Talk:Davy Jones (musician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reads like a public realations peice

Remove the reactions section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Alcohol

Davy Jones is listed as a drunk driver, but no information about this offense is provided in the article. Should this reference be removed until evidence can be verified?

Confused...

You know, the Talk page for the actor/Monkee (this one) is also the talk page for the Disney character of the same name. Just wanted to warn ya'--Hailey 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed Chrisyu357 09:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What about his appearance on the Brady Bunch?

I was wondering because I'm watching the episode on TV Land right now.-Giant89 19:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved here from article

Trivia

• David Bowie's original name was David (Robert) Jones: he changed his name to avoid confusion with Davy Jones, whose career was peaking as Bowie's was beginning.

• In 1967, both The Monkees and Star Trek were beginning their second seasons on NBC. While the former was quite successful, Star Trek's ratings were sagging. In an attempt to add "teen appeal" to Star Trek, NBC asked Gene Roddenberry to add a new character that looked like one of the Monkees. The result was the role of Pavel Chekov, played by Walter Koenig, who bore a resemblance to Jones at the time. (This was sometimes enhanced with a long-hair wig.)

Citation Help Elf127 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) There was a TV Guide article on Star Trek that is the citation for this "Chekov as a Davy Jones type." I was at a Davy Jones concert at the time and got an autograph from him. They guy in front of me had the TV Guide article and told Jones about it. He laughed and said, "That guy looks just like me!" Elf127 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) elf127

• Jones guest starred in an episode of the television series The Brady Bunch as himself, as well as the spin-off film, The Brady Bunch Movie.
• Jones appeared in two episodes of The New Scooby Doo Movies and episodes of Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! featured songs from The Monkees during chase scenes.
• In an interview segment aired on the Monkees TV show, Jones claimed that when he had recently flown home to visit his gravely ill father in England, his father had refused to let him in the house due to Jones' long hair. Jones said that he had gotten two haircuts, neither of which satisfied his father. Finally, Jones bought his father a house so his father could not turn him away.
• In another interview from the show, Jones said he had been touring continuously for six years, since he was fourteen.
• Jones shares the same birthday (three years apart) with Monkee bandmate Michael Nesmith. He also lived with Nesmith and his family in Hollywood, in the early Monkees days.
• Jones's seasonal residence is located in Beavertown, Pennsylvania.
• Jones was in an episode of the G4 television show Code Monkeys in Davy Jones Locker.

This bizarre sentence was tacked on following the Jones, Dolenz, Boyce and Hart write up; it's worth preserving here because of its awesome out of context stupidity:

• By far the smallest Monkee, reaching only 5 foot 3 inches tall and weighing around 100 pounds, he was often the last Monkee to fall in love and could be seen on the beach in a swimming outfit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinSFSA (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Elf127 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Citation Help Davy Jones was at Hoosier Park in Anderson, Indiana on the Fourth of July 2008 for a concert. He publically discussed his choice to become an American citizen and on such a patriotic day! Elf127 (talk)elf127

Quote by Jones that says "Citation needed"

It comes from here: Right here on our stage tonight!: Ed Sullivan's America, By Gerald Nachman, Page 360 (see google books). No time to do a proper reference, but someone else can add it in. Risker (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 February 2012

Davey Jones also appeared with Peter Noone in an episode of Phineas and Ferb, a Disney cartoon series, as a group called the Tiny Cowboys. They win the meatloaf competition and sing a song together about the glories of meatloaf. Info from the credits of the cartoon

67.250.105.39 (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Robert Kirk rkirk@si.rr.com

Do you have any source for that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that IMDB should be considered accurate, but it is on there.[1] I think it might be a little "trivial" to add here, but that's just me. Doc talk 23:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That does seem a bit "trivial" Mlpearc (powwow) 23:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: for the reasons listed above. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Death

Can't find confirmation of this anywhere on the internet...Martyn Smith (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Found, sadly...Martyn Smith (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

March 1, 2012 Press Release - Office of the Medical Examiner - District 19 - Florida

On March 1, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. and autopsy was performed on Mr. Davy Jones by Chief Medical Examiner Roger E. Mittleman, M.D. The autopsy revealed the cause of death to be Ventricular Fibrillation due to Severe Coronary Atherosclerosis (Heart Attack).

“Ventricular Fibrillation is a rapid ineffective cardiac rhythm which is due to the blocking of the blood to the heart muscle due to atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries.” Dr. Mittleman explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene kersey (talk • contribs) 19:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusing about his age

Someone who is a better writer than me should reword the part that says "From 1965 to 1971, Jones, 21 years old, was a member of The Monkees." I'm pretty sure he wasn't 21 years old for six years in a row. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Also the following sentence must be wrong: "He also appeared in the BBC police series Z-Cars. However, after the death of his mother from emphysema when he was 14 years old, he left acting and trained as a jockey with Basil Foster." This implies that he gave up acting immediately after (and/or as a result of) the death of his mother, but he would have been 14 in 1959 and Z-Cars didn't start until 1962, and Coronation Street which he was also in only began in December 1960. 92.12.59.177 (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What is worse is that it implies that he was 11 when he appeared on Coronation Street. As the program didn't start until 1960, and he was born in 1945, he had to be at least 15.(The arcticle even SAYS that CS first full year was 1961.) This has then been mistakenly reported in other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.79.243 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see I was not the only one to notice all the age discrepancies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.135.49 (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a poor review when one finds discrepancies such as the Coronation Sreet entry at the beginning of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.20.230 (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Death section - odd wording

I realise that the article content is a partial paraphrase of the cited WPTV article, but it does read a little oddly: Jones had complained of breathing difficulties …, and had been transported to … hospital …, where he was pronounced dead. So he was complaining, and next thing he's dead. Somebody needs to source a "collapsed" or "unconscious" in between the two events, perhaps. The fault lies with the cited WPTV report but maybe WP can do better. Whatever, it's a damn shame that the man's gone, though. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we balance this section out with some people who don't care or think the Monkees were an abomination?Like this: Fred Cocklskew of Frampington said "Who gives a s***?". like that I think that would be good, yeahhh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.79.201 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

re same section, "...host Deborah Norville admitted she was once president of a Monkees' fan club..."; why "admitted"? how about "revealed". 63.142.146.194 (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why does the death section include anything other than relevant information about his death? Reactions about his death doesn't belong in the death section. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Whitney Houston has a subsection entitled "Reaction". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Have now introduced new "Reaction" sub-section, to match the Funeral sub-section. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death in infobox

Unless we're just putting the cause of death in the infobox for the short term, I question its importance there. Apart from right now, I really don't think that most people seeking the most important general information in the man's life are concerned that he died of heart attack. --24.5.197.145 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Doc talk 01:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant biographical info. One of the most common things people readers of this article will want to know, whether now or years in the future, is what his cause of death was. The cause of death parameter is not 'short term', nor is it a trivial point. Jim Michael (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jim Michael. In fact, I suspect that many readers, as for many celebrities, will look up this article simply to verify Jones' reported cause of death. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OP here. I concur that some people will look this page up for that reason, but I think that the number is sufficiently few that documentation within the article is adequate. Without a poll, it's all speculation anyway. --24.5.197.145 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The content by itself is premature until the actual cause is settled. I've seen both heart attack and stroke. I suggest it remain blank until further proof comes. Ckruschke (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

The lsngusge I quoted regarding the cause of death is the exact language of the press release issued by the Medical Examiner. It ia correct and accurate and the only thing that might be more official is the actual death certificate. I am not sure where it belongs inthe bio, but contribute it to be used as appropriate. Gene kersey (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this article is being cheapened by sensationalism concerning his cause of death. You don't see this in most other articles, but if people "really" think it must be here, good for the status quo, right? Pfft... Doc talk 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think facts about the cause of someone's death amount to "cheap sensationalism". Lurid detail or undue hasty speculation, maybe yes. But natural causes, such as these, don't really lend themselves to tabloid sensationalism. How long was it last week before wikipedia had decided that Whitney Houston had died in her bath? Sooner than some of her family knew, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at a few other celebrity articles where the cause of death was not natural causes, and they seemed uniformly to cite the cause of death in the infobox. I happen to think that it's a lurid detail and unnecessary which is better left within the article itself. I also looked up a couple where the cause of death was natural causes, and they didn't cite it in the infobox. Given that this cause of death appears to be 'natural,' it's probably unnecessary here as in keeping with other articles. --24.5.197.145 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dual nationality

Did he have dual nationality? I can't find any sources which say so. --John (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Several years ago on his web site (link now dead) he mentioned how excited he was about finally taking steps toward American citizenship. Don't know if it was completed. Genehisthome (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal Life

Someone closer to the Imperial County. California Courthouse than me needs to check out the marriage recorded there on 15 Dec 1968 between David T Jones and Diane L Haines. It appears rumors of a Tijuana union on Halloween may be disprovable and an American wedding verifiable. Genehisthome (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Templates

I removed the template at the top of the article saying

This article is about a person who has recently died. Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change as more facts become known.

with the edit summary Removed insensitive and useless "recently died" template. Do not restore without consensus on the talk page. It was restored by Woz2 with the edit summary per edit volume.

The documentation for the template says

it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) are editing the article on the same day, and it should be removed as soon as the editing goes down to a normal level again.

There were 90 unique editors on the 29th. I see no value whatever in this defacement sitting at the top of the article so, unless someone can explain what good it does there, I'll be removing it again. --'neath the wings (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That template is usually added in the aftermath of a famous person's death - it's pretty standard from what I've seen, and not truly defacement. Whitney Houston comes to mind: for her, the tag was added here, and not removed for several days.[2] I don't know if the "perhaps a hundred or more" should be taken too literally, myself, since I don't think 100 edited her article in the wake of her death. Since Davy just died today, I wouldn't get too insistent on removing the tag just yet. My 2p. Doc talk 02:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In prominent recent death situations such as this, editors have a right to be alerted to an elevated risk of edit conflicts and frequent content updates. 90 versus "perhaps a hundred or more" is a petty distinction, and the template documentation minimum threshold statement borders on the unrealistic anyway (WP:BURO, WP:NOTBIGENOUGH). Regardless of how much one can complains about it being a "defacement" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) the recent death template remains an established and legitimate feature that assists editors. It will go away in a few days anyway, once the high edit frequencies here subside and the alert has served its purpose. Dl2000 (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

My rationale for removing the template is it's a piece of useless crap at the top of an article. It serves no purpose and is grossly insensitive. 70 unique editors edited this page on the first. I've removed the template. [3] --'neath the wings (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I was reverted by John. Whose edit summary says "See talk." I'm here, at talk, looking for a reason to keep this stupid piece of crud at the top of the article. The only explanation I can glean from the above is "editors have a right to be alerted to an elevated risk of edit conflicts and frequent content updates." What idiocy. What possible good does warning editors about edit conflicts do? And, anyway, the template doesn't say a word about edit conflicts. As for, frequent content updates, so what? Everybody knows the details of any event are liable to change in the days following the event. Ugh. Is this project run by children? Ugh. Ugh. Can't you see how grossly insensitive and unnecessary that template is. It is pure ghoulishness. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons. Grow up. --'neath the wings (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You're wasting everyone's time on this issue just because you think it's "insensitive" and "unnecessary" or "useless", but that's the way wikipedia always does it. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Eric

'Neath - I think you are taking this WAY too seriously. It's a standard tag when someone dies (it's on Breitbart's page too). The weirdos all seem come out of the woodwork to throw stuff on someone's page when they die and therefore it's meant to caution people that recently added info may not be correct. I've followed this page for 3 yrs and I think there's been as many edits in the last three days as there were in those three years combined. Relax - this too shall pass... Ckruschke (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Quite agree. When a celebrity dies, it's not Dungeons and Dragons at Wikipedia, it's more like Dungeons, Tabloids, Mortuaries and Inquests, for about a week, and then it's usually back to normal (except without quite so much "current work" or "future activities". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your balanced, and amusingly wry, perspectives. I am overreacting. --'neath the wings (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry I hurt your feelings neath the wongs, but it's obvious you're in a minority of one here. The template serves a purpose. --John (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rereading this I see I'm being hysterical. Sorry for the trouble all. I guess I'm more upset by his death than I realised. Back to work everybody. --'neath the wings (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I, too, took it out, then put it back in after seeing this noise. I don't see 'neath the wings view of it being "insenstive." But the man died of a heart attack. Plain and simple. When they put him in the ground or wherever, template should come down, in my opinion. — WylieCoyote (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. That's reasonable. --'neath the wings (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise with 'neath the wongs (some anti-Chinese sentiment here, John?) But I admit that I have always found that template useful as a very easy and quick way to check that "yes, he or she really has died". In the past I have even thought that it would be useful to have it applied to all deaths, even for those people who few others have heard of and who will get very few edits. But yes, Wikipedia is a bit like Ds-and-Ds, with a category getting hastly changed from "English singers" to "Deceased English singers" or whatever etc., etc. An encyclopedia has to be a rather insensitive place, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I like that "just died/facts could change" template when I see it on articles on the day of death. It lets the community and public know the page is being actively monitored. 5Q5 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A better photo for infobox, please

Can we please try to replace the current photo filed here as I write this in the infobox? The angle makes it look like a dental exam pose. Just sayin' 5Q5 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How 'bout this one in Wiki Commons, perhaps cropped a bit to emphasize Jones more. It also has the advantage of being 4 years newer than the current pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleonic (talk • contribs) 02:54, 16 March 2012

Because of the side angle, some might question whether that is actually Jones. Interesting, most of us know him from the front or quarter angle and not with his mouth frozen open. The side-angle photo you suggest could be inserted into the article right now if there's a spot (as well as the mouth open pose after a new one comes along). Maybe someday some fan out there with a personal photo that they can donate to the public domain will read this and know how to upload it and release it. For now we can just try to get agreement (positive consensus) from other editors that a better photo would improve the article and wait. PS you forgot to sign your post. :) 5Q5 (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

For comparisons, here are the infobox photos of the other Monkees: Micky Dolenz, Peter Tork, Michael Nesmith (no photo). 5Q5 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo added; image is quintessential image most associated with musician. Oanabay04 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was the most recently taken, free photo completely removed from the article? Davy Jones didn't stop aging in 1966, and to have no images of him from a far more recent time anywhere in this article is not going to work at all. This isn't a fan page: pictures of an older Jones are encyclopedic. Someone please put it back in this article before I do. Doc talk 04:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I did the "R" part of "BRD" for the infobox image - this needs discussion. Doc talk 04:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah. An IP editor reverted me with the edit summary "After death, free or non-free both qualify." Not only is this totally incorrect, but I see that the image that is in the infobox now is up for deletion; and it should be. Free images (like the one that has been there for quite some time) are what WP prefers over copyrighted images that have no valid fair-use rationale. Doc talk 14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There is precedent for the articles of deceased singers having younger infobox photos: Frank Sinatra and Robert Goulet for example. At the same time, however, Whitney Houston and Tony Bennett (the latter still living) use more recent images. I stopped my research with those four. Like I wrote in an earlier post, someone out there must have a recent image from a stage appearance or autograph signing that they could donate to Wikipedia someday. I'm sure they would be thrilled. The article does have younger pics so that would be covered. Either way, the article would need a recent pic somewhere. 5Q5 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The main thing is: when the picture currently in the infobox is inevitably deleted as failing the NFCC, what image do go go back to? I say the one that was there before it. Doc talk 05:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That would seem to be the logical choice. I am not against an open-mouth singing pose, just one that is a little more flattering to the memory of the artist. I'm trying to imagine what he could have possibly been singing to have his mouth open so wide. He had a microphone. 5Q5 (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As predicted above the copyrighted image was deleted by a wikibot. In accordance with the previous discussion I was going to replace it with the much maligned Davy_Jones_(Geneva,_IL,_2006).jpg (i.e., the "Gaping mouth photo"). However when I visited WikiCommons I noticed several pix had been added since the last time I looked, including this full-face image of the more familiar young Davy. The photo's info claims its owner has licensed for free use. So I decided to try this image instead. Pleonic (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That one will get whacked as well, eventually: it is extremely unlikely that the uploader "Maemees" actually owns the copyright to that album cover photo; and therefore they have no business "releasing" it into the public domain. That image is only legit under FU policy, and the letter of the law when it comes to photos like that is that it technically can only be used to illustrate the album in question, and is not supposed to be used to illustrate the artist. I know, it's a pain, but I learned it to be this way a while ago... Doc talk 04:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Aforesaid Commons:File:Sooloalbum "Davy Jones"..jpg already got speedy-deleted on Commons. How about using File:Davy Jones, Sydney 1968.jpg (Greg Lee for Australian Photographic Agency, uploaded to Flickr by the State Library of New South Wales, "no known copyright restrictions") instead? That won't look too bad at typical article image size, and he has the look that someone would recognize if they remembered him by face rather than by name. --Closeapple (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. But I restored the 2006 concert photo that was the info box pic to the body of the article and moved the Brady Bunch pic up & to the left. The 2006 wide-open-mouth (over theatrically lip synching?) photo appears in many foreign versions of the article and we need a recent image anyway. Unfortunately, I had to reduce the pixel size to get all three to fit in the same section. 5Q5 (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (if I'm reading correctly) Closeapple for finding a much better infobox image :), Mlpearc (powwow) 03:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Davy Jones discography

The article Davy Jones discography contains a discography for this artist, which does not seem notable in and of itself. I'd suggest merging the two. BenTels (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree Many (most/all?) of the better known artists have separate pages for their discography. This is nothing new and was probably split off as it got too big for the parent page. Yes - it is somewhat of a stub, but this page has gotten MUCH more interest since Davy's death so I anticipate the Discography page also garnering more interest from editors. Ckruschke (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Incorrect info somewhere

This article says that Davy Jones began his acting career at age 11 by appearing on Coronation Street. He was born in 1945 so that then would be 1956/7 that he appeared on the soap, but the first ever broadcast of Coronation Street wasn't until 1960, so someone has got their figures wrong somewhere. I suspect Jones was a few years older than 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beards58 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed From ITV source, he was on a 1961 episode, thus 15 at the time. The character apparently reappeared in a 1972 episode, but portrayed by Alec Sabin (see List of Coronation Street characters (1961)) Dl2000 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Greatest teen idol of all time?

Sorry but that is not supported by the references. Rob O'Connor at yahoo music says "Anyhow ranking them seems a little silly. I know from past experience that many of you dear readers will complain about someone's position on the list. I sympathize. If I woke up tomorrow to do this ranking system it would come out differently. There are no hard, fast rules here. Just me typing a name out and thinking that it looks nice in that spot." So he certainly isn't saying that Jones was the greatest. As for the second reference Gil Kaufman is misquoting Rob O'Connor's opinion to say that he says Jones was the greatest teen idol of all time so that is hardly a reliable source. I'll tone that statement down a little. Richerman (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

discography question

Abbythecat (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Maybe someone at Wikipedia can help me. Mlpearc has deleted some edits I made to Davy's discography. That's his right, no problem. But I'd like to re-add this information without it getting deleted again. He keeps saying I'm not listing references, but I have (I've described this to him in his talk section). My goal is to merge Davy's sparce discography page into his great looking discography section here. But this will take time, it can't be done all at once (not by me anyway) and if my edits keep getting deleted, then, of course, it is impossible & will never be done. So any chance I can keep trying to improve his discography? It NEEDS it, believe me. There are many things on his separate discography page not listed here. And many things I can add that aren't listed on either page. For instance, missing are things like his 2 singles from DJB&H; his Xmas 45; his Jan & Dean 45; his Xmas album; his Japanese 45 from '72; a fan club 45 from '71; and much, MUCH more, all of which I'd like to add to IMPROVE this section. So I'd appreciate any help from any Wikipedia editors. Again, I'm NOT knocking Mlpearc! Just trying to improve the article. Any help, anybody? Thank you. PS - as of 12/30/13, I have resubmitted my edits with references so all should be OK. I hope! Abbythecat (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC).

Abbey - Since I have no opinion on the issue, have enough on my "to do" list w/o adding more content, and I watch all of Davy's pages, I'll volunteer to help referee between the two of you.Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

There is an online source here which could be used for the entries already entered plus others which are not if any is interested.--Egghead06 (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Dubious statement and reference

Jones is considered one of the great teen idols.[1][2]

This dubious statement is referenced using a deleted blog entry. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I cannot parse this; please rephrase

Jones is the next closest member of the Monkees (to Micky Dolenz) who had worked with the band since its inception. The exceptions have been the new songs recorded in 1986 and since his untimely death (see below).

What? Does this mean that Davy was closer to Micky than the others were? Or does this mean that Micky was the "first closest" who had worked with the band and if so, what were they first and second closest to? The producers? Getting fired? The ocean?

Unfortunately, I cannot think of any likely interpretation of the first sentence that provides any context for the second sentence, nor does the second sentence provide any context to help decipher the first. "The exceptions" refers to what? 165.225.38.73 (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)