Talk:Jagger–Richards: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 20:45, 11 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jagger–Richards 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

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Composers

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers

The Rolling Stones Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones 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.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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.

Requested move 31 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Jagger–Richards", as per general agreement that it is a better title.(non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jagger/Richards → Jagger and Richards – A query has been raised at Talk:The_Rolling_Stones regarding the use of Jagger/Richards to identify the songwriting partnership. A suggestion has been put forward to use Jagger–Richards instead, and this has some merit. However, on looking into the matter, I note that Jagger and Richards is currently the most common way in sources, including the band's own albums, to identify the partnership, and Foo and Foo or Foo & Foo is the most common article name used on Wikipedia to identify articles on songwriting partnerships. I feel both Jagger–Richards and Jagger and Richards have merit, while Jagger/Richards is problematic as it is rarely used these days, and - as pointed out on Talk:The_Rolling_Stones - is incorrect usage. As Jagger and Richards is currently commonly used, is consistent with the majority of such articles on Wikipedia, and has the benefit of being able to be used in flowing prose, as in the opening paragraph of The Rolling Stones, that is the one I am suggesting we use. SilkTork (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This reminds me of the discussion recorded here, following which Coverdale•Page ended up at Coverdale–Page. On the other hand, there is also Page and Plant. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as a punctuation mark has been the preferred option (here and in the likes of Category:Songs written by Jagger/Richards and the Stones song articles), I favour "Jagger–Richards", which would be consistent with partnerships such as Lennon–McCartney and Holland–Dozier–Holland. It surprises me that a slash (= solidus) was ever used on Wikipedia, because, strictly speaking, it's not the correct form in this context. Having done quite a bit of work recently at the Aftermath album article, and dusted off the Stones biographies I own (by Philip Norman, Stephen Davis, Victor Bockris, Chris Salewicz, Barbara Charone), I'm pretty sure they all refer to "Jagger–Richards songs". I'm not saying one won't find mentions of "Jagger/Richards" in Stones literature, as in some of their artwork no doubt, but further to BarrelProof's Coverdale•Page example, I suggest that could just be a design affectation, if not incorrect usage of punctuation markup that we need not faithfully reproduce. JG66 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mick Jagger up for FAC

Mick Jagger is now up for FAC. All input welcome. If you wish to participate, the discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mick Jagger/archive1. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{talkheader}}
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
-{{WikiProject Biography |class=start |living=yes |listas=Jagger/Richards |musician-work-group=yes |musician-priority=low}}
+{{oldafdfull| date = 17 May 2009 | result = '''keep''' | page = Jagger/Richards }}
-{{WikiProject Composers|class=Start}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=n|blp=yes|class=Start|listas=Jagger/Richards|
+{{WikiProject Biography |musician-work-group=yes |musician-priority=low}}
+{{WikiProject Composers}}
+{{WikiProject The Rolling Stones|importance=top}}
 }}
+{{British English|form=editnotice}}
-{{oldafdfull| date = 17 May 2009 | result = '''keep''' | page = Jagger/Richards }}
-==Bittersweet Symphony==
-No offense, but is it really "The Last Time" we are hearing? This sounds suspicious to me. I have never heard that song in that song, even though I've heard "Bittersweet Symphony" a million times. Is this exaggerating by someone, or just misfortune, either to The Rolling Stones or Richard Ascroft, who wrote most of the Verve's early material?
-I hope someone else share my opinion on this rather unfair matter.
-[[User:84.49.149.245|84.49.149.245]] 18:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-::whether it's unfair or not, the lawsuits did take place (and were successful, so apparently someone heard out the case and felt the claims had merit).  i think that's all the article is stating, not passing judgement on whether or not it was "fair". [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 12:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-I heard that what happened is that the Verve Pipe got their inspiration from some orchestra doing "The Last Time" and since the orchestra credited Jagger/Richards and Verve Pipe didn't, the 2 of them sued and won against VP.  [[User:V Schauf|V Schauf]] ([[User talk:V Schauf|talk]]) 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
-==Gotta Get Away==
-Why does the link to the song Gotta Get Away, go to a Offspring site? That has nothing to do with Jagger/Richards. --[[User:Chbian|Chbian]] 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-== the "Jagger/Richards compositions given away" list ==
-i've added a bunch of numbers to the list and removed (for the time being) "Some Things Just Stick in Your Mind", since that *has* been released (on Metamorphosis).  i know that's not quite a Stones release, but if the idea is that Metamorphosis "doesn't count", then some other numbers on it belong on this list as well (eg "Sleepy City", released by the Mighty Avengers in July 1965).
-i also think the list isn't named well - the numbers weren't "given away"! they were written for other artists to record, and the songwriters got their due royalties, glory, etc. (Pitney's single was their first hit - which enhanced their status and confidence a *lot* at the time.) i suggest something like "J/R compositions released only by other artists" - not very graceful, maybe, but it's more accurate.
-oh and: a superb source for this kind of information is http://www.nzentgraf.de/books/tcw/works1.htm - i know some editors "don't like" this kind of resource site, but Zentgraf lists miles of reference works, is very thorough, etc. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 12:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-== some debatable statements ==
-a few of the statements seem dubious to me:
-'''"Jagger and Richards' first song written as a team was "As Tears Go By"."'''
-i know Keith has said this, but Keith isn't always encyclopedically accurate. :]  before they did the "Tears" demo for Marianne (march 1964), Gene Pitney had already released his hit rendition of their "That Girl Belongs to Yesterday"; and apparently their demos of "That Girl" and some other MJ/KR originals (Shang a Doo Lang, It Should Be You, etc) were recorded in 1963.  that doesn't prove that As Tears Go By wasn't their first songwriting effort, but it does call it into some doubt.  i vote for changing this statement to something less definite-sounding - for example just leaving the quote about ALO locking them in the kitchen (which Jagger's said isn't literally true, by the way) and trying an "among their first efforts were" approach instead of specifying which was the *very* first.
-'''Lang and Mink did not co-write; they were credited retrospectively before release when Charlie Watts' daughter informed him that ...'''
-what source states that it was Charlie's daughter who pointed out the similarity? i've read that it was one of Keith's daughters *and* that it was one of Mick's daughters, so saying it was Charlie's (or Ron's!) daughter might do as a sort of compromise. :] but unless there's a reliable source to cite for the story, maybe "one of the Rolling Stones' offspring" might be a reasonable way to go.   <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sssoul|contribs]]) 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-'''"It is known Taylor left the band for the lack of credits he received while working with the band. Of note are the songs "Winter", from the 1973 album Goats Head Soup, and both "Sway" and "Moonlight Mile", from 1971's Sticky Fingers, both of which are thought to be Jagger/Taylor compositions."'''
-i know this is an emotion-laden issue for some fans but: if i understand wikipedia criteria right, this seems like a prime candidate for immediate deletion, since it's a] debatable, b] unreferenced, c] "weasel-wordish" ("thought to be" by whom??) and d] about living people.
-Taylor has stated that ONE of his reasons for leaving the band was his dissatisfaction over songwriting credits, but has also often been pretty emphatic about it not being the main reason; and if he's specified what songs he felt he deserved credit on, a reliable source definitely needs to be cited. (note: opinions/speculation about what he probably felt he deserved co-writing credit on aren't "reliable sources" - i have my own ideas, but they aren't  worth beans. hearing it from Taylor is what would count.)
-:'''update:''' i've modified the first sentence to eliminate the "weasel-wordish" phrasing and to reflect that the credits question is *one* reason Taylor has given for leaving - i believe sources can be found for the statement as it now stands, and sure hope someone will provide one.  for the time being i've removed the list of songs suspected to be the ones Taylor felt he deserved credit on, since speculation doesn't belong here. if there's a published quote from a citable source where Taylor specifies what tracks he meant, that would be great to see - thanks. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-::'''update 2:''' i've added a source for Taylor stating that credits were *one* reason he left the Stones:
-:::"Q - There are two stories going around about why you left the Stones ... because of songwriting credit, or because you had a problem with your septum.
-:::"A - That's complete rubbish. It's not rubbish to say that I was a bit peeved about not getting credit for a couple of songs, but that wasn't the whole reason."
-::hope that helps. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 14:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-'''note to Ruby Tuesday: "actually Jones/Richards, but attributed to Jagger/Richards"'''
-funny to have a note that requires a source, but it does.  and i know this is another emotion-laden issue for some fans, but: a reliable source for this statement needs to be cited. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-:'''update:''' for the time being i've removed this statement - it really needs to be supported by citing a reliable source.
-:i've also modified the note to IORR (the single) a bit - i don't know how to add a reference to a footnote, but i hope what i've done is adequate! [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 18:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-==GOOD ARTICLE STATUS==
-I think we should seriously consider putting this article up for Good Article status.  This article has been very stable and hasn't had any edits to it since July, 2009.
-There are at least 2 very good reasons why this should be designated "GOOD ARTICLE" which I will list later.  [[User:V Schauf|V Schauf]] ([[User talk:V Schauf|talk]]) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-== the first MJ/KR Stones single ==
-i just want to explain the series of changes i made to this paragraph:
-it used to start with "despite claims to the contrary" or something like that, which i felt would be very confusing to readers who have never heard the "claims to the contrary"; and while pondering ways to clarify that without overelaborating, i realized that the reason Mick & Keith often say "The Last Time" was their first original single is not really forgetfulness - it was the first MJ/KR *UK single*, which means it was *their* idea to make it a single, not Andrew's/the record company's.  in those days of course the singles were a lot more important than album tracks, so proposing their own tune to the band as a single was a Big Deal, memorable, anecdote-worthy, etc.  since "Tell Me" was primarily an album track and it was someone else's decision to release it as a US single, that just wasn't as memorable to them.
-i'm not proposing that any of that should be included, mind you - just explaining why i decided that adding something about "The Last Time" was a valid way to "replace" the "despite claims to the contrary" part. hope that helps.  [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 11:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-== Under-utilized sources ==
-I don't think that the Rolling Stone interview of Mick Jagger (by Jann Wenner) in December 1995 and the Appleford book of the mid 1990s have been used enough in giving insight into the Rolling Stones history and, secondly, how songs were made.  Obviously, that's no one's fault, but I want to used both sources to give more info to readers interested in both topics.  [[User:V Schauf|V Schauf]] ([[User talk:V Schauf|talk]]) 10:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
-:just so people know: that 1995 Jagger interview is on line: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/mick_jagger_remembers/page
-:citing the print version is fine too, of course, but citing the online version (using the "cite web" template) has the advantage of allowing people to check out the entire original for themselves. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 11:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
-That's a good point, Ssoul, but the problem w/ the on-line article is that it's abridged and doesn't talk hardly at all about EXILE ON MAIN STREET and leaves other parts of the interview out.  However, if you subscribe to the view that part of the interview is better than nothing, than citing the URL is a good idea.
-By the way, I don't know if that was you Ssoul or not, but thanks to whoever improved my earlier editing this morning on this entry. [[User:V Schauf|V Schauf]] ([[User talk:V Schauf|talk]]) 14:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
-:::well ... maybe it is abridged - i don't have the print version to compare line by line - but maybe you missed that the online version is divided into parts. if you go to page 5 of part one, at the bottom there's a "continue" link that leads to part two, where Jagger talks a lot about Exile.  part three (which you get to by hitting "continue" at the bottom of page 5 of part two) seems to be having hiccups at the moment, but it's been there in the past and i trust it'll return. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
-=="Play with Fire" & "Sway"==
-*"Play with Fire" was written by entire band.
-*"Shake Your Hips" wasn't even written by them.
-*"Sway" was (although uncredited) co-written with Mick Taylor.
-Best, --[[User:Discographer|Discographer]] ([[User talk:Discographer|talk]]) 08:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-:I see your "uncredited Mick Taylor" and raise you a "Mick and Keith wrote 'Play with Fire' without the rest of the band late on night in a Hollywood studio with Phil Specter." [[User:Stan weller|Stan weller]] ([[User talk:Stan weller|talk]]) 09:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-:: er ... Play With Fire has been credited both to Nanker Phelge and Jagger/Richards – only they and ABKCO know why, i guess.  since by all accounts  the rest of the band doesn't even play on the track, my theory is that it was originally attributed to Nanker Phelge either due to a typo or as a way of keeping everyone happy.  the elaborate ways the band divided up songwriting & performance royalties in those days are really strange ... but i digress. since the original single was attributed to Nanker Phelge i agree that it shouldn't be on the list of J/R-penned singles.
-::Sway was never a single, was it??  so of course it doesn't belong in the list.  but if anyone has a reliable source that establishes that Taylor co-wrote it i'd be glad to see it. i know some fans regard that as "common knowledge", but Taylor later disavowed the only interview i've seen where he himself was reported to have said that.
-::of course Shake Your Hips never belonged on this list - thanks for noticing and removing it.  [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 09:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-:::You are correct, that Phil Spector did help write "[[Play with Fire (The Rolling Stones song)|Play with Fire]]", which is why it's not to be in the list. As for "[[Sway (The Rolling Stones song)|Sway]]", this could be argued, though very much indeed Mick Taylor helped write this song (though uncredited). This was released as the B-side of their single "Wild Horses". All the other singles shown in the list are 100% written by Jagger/Richards. Best, --[[User:Discographer|Discographer]] ([[User talk:Discographer|talk]]) 10:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-:::P.S. I take that back - "[[It's Only Rock 'n Roll (But I Like It)]]" was "inspiringly" written along with Ronnie Wood. Best, --[[User:Discographer|Discographer]] ([[User talk:Discographer|talk]]) 10:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-::::sorry but as y'all already know, unsourced speculation about who "should have been credited" isn't a good enough basis for changing Wikipedia content; if Sway was on a single then it belongs on this list unless you have a reliable source where Jagger, Richards and/or Taylor state that Taylor was one of the songwriters.  i propose putting Sway back in and changing the name of the list to "Rolling Stones singles credited to J/R" if that will satisfy everybody.  [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 11:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-:::::Click onto this: "[[Mick Taylor#The Rolling Stones|Sway]]", and read this section, please. Best, --[[User:Discographer|Discographer]] ([[User talk:Discographer|talk]]) 20:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-:::::P.S. Seriously though, it doesn't really matter too much to me if we include "Sway" or not. If we do, we should show a note like that of "It's Only Rock 'n Roll (But I Like It)". Best, --[[User:Discographer|Discographer]] ([[User talk:Discographer|talk]]) 20:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-::::::(edit conflict) i'm real familiar with fans' views of this, but Jagger doesn't say Taylor co-wrote the songs they worked on together. can we settle for changing the name of the list to "Rolling Stones singles credited to J/R" and putting "Sway" back in? [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 20:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::We can put "Sway" back in. Also, you mean renaming this section in the article, right, not ''the article itself''? Best, --[[User:Discographer|Discographer]] ([[User talk:Discographer|talk]]) 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::Done. Best, --[[User:Discographer|Discographer]] ([[User talk:Discographer|talk]]) 21:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::yeah i meant that one section.  thanks [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 22:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
-== the chart-form "co-credits" section  ==
-thanks for the effort, [[User:Darwin's Bulldog]], but i have to say i have mixed feelings about whether or not it's an improvement.  it looks snazzy (or anyway it will look snazzy when the blank fields are filled in) but it also makes it more difficult for other editors to add to/modify the information. and there was nothing wrong with the section being in plain prose - it wasn't disorganized or unwieldy in any way. can you undo the change for now  so that editors can discuss whether the chart form improves the article or not? thanks [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 07:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
-:Fail to see how it'd be "more difficult" for editors to add to/modify the information. It's not like it's coded in html or ancient Chinese in the chart. [[User:Darwin&#39;s Bulldog|Darwin&#39;s Bulldog]] ([[User talk:Darwin&#39;s Bulldog|talk]]) 08:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
-::thanks for responding, Darwin's Bulldog. i understand that it's not problematic to someone who knows how to create charts, but since the edit window does look more daunting now to me, i believe it will look even more daunting to even less experienced editors.  is there some reason this section "needs" to be in chart form rather than prose? [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 08:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
-:::The idea of the chart is for organization and reference. [[User:Darwin&#39;s Bulldog|Darwin&#39;s Bulldog]] ([[User talk:Darwin&#39;s Bulldog|talk]]) 08:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
-::::thanks – as i've said i think the prose form was sufficiently well-organized, clear, easy to read, etc, and it had the advantage of not creating extra hurdles to editors wanting to add to/modify it.  another advantage of prose is that there were no glaring blank fields to fill in - people could click on links to find out who ALO is, who Steve Jordan is, etc; they can do that in the chart too, of course, but those big blank fields look bad.
-::::i hope other editors will chime in with their opinions.
-::::meanwhile, Darwin's Bulldog, if you're not going to revert the chart for now, could you change "the Stones" to "the Rolling Stones" throughout it, please, and fill in the blank fields? (that's what i was going to do when i opened the edit window and felt too daunted, in my undercaffeinated state, by the need to locate the appropriate "boxes".)  thanks  [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 08:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
-== Other co-credits ==
-George Michael should be included, as his 1990 single, "Waiting For That Day", has him singing "You Can't Always Get What You Want" near the end of his song, and both Mick and Keith got a co-writers credit.
-Also, Jimbob (real name Jim Morrison, no relation) from Carter The Unstoppable Sex Machine should also get a mention, as his band had a single called "After The Watershed" in 1991 and got sued by the Stones publishers over the borrowing of "Ruby Tuesday", who demanded 100% of the song's royalties even though it was only a small section in the song.  And again, Mick and Keith were co-credited with the song afterwards.([[User:Andrew07|Andrew07]] ([[User talk:Andrew07|talk]]) 20:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
-== riley mulcahy ==
-==File:Jagger-and-Richards.jpg Nominated for Deletion==
-{|
-|-
-| [[Image:Icon Now Commons orange.svg|50px]]
-| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:Jagger-and-Richards.jpg|File:Jagger-and-Richards.jpg]], has been nominated for deletion at [[Wikimedia Commons]] in the following category: ''Deletion requests July 2011''
-;What should I do?
-|-
-|
-| A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ([[commons:COM:SPEEDY]] has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
-''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 10:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
-|}
-== Why two pages? ==
+== Requested move 31 January 2020 ==
-On this page there is a list of Jagger/Richards Rolling Stones compositions and then a link to a list of all Jagger-Richards compositions.  Since this is a page on Jagger/Richards collaborations shouldn't all their collaborations be included on this page (and the other page deleted).  The non-Stones credits could go in a separate list on this page.  [[User:CaperBill|CaperBill]] ([[User talk:CaperBill|talk]]) 01:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
+<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
+:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
+The result of the move request was: '''Moved''' to "Jagger–Richards", as per general agreement that it is a better title.<small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> {{#if:|<small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>|{{#if:|<small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small>}}}} [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 14:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
-== Missed song on the list ==
+----
+[[:Jagger/Richards]] → {{no redirect|Jagger and Richards}} – A query has been raised at [[Talk:The_Rolling_Stones]] regarding the use of Jagger/Richards to identify the songwriting partnership. A suggestion has been put forward to use Jagger–Richards instead, and this has some merit. However, on looking into the matter, I note that Jagger and Richards is currently the most common way in sources, including the band's own albums, to identify the partnership, and [[Foo and Foo]] or [[Foo & Foo]] is the most common article name used on Wikipedia to identify articles on songwriting partnerships. I feel both [[Jagger–Richards]]  and [[Jagger and Richards]] have merit, while [[Jagger/Richards]] is problematic as it is rarely used these days, and - as pointed out on [[Talk:The_Rolling_Stones]] - is incorrect usage. As [[Jagger and Richards]] is currently commonly used, is consistent with the majority of such articles on Wikipedia, and has the benefit of being able to be used in flowing prose, as in the opening paragraph of [[The Rolling Stones]], that is the one I am suggesting we use. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 17:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC) <small>—'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;[[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 14:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)</small>
+*'''Comment''': This reminds me of the discussion recorded [[Talk:Coverdale–Page (band)|here]], following which {{-r|Coverdale•Page}} ended up at {{-r|Coverdale–Page}}. On the other hand, there is also {{-r|Page and Plant}}. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 20:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
+*Seeing as a punctuation mark has been the preferred option (here and in the likes of [[:Category:Songs written by Jagger/Richards]] and the Stones song articles), I favour "Jagger–Richards", which would be consistent with partnerships such as [[Lennon–McCartney]] and [[Holland–Dozier–Holland]]. It surprises me that a slash (= solidus) was ever used on Wikipedia, because, strictly speaking, it's not the correct form in this context. Having done quite a bit of work recently at the ''Aftermath'' album article, and dusted off the Stones biographies I own (by Philip Norman, Stephen Davis, Victor Bockris, Chris Salewicz, Barbara Charone), I'm pretty sure they all refer to "Jagger–Richards songs". I'm not saying one won't find mentions of "Jagger/Richards" in Stones literature, as in some of their artwork no doubt, but further to BarrelProof's {{-r|Coverdale•Page}} example, I suggest that could just be a design affectation, if not incorrect usage of punctuation markup that we need not faithfully reproduce. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 02:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
+----
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>
+== Mick Jagger up for FAC ==
+[[Mick Jagger]] is now up for FAC. All input welcome. If you wish to participate, the discussion can be found here: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mick Jagger/archive1]]. [[User:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">The</span><span style="color:#009933; font-weight:bold;">SandDoctor</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
-What about songs like "Lonely at the Top" released on ''She's the Boss.''  Not a stones song, but a still Jagger Richards song.[[User:CaperBill|CaperBill]] ([[User talk:CaperBill|talk]]) 01:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)