/fan.

I don't know what wave.cat's plans are for advertisements but hope they plan to continue without. As a quasi search-engine I doubt that they are obliged to offer copyright notice & indeed less so because of direct links to source files.

Hope you agree. I admit 'some of it is in a bit of a grey area'. HKgamer (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this discussion it seems to me that the reason being given for including this playlist is to promote the music of the artist and to generate royalties from the playing of the music. Wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to promote anything or anyone. Also, the site being linked to is running Disqus; it's enlightening to read its Wikipedia page. If there is a consensus among the editors here that a link directing the reader to Youtube material about Billy Mackenzie is desirable, this link would do this directly, and the choice and order of the videos presented would not be filtered through the opinion of a third party.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm a bit late, but given that the OP's "main motivation as software designer and music fan is figuring how independent bands and terrific artists like Bill MacKenzie can crowd source and share play lists of their work", was he even aware that McKenzie has been dead for almost twenty years? Was there a flood of similar links to other Wikipedia articles? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Morrissey?[edit]

There have been suggestions that the song "William, it was really nothing" by The Smiths is about Billy MacKenzie, and consequently The Associates song "Stephen, you're still really something" was his response to Morrissey

Death[edit]

I've just watched a documentary about Billy, and Billy's father tells of finding Billy after his suicide. It was not in a garden shed, but in the dog kennel in the garden of a bungalow that Billy owned at Auchterhouse (he owned the main house as well). So not a garden shed, and not his Dad's house. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link, but the video is under the title 'The Associates - Documentary 2000 HD', at www.youtube.com/watch?v=riop6MNVoqA. The subtitles don't do well with Billy's Dad's Scottish accent. Timestamps 16:05 (house and bungalow); 20:57 (suicide). Stronach (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]