Contents
- 1 "Scream in Blue" song
- 2 Recent changes to infoboxes
- 3 Primitive (song)
- 4 WP:PROD of Detektivbyrån – Hemstad
- 5 Jesus and Mary Chain merge
- 6 E (Big Bang album)
- 7 On Muboraksho's song "Ay Yorum Biyo"
- 8 Proposed deletion of Smooth (Florida Georgia Line song)
- 9 Nomination of Smooth (Florida Georgia Line song) for deletion
- 10 Following me
- 11 August 2017
- 12 Hiya!!
- 13 Redirect
- 14 Talk page of redirects
- 15 A beer for you!
- 16 Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2018 songs
- 17 A barnstar for you!
- 18 Category:Songs written by D.O.E. has been nominated for discussion
- 19 Compositions/songs
- 20 "Still not defining without secondary discussion of lyrics contained in the article read WP:OR"
- 21 New Page Reviewing
- 22 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 23 Seasons' Greetings
- 24 Articles for Creation Reviewing
- 25 Hiya
- 26 Poppy categories
- 27 How?
- 28 Unnecessary disambiguation
- 29 Fancy a trip to ANI?
- 30 When I Sing
- 31 Category:Songs written by Takeoff (rapper) has been nominated for discussion
- 32 You're gonna make me lonesome
- 33 R from song vs R from unnecessary disambiguation
- 34 "Unlikely"?
- 35 April 2018
- 36 Category:Songs written by Brian Kelley (recording artist) has been nominated for discussion
- 37 Dylan's discography
- 38 Redirects are cheap
- 39 CFD result
- 40 Ha
- 41 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 42 December 2018
- 43 Christmas Is
- 44 Walk on Water (Basshunter song)
- 45 Songs by instrument
- 46 Categories
- 47 Gold
- 48 Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cameo Records singles
- 49 Category:Cameo Records singles has been nominated for discussion
- 50 A barnstar for you!
- 51 Category:Songs written by Basshunter has been nominated for discussion
"Scream in Blue" song
I've moved the useful content to the article for the related album. Would a redirect work better than a PROD? I'm happy with whatever you decide.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have never been in favour of every song having an entry, nor being a redirect. However, if you wish to turn this into a redirect I would not oppose. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think I'll let it go to PROD heaven, then. No redirect by me.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Recent changes to infoboxes
I'm unsure why you made these changes to "I Remember You"[1], "Blue Moon"[2] and several others. They make proper use of the Composer and Lyricist parameters (see Template:Infobox song#Parameters). What guidelines are you following? Isn't this something that should be discussed first? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
See Template talk:Infobox song#Removing Composer and Lyricist fields from song infoboxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Primitive (song)
Primitive (song) and Primitive (Cyndi Lauper song) are both redirects for the same topic, so putting cats on both of them means that song is listed twice in all the tagged categories, giving the misleading impression they are different songs, and bloating those cats with redundancies. One of the redirects needs to be stripped of its cat tags. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks now marked Primitive (Cyndi Lauper song) as unn disambig. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:PROD of Detektivbyrån – Hemstad
I hope that I have resolved your opinions on Detektivbyrån – Hemstad by merging it into E18 Album, does this look reasonable to you?
Jesus and Mary Chain merge
Hi,
I undid your merge of "I Love Rock 'n' Roll (The Jesus and Mary Chain song)" and "I Hate Rock 'n' Roll". These two songs are not the same song by any measure:
- Titles are similar but different
- Lyrics are completely different:
- Harmonic (chord) structure is different:
- Arrangement is completely different:
The main similarity is the lyrical theme (i.e. opposite sides of same theme) and they are probably related (i.e. one was inspired by the other) since they are also on the same album (Munki), but that doesn't make them the same song, or covers as WP:COVERSONG.
Philippe (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- I quote from the article, "The song is a reworked version of a previous song, "I Hate Rock 'n' Roll", which was included in the band's 1995 compilation album, Hate Rock 'n' Roll" which pretty much disagrees with you and supports my action. Generally the purpose of cover versions, and "re-worked versions" is to reflect one and other and therefore the connection should be made clearer, not separated by different articles. Harmonic structure does not make a new song (or at least at the time these songs were written). I can think of other examples of similar songs on the same album have not warranted 2 articles, but, hey, I really can't be bothered to argue about two articles which, in the fullness of time, will probably be deleted. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
E (Big Bang album)
Hi I noticed you moved page E (Big Bang single) to E (Big Bang album) over redirect: article says it's an album) on 13:01, 16 February 2017. However this article is very much about a single, and not an album. I've tried and failed to move the article back to its original page being – E (Big Bang single) however I found that I could not. Could you possibly help? Thank you. Alexataylor07 (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- The text says it a "single album", the categorization scheme lists it as an album, as you say, the title calls it an album, the one thing that doesn't match is the infobox. You need to explain why it is not an album... --Richhoncho (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
E (Big Bang album) should not be classified as an album even though it is called a "single album" as it contains 2 songs which are released as a double single. The short length alone makes it unjustifiable to call it an "album". Moreover, I am trying to keep E (Big Bang album) in the same format as their other singles from the same "series" which are M (Big Bang single), A (Big Bang single) and D (Big Bang single). It does not make sense and only disrupts the single chronology sequence if only one of them is classified as an album and not the rest, which are currently all classified as singles. Alexataylor07 (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest you read [conventions] which says the word "single" should not be used for disambiguation. My understanding of the article it is about both the single and the album, where I would expect the album to take precedence... --Richhoncho (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I have read the conventions and considered carefully. It is correct that E (Big Bang album) also refers to the CD album released physically, in which there were a total of 8 tracks (+2 instrumentals), where normally the 'album' title will take precedence. However this is more widely recognised by the public as a digital single of 2 songs instead of the actual album as the CD was released as a kind of fan collectible item rather than a normal album. Also, the majority of sales reflect the digital sales of the single and not the physical album. Another user has also raised this issue here as this also applies to other material in their discography. Alexataylor07 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The band's full-length studio album Made (2016) also lists E (Big Bang album) (2015) as a single from the album. Alexataylor07 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
On Muboraksho's song "Ay Yorum Biyo"
Dear Richhoncho,
I noticed you removed the lyrics of the song by Muboraksho citing the copyright infringement. The original text (in Farsi) is a combination of folk rhymes, which was performed by the late Muboraksho in the early 1980's. Translations of the texts were done by me many years ago for the Wiki purposes only. I do not understand which "copyright" do you refer to...
Best regards, Farrukh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farid2053 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- It is listed as a 1988 song, which means there will probably be a copyright on behalf of the authors. You may wish to check here for further information, and if you feel the lyrics should/can be re-added I suggest you take the matter to copyright infringements for clarification. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- OK, perhaps a clarification is in order. The song itself is a folk song, but had been re-written and arranged by Muboraksho a decade earlier than the year of 1988. In 1988 Yarmahmad Aralev went to a concert in which Muboraksho performed the song as parts of Daler Nazarov's group. The director liked the song (the way performed by Muboraksho, in particular) so much that he had invited Muboraksho to play the role in the movie that he convinced Daler Nazarov to take part in it. Muboraksho had refused to play in the movie, nevertheless allowed his song to be part of the movie. Now the text of the song is a FOLK song, which means no copyright can ever be made. These stories that I am writing are my recollections of old journals/magazines that storied appeared at first in late 1980's in the former Soviet Union. In the early 1990's Tajikistan went into Civil War and many of these prints are now gone. Muboraksho, unfortunately, passed away in 2000. I would therefore simply revert and put the text back in its place. --Farid2053 —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you need to read and amend the article, take your lyrics comment to here and proceed from there. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- OK, perhaps a clarification is in order. The song itself is a folk song, but had been re-written and arranged by Muboraksho a decade earlier than the year of 1988. In 1988 Yarmahmad Aralev went to a concert in which Muboraksho performed the song as parts of Daler Nazarov's group. The director liked the song (the way performed by Muboraksho, in particular) so much that he had invited Muboraksho to play the role in the movie that he convinced Daler Nazarov to take part in it. Muboraksho had refused to play in the movie, nevertheless allowed his song to be part of the movie. Now the text of the song is a FOLK song, which means no copyright can ever be made. These stories that I am writing are my recollections of old journals/magazines that storied appeared at first in late 1980's in the former Soviet Union. In the early 1990's Tajikistan went into Civil War and many of these prints are now gone. Muboraksho, unfortunately, passed away in 2000. I would therefore simply revert and put the text back in its place. --Farid2053 —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Smooth (Florida Georgia Line song)
![Ambox warning yellow.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20190411234414im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Smooth (Florida Georgia Line song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
one reference and no indication of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Smooth (Florida Georgia Line song) for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190411234414im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Smooth (Florida Georgia Line song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smooth (Florida Georgia Line song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Following me
It appears for the past few days you've been watching my contributions and going through all of the redirects I've created: why? Is this necessary? No, there's no Wikipedia guideline against doing it, but I don't see why it's necessary to categorise redirects and further, to create talk pages for redirects when they're never going to be used. It does not seem that long ago that upon being tagged by Another Believer on the talk page of a Katy Perry redirect you were saying that editors create too many redirects; well you appear to be encouraging these redirects' existence by creating supporting talk pages and editing them wherever you can. I don't enjoy being followed by editors in this manner. I'm sure there are plenty more editors who create more redirects than I do that you can follow if you're really looking for something to do. Ss112 20:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not following you at all. It's the way I have set up my watchlist. And although I stand by my belief that too many unnecessary redirects are being created (a whole album needs redirects?) I am not making an issue of it. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- How have you set up your watchlist and what watchlist are you talking about? You can't be talking about Special:Watchlist, as you have to click to watch select pages for them to show up on that and there is no method I know of where pages that haven't been created yet show up automatically. I also don't really see you (of late, anyway) adding categories and creating the talk pages of redirects for the redirects other music editors create, only mine, and I don't understand how it appears you've set up a watchlist to monitor most of the redirects I create. If you could explain what watchlist you mean and how my redirects show up more often than others' (if you edit based on what shows up there and that is reflected in what you've edited recently), that would be appreciated. (Also, I reverted your addition of categories on Miss You So Much and I Would Die for You (Miley Cyrus song) because those don't have confirmed songwriters as far as I'm aware, and they are not reflected on the article for Younger Now.) Ss112 11:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- There are a number of boxes on the watchlist which are ticked as hidden, but can be unticked. I have "Page categorisation" unticked. Is that alright with you? BTW I have reverted you and if you stop and think about it for a couple of seconds you will understand exactly why your reversions were wrong. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, as you won't be clever enough to work it out, why do you approve of some categories but not others and exactly what gives you the right to amend another's editing without a supporting guideline? Got it? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Approve of same categories"? I did stop and think about it. Oren and Cyrus are not credited as songwriters on these songs on the article for Younger Now, so where are you getting the information that they are the writers of those from? That's original research. Also, that explanation still does not explain how new redirects I'm creating are showing up on your watchlist. As every editor knows, the watchlist is for pages that you have to go to those pages to click to "watch". That doesn't explain how new pages I'm creating show up on your Wikipedia watchlist: this is not automatic. There is no option to "make every redirect a user creates show up on my watchlist". Also, please stop getting personal and implying I'm stupid. Keep judgements of other editors out of it. Ss112 12:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- An apology is due to you, I misread the album article. I fully agree that there must be factual basis for adding information. Perhaps we would have sorted this quicker if it wasn't an ad hominem attack on a fellow editor? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if it came off as an attack, but I still don't understand how you're seeing redirects I create unless you're directly looking at my contributions. Ss112 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- On your watchlist you will see the following: Hide: registered users unregistered users my edits bots minor edits page categorization Wikidata probably good edits. As I have unchecked page categorization, any addition or removal to a category on my watchlist will appear on my watchlist. Equally, say, you can ignore anything from registered users. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what I mean. I'm not talking about how you're finding categories being added or removed on pages you're already watching. I'm not talking about the watchlist at all. I'm asking how you are finding new redirects I am creating then adding categories to them unless you are looking at my contributions page multiple times a day. 24 hours ago, you added categories to a bunch of the band The Script's song redirects that I had edited (example), then several hours later you found the Beck redirects I had just created (example), then the Steven Wilson ones (example). There's no explanation I can find as to how you knew these had just been created unless you are following my contributions. This has nothing to do with Special:Watchlist. Ss112 14:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think I can explain it anymore, if ANYBODY adds or removes to certain categories the entry shows on MY watchlist. You need to add a couple of cats and click the box on your watchlist to see it. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what I mean. I'm not talking about how you're finding categories being added or removed on pages you're already watching. I'm not talking about the watchlist at all. I'm asking how you are finding new redirects I am creating then adding categories to them unless you are looking at my contributions page multiple times a day. 24 hours ago, you added categories to a bunch of the band The Script's song redirects that I had edited (example), then several hours later you found the Beck redirects I had just created (example), then the Steven Wilson ones (example). There's no explanation I can find as to how you knew these had just been created unless you are following my contributions. This has nothing to do with Special:Watchlist. Ss112 14:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- On your watchlist you will see the following: Hide: registered users unregistered users my edits bots minor edits page categorization Wikidata probably good edits. As I have unchecked page categorization, any addition or removal to a category on my watchlist will appear on my watchlist. Equally, say, you can ignore anything from registered users. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if it came off as an attack, but I still don't understand how you're seeing redirects I create unless you're directly looking at my contributions. Ss112 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- An apology is due to you, I misread the album article. I fully agree that there must be factual basis for adding information. Perhaps we would have sorted this quicker if it wasn't an ad hominem attack on a fellow editor? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Approve of same categories"? I did stop and think about it. Oren and Cyrus are not credited as songwriters on these songs on the article for Younger Now, so where are you getting the information that they are the writers of those from? That's original research. Also, that explanation still does not explain how new redirects I'm creating are showing up on your watchlist. As every editor knows, the watchlist is for pages that you have to go to those pages to click to "watch". That doesn't explain how new pages I'm creating show up on your Wikipedia watchlist: this is not automatic. There is no option to "make every redirect a user creates show up on my watchlist". Also, please stop getting personal and implying I'm stupid. Keep judgements of other editors out of it. Ss112 12:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- How have you set up your watchlist and what watchlist are you talking about? You can't be talking about Special:Watchlist, as you have to click to watch select pages for them to show up on that and there is no method I know of where pages that haven't been created yet show up automatically. I also don't really see you (of late, anyway) adding categories and creating the talk pages of redirects for the redirects other music editors create, only mine, and I don't understand how it appears you've set up a watchlist to monitor most of the redirects I create. If you could explain what watchlist you mean and how my redirects show up more often than others' (if you edit based on what shows up there and that is reflected in what you've edited recently), that would be appreciated. (Also, I reverted your addition of categories on Miss You So Much and I Would Die for You (Miley Cyrus song) because those don't have confirmed songwriters as far as I'm aware, and they are not reflected on the article for Younger Now.) Ss112 11:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about categories. How did you find those pages? I had created the Beck and Steven Wilson pages and edited the Script ones not long before you did. How you found that these pages existed at all indicates that you are looking at what I have edited. Not talking about categories at all. I'm asking how you found that these pages existed. Ss112 14:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Because I am watching certain categories, for instance, (copied from my watchpage):-
- (diff | hist) . . Category:Redirects from songs; 07:23 . . Ss112 (talk | contribs) (Week Without You added to category)
- Trust me I am not looking at any editor's edit profile. Why don't you experiment with the functions at WP. You might be missing a trick or two? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, that explains a lot. Perhaps I should. Thank you. Ss112 14:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
August 2017
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190411234414im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/30px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pale Horses. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Walter, there are a number of editors adding categories to redirects. Wikipedia does not say do not categorise, and if you wish to make an issue of the matter, there are other editors adding categories. I find it underhanded, distasteful and lacking logic to putting warnings on a fellow editor for something that is not prescribed and I was correct to revert you. Perhaps you would like to consider your actions.--Richhoncho (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz:. While we are on what can be done and what can't be done at WP, I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with 3 revert rule. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Since you keep trolling me on my talk page to answer you on yours, let me state that I am quite familiar with 3RR, which is why I tagged you for engaging in an edit war.
- It doesn't matter how many editors add topics to redirects if they're not valid for the subject. It's not clear why the Moby song is more of a primary topic than the mewithoutYou album is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz:. While we are on what can be done and what can't be done at WP, I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with 3 revert rule. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hiya!!
I'm following up on your comments and working to improve the addition to the Sad Eyed Lady article. I'm looking at your comment - If the album is not notable (it's a redirect) and there is no references for the song then it is Non-Notable is spades and fails WP:NSONGS. Notability of performer is not relevant. - I understand the first part (it is in fact a redirect...as it is, the info on the band's discography is surprisingly weak...maybe I'll work on that....) but I'm not following "Non-Notable is spades and fails." I'll appreciate any feedback!!!! PurpleChez (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- BTW...I linked to the policy page you cited, but it seems to focus on stand-alone articles. Again... feedback is welcome.... PurpleChez (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- gotta correct my comment about their discography being sketchy...it's just that there's not a lot of info for this, their newest album. Looks like I've got a project for the evening....PurpleChez (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Using a song as a promotion for any band is NOT helpful. If a version of a song has reputable references and is notable in its own right then it could be added. A song being on a tribute album is hardly a significant recording of song. See WP:NSONGS. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- thanks for the response! Like I said, I read that policy page and it seemed to me to focus on stand-alone articles. Looking over the articles for the Blonde On Blonde songs - as well as many other songs - very few, if any, of the covers mentioned are notable in their own right. Most, in fact, seem to be quite obscure. As for songs appearing on tribute albums, roughly half of the covers listed for Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat are described in the article as specifically being from tribute albums. PurpleChez (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Point taken about covers listed, but they've been there a while, what we don't want, on any song article, is an endless list of covers. BTW Nsongs actually says, "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." The bold is mine. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- It seems rather arbitrary to remove a single entry, for no other reason than that it was the one most recently added, while leaving others which are (arguably) far less "notable" than those I've added - which reference recordings made by a popular, headlining, grammy award-winning band, and appearing on a recording that has received extensive national press coverage, such as in Rolling Stone and The New Yorker. To be quite frank, I just don't buy that avoiding "an endless list of covers" is accomplished by pruning a list from seven items down to six. But here's what is really confusing me... You cite the guideline "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions"...Each of the OCMS additions was "in one common article about the song and (its) cover versions". At no time, with any of these entries, was a new, stand-alone article created, which is what that policy seems to address. I realize that issues of notability and lengths of lists might be a matter of editorial judgement, but I simply do not understand how these additions violate Nsongs....PurpleChez (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs for discussion then, if you aren't going to accept from me that your additions, in this instance, are inappropriate, get confirmation from someone else. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- All I'm asking is how a policy that seems to address the creation of stand-alone articles applies to a sentence added to an existing article. I'm not questioning your expertise...just looking for clarification on this point...You seem to be taking the question as some sort of personal challenge - which was not intended.PurpleChez (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- When you take this matter elsewhere you will also be told because one thing exists here, it doesn't mean that it's OK there. You will note I have now removed all the cover versions on one article and trimmed considerably on another - with an edit description that suggests all covers can be removed. I pointed you to WP:NSONGS which read inter alia, "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." Having already agreed with me the album and the OCMS recordings were non-notable, why did you bother re-adding? Wasn't that the real challenge, to see if I cared enough to revert you. Now stop playing around, if you won't take it from me, go to WP:SONGS and discuss there... you might find support there, you won't here. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- You need to get over yourself, friend. At no time did I agree that the OCMS album was not notable...merely that the information in Wikipedia relating to it was limited...a situation that I have been working to remedy. It's sort of sad and paranoid that you are reading this as some sort of personal challenge, that you view a difference of opinion as "playing around." I didn't ask you for "support"...just to explain the policy you had cited. Cheers. PurpleChez (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- When you take this matter elsewhere you will also be told because one thing exists here, it doesn't mean that it's OK there. You will note I have now removed all the cover versions on one article and trimmed considerably on another - with an edit description that suggests all covers can be removed. I pointed you to WP:NSONGS which read inter alia, "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." Having already agreed with me the album and the OCMS recordings were non-notable, why did you bother re-adding? Wasn't that the real challenge, to see if I cared enough to revert you. Now stop playing around, if you won't take it from me, go to WP:SONGS and discuss there... you might find support there, you won't here. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- All I'm asking is how a policy that seems to address the creation of stand-alone articles applies to a sentence added to an existing article. I'm not questioning your expertise...just looking for clarification on this point...You seem to be taking the question as some sort of personal challenge - which was not intended.PurpleChez (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs for discussion then, if you aren't going to accept from me that your additions, in this instance, are inappropriate, get confirmation from someone else. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- It seems rather arbitrary to remove a single entry, for no other reason than that it was the one most recently added, while leaving others which are (arguably) far less "notable" than those I've added - which reference recordings made by a popular, headlining, grammy award-winning band, and appearing on a recording that has received extensive national press coverage, such as in Rolling Stone and The New Yorker. To be quite frank, I just don't buy that avoiding "an endless list of covers" is accomplished by pruning a list from seven items down to six. But here's what is really confusing me... You cite the guideline "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions"...Each of the OCMS additions was "in one common article about the song and (its) cover versions". At no time, with any of these entries, was a new, stand-alone article created, which is what that policy seems to address. I realize that issues of notability and lengths of lists might be a matter of editorial judgement, but I simply do not understand how these additions violate Nsongs....PurpleChez (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Point taken about covers listed, but they've been there a while, what we don't want, on any song article, is an endless list of covers. BTW Nsongs actually says, "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." The bold is mine. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- thanks for the response! Like I said, I read that policy page and it seemed to me to focus on stand-alone articles. Looking over the articles for the Blonde On Blonde songs - as well as many other songs - very few, if any, of the covers mentioned are notable in their own right. Most, in fact, seem to be quite obscure. As for songs appearing on tribute albums, roughly half of the covers listed for Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat are described in the article as specifically being from tribute albums. PurpleChez (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Using a song as a promotion for any band is NOT helpful. If a version of a song has reputable references and is notable in its own right then it could be added. A song being on a tribute album is hardly a significant recording of song. See WP:NSONGS. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Redirect
Hi Richhoncho, Could you do what is necessary to change the redirect from Roll with the Punches away from Two (Lenka album)? There is also a Dawes song and now a Van Morrison album with the same title. Thank you for your help. I don't know how to do it. Agadant (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking me, however, it's not quite as simple as your request appears, so I have taken your question to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Roll_with_the_Punches where we might get an answer. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Richhoncho! Agadant (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the Wikiproject with an inquiry about this issue is for songs. The Roll with the Punches titles are 2 songs by Lenka and Dawes but the latest is a soon to be released album with that title and may chart as high as the last 3 by Van Morrison which charted 15, 5 and 4 in the U.K. And 10, 23, 9 in the U. S. respectively. Sorry I should have noticed this earlier! Agadant (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Richhoncho! Agadant (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk page of redirects
Hey there, I appreciate your work at categorizing redirects and think you're doing a great job, but I don't really see the significance of it and why is it so important to create the talk page of a redirect and add categories like 2017 songs. Redirects are just helpful for readers to get to the target page. They have no greater value. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done at all, but it's just not necessary. I'm concerned because I get these on my watchlist a lot and I don't find them useful. If you want to do it anyways, go ahead, but I just wanted to tell you that there is no importance in creating talk pages of redirects. IMO, even the "R from song/album" template isn't very useful because redirects can change target anytime unless their names are specific. I add them anyways for the sake of adding value to the redirects I create. — Zawl 14:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- You are complaining because my editing appears on your watchlist? Go away and think that one through. If you didn't create unnecessary redirects nobody would have to clean up after you. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- The redirects I create are not unnecessary since they can be used to get to the album/artist page. They don't need cleaning up at all, they're just redirects and nothing more. — Zawl 14:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree, I have already told you so. If you are going to continue creating redirects I will continue to clean up after you. If you don't like that don't create unnecessary redirects. It's what the search function is for - see my comment at the RfD at Goldhouse. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- The redirects I create are not unnecessary since they can be used to get to the album/artist page. They don't need cleaning up at all, they're just redirects and nothing more. — Zawl 14:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
A beer for you!
![]() |
Keep up the good work. Cheers! — Zawl 11:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2018 songs
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190411234414im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Category:2018 songs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
I'd like to thank you for assistance in improving the song redirects I've created and any redirects I plan to make in the future. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC) |
- Thanks, but I wish you would not create redirects, they are unnecessary because a search would have discovered actual article in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Category:Songs written by D.O.E. has been nominated for discussion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190411234414im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Songs written by D.O.E., which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Onel5969 TT me 14:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Compositions/songs
You are adding classical composer categories to popular song categories. Right or wrong, here we bifurcate the two so that art music is made up of "compositions" which are "composed" and popular music constitutes "songs" which are "written". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- A musical scale is a musical scale, however it is composed! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- PS. @Koavf: Thanks for the discussion, Justin, but never mind, I leave you with a thought, how can you support categories by English language, but separate other things that are in the same language. Yeah, I know, opinions are wonderful. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the distinction is not really necessary or useful (e.g. jazz is both classical and popular...) But as it was, you had songs written by Kim Deal subcategorized as classical music, which is definitely inaccurate. I didn't come up with the scheme, I'm just trying to make sure that it's logical. If you support merging compositions with songs, I'd probably be in favor. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you added Enya in, which is not logical. I mean she's entitled to be considered a serious musician because somebody else writes the words. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Enya was already in Category:Songs by composer rather than Category:Songs by songwriter. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- You have dodged my point. If Enya had written the words AS WELL, she wouldn't have been entitled to be in the category. IOW, the more you do, the less respect you get. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Enya was already in Category:Songs by composer rather than Category:Songs by songwriter. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, you added Enya in, which is not logical. I mean she's entitled to be considered a serious musician because somebody else writes the words. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the distinction is not really necessary or useful (e.g. jazz is both classical and popular...) But as it was, you had songs written by Kim Deal subcategorized as classical music, which is definitely inaccurate. I didn't come up with the scheme, I'm just trying to make sure that it's logical. If you support merging compositions with songs, I'd probably be in favor. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- PS. @Koavf: Thanks for the discussion, Justin, but never mind, I leave you with a thought, how can you support categories by English language, but separate other things that are in the same language. Yeah, I know, opinions are wonderful. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
"Still not defining without secondary discussion of lyrics contained in the article read WP:OR"
Say what?
45.72.224.206 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- As already discussed, categorisation relates to bringing defining identifications of articles together, where there is no confirming evidence then that must be WP:OR and should be removed. Pretty much as you said at the discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- PS. Now you have added the link for Metrolyrics I note the first two lines are : We know a place where no planes go/We know a place where no ships go etc. The song is not about ships, places or cars, but a place! Still there is nothing in the article i.e. secondary sources discussing how the song is about automobiles, it should not be added to that category. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Where did I add a link for Metrolyrics?
- Btw, just in case it's only my computer, how well do the ELs in that article download for you? If they DL easily, feel free to remove the template I put in—actually as I know little about templates, I might have put the wrong one in. If however, you have the same problems I have, that article might have to be deleted for a lack of sourcing. I can't get the first two reference links.
- Songs can be about a multiple of things. Free Man in Paris is about both Paris and David Geffen. Yes, it can be about a place, a place were no cars go, and no planes, and no ships, and no spaceships, and no subs. But given how cars are more prominent—true, I have no sources to prove it—and figure more in the lives of the people—again, I have no sources to prove it—and the word "cars" appear 5x more than any of the others; and that the title has the word "cars", I'm willing to risk that cars are more than a passing reference.
But if WP allows absolutely definately nothing unless it's referred to by secondary sources: well what can you do? - Back to the ELs, if a fraction of song articles in WP are as badly sourced as No Cars Go, there might have to be a lot of deleting, as well as pulling out of categories.
- YouTube comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P77GfpzqDvQ
No COSTCO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83KR_UBWdPI
we know a place with no costco :D - Lyrics are in this YouTube page:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8b0jnkVDFU - Category:Songs about heroin has Brown Sugar (The Rolling Stones song). "heroin" appears twice in the article—one going to the article, one to the (current) heroin category, and the link backing it—^ Unterberger, Richie. The Rolling Stones "Brown Sugar". allmusic.—seems not to have a mention to it.
Shall we remove it from the category? - Daddy's Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car is apparantly about heroin addiction. Faack, I thought it was about a spoiled rich daughter who does things like wrecks cars.
- I suppose a List of songs about automobiles is out of the question.
- 45.72.224.206 (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yu added the EL and here's the proof, [3]. At this point there is nothing further to discuss. If you want a fight go somewhere else. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- PS. Now you have added the link for Metrolyrics I note the first two lines are : We know a place where no planes go/We know a place where no ships go etc. The song is not about ships, places or cars, but a place! Still there is nothing in the article i.e. secondary sources discussing how the song is about automobiles, it should not be added to that category. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Whooa! I ain't fighting. I gave that up. Just talking. I put in the template. Another put in the EL.45.72.224.206 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- A LyricsBot put in the EL link.45.72.224.206 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewing
Hello, Richhoncho.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, |
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles for Creation Reviewing
Hello, Richhoncho.
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. |
Hiya
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imperfection_(Evanescence_song)&redirect=no There are two redirects both with categories for this song. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, sorted. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Um, yep but shouldn't (song) be the one with no cats and redirecting to dab page? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, the direction at WP is for the shortest possible title, and however I feel about it, that's the guideline. FWIW. Your edit at Imaginary (song) is hardly helpful. Perhaps you'd like to review again. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, You're a sensible editor so I must be missing something, or I'm not getting it. Neither of these songs have articles, neither is the only song. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- I note you have edited the target to put the redirect correct. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, You're a sensible editor so I must be missing something, or I'm not getting it. Neither of these songs have articles, neither is the only song. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, the direction at WP is for the shortest possible title, and however I feel about it, that's the guideline. FWIW. Your edit at Imaginary (song) is hardly helpful. Perhaps you'd like to review again. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Um, yep but shouldn't (song) be the one with no cats and redirecting to dab page? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Poppy categories
Hi. Saw you were changing the 'Poppy (singer)' categories to go along with the main category, 'Poppy (singer)'. Can we just change the main category to 'Poppy' (which is not being used) and reroute the rest to that one? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is standard for the titles of articles and relevant categories to match. If the article was at Poppy I would support Poppy songs. You can oppose at the listing, but you would not be supported. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not opposing, just asking for that clarification. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
How?
How did you even find the Britney Spears redirects I created if I never added anything to them? Did you go back through my contributions history to August 2016 to see what I made then? Now you've been going through and creating talk pages and adding categories to a slew of other pages I never tagged with R from song or anything that you would have been able to identify them with (from August 2017, IU's songs from Palette). Then editing This Is Me (Keala Settle song) minutes after I did, indicating you are currently checking up on what I'm doing. By all means, do try and explain how else you found these redirects I created if I never added anything to them other than you seeking out what I've made. But please, find somebody else's contributions to trawl through. I'm getting tired of being the target of your unnecessary "maintenance". This is starting to seem like WP:Wikihounding. Ss112 19:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- We have had this discussion before and NO, I am not persecuting, following or otherwise interested in you or your actions. A simple search of my edit history would prove that. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- PS. Why are you creating redirects for non-existent songs? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Right, then how else did you find redirects I created a year apart (for Britney Spears' and IU's albums, and several other redirects I see I made) when I never tagged them with anything else? If you didn't look up what I did in August 2016, how else did you see I created redirects for Britney Spears songs that apparently "don't exist"? LOL. Ss112 19:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK, but you need to answer my question too. I came across a song from the BS album, and as a matter of course I now check the redirects to that album. OK? Soon WP will decide to delete all these redirects and the sooner the better. Now, why create non-existent songs? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Your idea that Wikipedia as a whole is going to come together at some unspecified point in the future to delete redirects when the current consensus is redirects are mostly useful and all the users creating a bunch of them has done little to change that general opinion is a completely unfounded scenario. But if that did happen, you know what would happen then, right? About half your entire edits would be erased, because you tag "all these redirects" and create talk pages for them. In fact, I'd wager you'd have little else to do on WP these days if you didn't feel the need to categorise and create talk pages for other users' redirects. But whatever, you find things to do, so do others. To answer your question, you do realise artists write and record more songs than end up on the final album, right? That album configurations change? Some songs stay, some get switched for others that are stronger. That's what happened in this scenario. The songs "Accelerate" and "Glory" exist, they were just left off the album's final configuration. The article did say they were included at one point, hence why I created them. I didn't invent song titles because I felt like it. By all means, they can be deleted because they're not on any current edition of the album and the article as it stands does not support their existence. I don't really care. I forgot they even existed. Ss112 19:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is no mention of Glory or Accelerate on the BS album. I checked carefully. As for what is here and what is not, nobody should contribute to WP if they think their work is sacrosanct (there's an essay or something on the matter), which is exactly the opposite of your opinion of your edits, otherwise you wouldn't keep banging on about them!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we've established that there is no mention of the songs on the article at present. I just said as much. I said "they were included at one point". As for what else you've just said, there's a difference between thinking one's edits are sacrosanct or unquestionable and somebody stalking them, which nobody would enjoy. The latter is what I take issue with, because how you jumped from my Britney redirects to my IU ones still escapes me. Ss112 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- For the last time, I am not, have never and have no intention of stalking or following you. I will, if I chance on up, something of yours that I feel needs improvement, I will. Now, please, the information is there, please do your own checks to ascertain I am not following you. I am not responding to you nasty accusations again. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- What information is there? I asked how you found I created redirects for IU's songs so soon after you edited the ones I created for Britney Spears' songs. There is no story being told through your edits, i.e. something that explains how you found these redirects by chance. I really don't think saying "I think you were stalking me" is the nastiest accusation one could make, but okay, sure. Ss112 20:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary disambiguation
Hi, I noticed you added {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} to a number of pages, but that is generally used only in cases where a longer disambiguating term/phrase redirects to the base term or to a title with the same base name and shorter disambiguating term/phrase. For songs redirecting to albums, use {{R to album}} or {{R from song}} older ≠ wiser 11:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I note what you say, but in most of these instances they are duplicate and triplicate versions of the same title, i.e Title, Title (song) and Title (XXX song) and really aren't songs, because the correct entry (according to WP guidelines) has been marked as the song. In truth the kindest thing to do to them is delete, but as the mantra is "redirects are cheap" seems little point in going there. Any better suggestions? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Unless it's a bad redirect, I'm generally in the "redirects are cheap" camp, although I might make a suggestion to the responsible editor. I don't think there is any concern with multiple variants of a redirect being in same redirect category. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- But you have added to {{R from song}} where they don't belong either because they are not songs. I am happy not to add to r from unnec disambiguation, if that suits you, but I cannot see any value in adding the same song over and over again in R from songs. Any other solutions? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying. But the redirect titles are meant to refer to songs. On the one hand, if a redirect is a plausible possible title for an article about a song, it arguably belongs in that category. On the other hand, I think if I follow what you're saying, the "extra" redirects are unnecessary. Let's consider an actual example. So you put Paradisia (Björk song) into Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation and I moved it into Category:Redirects from songs. You had also added Paradisia (song) to Category:Redirects from songs. So now, in the event that an article is written about the song, the title would be Paradisia (song) and in that case Paradisia (Björk song) would indeed be unnecessary disambiguation (nb I just created the disambiguation page at Paradisia). With this approach, Paradisia (Björk song) would only be valid in Category:Redirects from songs if there were an article about another song named "Paradisia". But I think having entries in Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation where the target is something completely different from the base name is a significant departure from what the category was meant for. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Could we agree to remove all templates from the Bjork redirects? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- But you have added to {{R from song}} where they don't belong either because they are not songs. I am happy not to add to r from unnec disambiguation, if that suits you, but I cannot see any value in adding the same song over and over again in R from songs. Any other solutions? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Unless it's a bad redirect, I'm generally in the "redirects are cheap" camp, although I might make a suggestion to the responsible editor. I don't think there is any concern with multiple variants of a redirect being in same redirect category. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bkonrad:. I was expecting an answer to my question above, but I find that would not be best practice either as editors will add the song to the various categories, thereby creating more confusion. What solution is there to noting that a redirect is a duplicate? Any suggestions? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I dunno. I'm inclined to punt and just put them in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. older ≠ wiser 21:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like a plan. I'll try and see who will object! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Fancy a trip to ANI?
...do this again and I'll take you there, personally. CassiantoTalk 10:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Cassianto: Perhaps you'd like to warn the instigator first, see their edit. comment by Eric Corbett in edit summary which being an comment on an edit has far more visibility and to which I was responding. If you get no response from Eric Corbett, then maybe you should take it to ANI. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- You are the instigator as you are warring over the silly "article needs an infobox" tag. It doesn't. No article needs an infobox, as Eric has pointed out. Your reluctance to accept it is what is causing the problem. CassiantoTalk 10:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind support for Eric. Take me to ANI or leave it be. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- You are the instigator as you are warring over the silly "article needs an infobox" tag. It doesn't. No article needs an infobox, as Eric has pointed out. Your reluctance to accept it is what is causing the problem. CassiantoTalk 10:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Cassianto: Perhaps you'd like to warn the instigator first, see their edit. comment by Eric Corbett in edit summary which being an comment on an edit has far more visibility and to which I was responding. If you get no response from Eric Corbett, then maybe you should take it to ANI. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
When I Sing
- Who's this guy above? this was a toilet break how did you catch it? :o In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- The guy above is a an editor who threatened me with ANI for repeating something offensive that his friend wrote in an edit summary! I let it ride because you can't win arguing with idiots. In respect of your second question I watch the songwriter cats and their members. Feel free to make the dab page if you want, but we both need to be more careful at times... --Richhoncho (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Category:Songs written by Takeoff (rapper) has been nominated for discussion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190411234414im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Songs written by Takeoff (rapper), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
You're gonna make me lonesome
Hi Richhoncho, sorry but what kind of idea is that to revert my whole edit by simply stating "not true"? I put in the link for Chekhov, and I mentioned the names Verlaine and Rimbaud which are in the song. Plus, if you look at the lyrics on [4], it says the author's relationships have been "like Verlaine's and Rimbaud" which should be "like Verlaine's and Rimbaud's". --Bernardoni (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
R from song vs R from unnecessary disambiguation
Hi, when redirecting a title for a song to article for the album or artist, please use {{R from song}} instead of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Unnecessary disambiguation only applies in cases where the parenthetical term (or a portion of it) is unnecessary and the target for the redirect is the title without the parenthetical (or with the shortened form of the parenthetical). Regards, older ≠ wiser 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, we've been through this discussion before (see above) and had it sorted, save that now I have another editor on my tail that doesn't like your suggestion. If it's an error/duplicate it can't be a r from song. I am fairly solid behind that, but would welcome another suggestion that everybody can get behind.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- On second look, it appears you are disagreeing with what you told me to do! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- The last suggestion I made there was to put them in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. But IMO, I still think {{R from song}} is less erroneous than {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- And I still say R from song is incorrect. As we agreed above, R from song, does not belong on duplicate redirects, now do you want to make another suggestion? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- To reiterate what I said, I think {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is unacceptably incorrect. While I think {{R from song}} is less inaccurate, I can accept placing them in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. older ≠ wiser 16:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Then perhaps, if you hadn't gone back on yourself and made this [5] we wouldn't be wasting our time having this discussion, as I said, I took on board precisely what you said and have acted accordingly. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- To reiterate what I said, I think {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is unacceptably incorrect. While I think {{R from song}} is less inaccurate, I can accept placing them in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. older ≠ wiser 16:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- And I still say R from song is incorrect. As we agreed above, R from song, does not belong on duplicate redirects, now do you want to make another suggestion? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- The last suggestion I made there was to put them in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. But IMO, I still think {{R from song}} is less erroneous than {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
"Unlikely"?
Hi, Richhoncho. I saw you removed a category I put on the redirect page for "That Girl" by Maxi Priest. That's fine since I'm not obsessed with categories, but I'm wondering what you meant by "removed year of song, unlikely!" I'm positive the song was released in 1996, but I just don't understand why you removed it since I've seen the category on other pages alongside "YYYY Singles". Furthermore, I see you didn't remove the "1999 songs" category on another one of my redirects you edited, "Where I'm Headed". I'd appreciate it if you cleared this up for me. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- I do not doubt that the recording was released in 1996 - but noting the songwriters assumed it had been written and FIRST released earlier (and bearing in mind we would expect to see confirm at the target article). If 1996 is was the first release of the song, please feel free to revert me. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think I see what you're getting at. I think the category should stay, as most articles about songs containing samples of earlier songs contain the category of the later song's release year. For example, "I Think I'm in Love with You" by Jessica Simpson, "Hung Up" by Madonna, and "Sunchyme" by Dario G credit John Mellencamp, the two male ABBA members, and The Dream Academy, respectively, as songwriters, yet the songs appear under the year they were released, not under the year the original samples were released. As such, I think "That Girl" should be in the "1996 songs" category despite its samples. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- If it was sampled and this song was first released in 1996, then you are right and I am wrong. Please revert me. My apologies, didn't think it through. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
April 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lavender (BadBadNotGood song). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. FallingGravity 20:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Report me then, don't threaten me and don't be mistaken that you have given reason not to merge the article. BTW We are now on the 3 reversal rule. OK? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Don't tempt me. The 3 revert rule is over 3 reversals. Right now we're both straddling the line. Sorry, but you're not the ultimate consensus-decider on your own proposals. FallingGravity 22:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, so this is how it's going to be. Alright. Feel free to contribute to the discussion on ANI. FallingGravity 22:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Category:Songs written by Brian Kelley (recording artist) has been nominated for discussion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190411234414im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Songs written by Brian Kelley (recording artist), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Dylan's discography
Hi there, Richard, nice to meet you.
Concerning Dylan's discography and the use of the terms "compilation" or "studio" or "live" albums to designate them, there is always going to be some grey areas (e.g. Self Portrait is all three at the same time). Yet, when people expect a new "Dylan album" (or an album by any artist for that matter), there is a perceived difference if it is a coherent work of contemporary work assembled by the artist or a compilation of older work by others. Further, in the case of the "studio" designation, there is a presumption that the artist went into a recording studio to record the work for a coherent presentation.
Wikipedia's entry for "compilation album" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compilation_album) is that "A compilation album comprises tracks, either previously released or unreleased, usually from several separate recordings by either one or several performers. If by one artist, then generally the tracks were not originally intended for release together as a single work, but may be collected together as a greatest hits album or box set."
In the case of Dylan (1973), it has been often-remarked that the album was a compilation of outtakes from New Morning and Self Portrait session that Dylan had no intention of releasing; instead, CBS (Columbia) released the album as a sort of retaliation to Dylan signing with David Geffen's Asylum Records in 1973. Dylan (1973) was released three years after the studio recordings were made, they were compiled by someone other than Bob Dylan, and the tracks (using the definition above) were "previously...unreleased" and "from several separate recordings" and "were not originally intended for release together as a single work." Really, Dylan (1973) is a kind of anti- version of Another Self Portrait, with ASP intending to recast the period and Dylan intending to be a money-making scheme for CBS that kept Dylan from collecting songwriter's royalties given that all the tracks were written by others.
The Basement Tapes is really a proto-Bootleg Series album. It was released eight years after the Bob Dylan demos were recorded in 1967, with some more recent studio recordings by The Band. It also fits the definition of a compilation album, being a compilation of tracks recorded at different times "not originally intended for release together as a single work." Further, the tracks are by "several performers" that feature "a theme, topic, or genre which links the tracks" (that theme being the songs written and recorded in 1967 at Big Pink). They were intended to be demos and nothing more...acetates that other musicians could listen to and record. As Robbie Robertson says in the 1985 insert liner notes for Biograph, "The idea was to record some demos for other people. They were never intended to be a record, never meant to be presented" (insert liner notes for "Million Dollar Bash"). Whereas some subsequent work was done to present the 1975 album for release (the downgrading of the Garth Hudson stereo recordings to mono to give it a "low tech/home brew" feel, the addition of eight later recordings by The Band), this work is not unlike the addition of five new recordings ("Watching the River Flow," "When I Paint My Masterpiece," "I Shall Be Released," "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere," and "Down in the Flood") to Greatest Hits Vol. II, which is still clearly a compilation album, or the additional editing and adding of a keyboard part to "Series of Dreams" for the 1991 Bootleg Series, or even the reworking of "Dignity" (addition of drums, guitar, banjo, etc.) for 1994's Greatest Hits Volume 3, which is also still clearly a compilation album. In each of these instances, there is either subsequent work done on tracks or new tracks recorded for an album that is not regarded as a studio album.
Of course, the clearest argument that each of these be regarded as a compilation album, rather than a studio album, is that for every other studio album, Bob Dylan went into a studio to record and release a coherent work. Whether the studio session was short and sweet like that for Another Side of Bob Dylan or "Love & Theft," or protracted like Knocked Out Loaded and Down in the Groove. That was not the intent of Dylan (1973) and The Basement Tapes.
This is why Expecting Rain, one of the oldest and most complete Bob Dylan websites, regards Dylan and The Basement Tapes as compilation albums (https://www.expectingrain.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82082) and it is why all of the press with regard to both of these albums as the time of release, as well as the work of biographers and other critics subsequently, have treated these albums differently.
Thank you for your diligence and consideration.
- I have taken your point to Bob Dylan project where you might like to propound your views with others on the project. If consensus is with you, then all will be reverted, but until then, I do point out not only do I think you are wrong, but that the accepted position for a number of years has also been on my side. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Richard,
I will gladly discuss it there. I would point out that the "consensus" you mention is an unexamined intertia here that is the result of Wikipedia's studio/compilation/live categories (of course, I know these classifications have been around for decades and even used by Dylan scholars, but most Dylan publications throughout the years simply list all Dylan albums in their discographies and do not classify them). No published Dylan critic discusses the Dylan album or The Basement Tapes as if it was a studio album like Desire or Knocked Out Loaded.
By the way, since we are corresponding, you mention that you disagree with me. Can you tell me your reason? There is no Wikipedia entry for studio album, but the Wikipedia definition for its entry of "Compilation" album is pretty clear...why do you disagree? Further, when ever anyone discusses The Basement Tapes, the commentator (whether participant or critic) foreground that it is an assembly of acetates cut to be demos...which is antithetical to what a studio album would be. So, why do you disagree?
- Because an album hasn't been recorded as a single recording in over 50 years. If you use your criteria for 'compilation' albums, then Down in the Grove, Infidels, Time out Mind must be compilations too, recorded over a period of time, selecting most suitable tracks for release and sometimes different recording studios. Or to put in more bluntly all albums are compilation albums, or none. You can't pick and choose which is which without definite references. BTW The Dylan pages are relatively well-curated and I am sure some other editor would have brought this up if it had been an issue, but we will see. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, thank you for responding. Let us put that aside. This is what you mentioned in your reversion of my Wikipedia edit and I tried to respond to it...I do not recall using that reason and, if I was, I would entirely agree with you. I don't recall anyone requiring that a studio album be recorded in one session...only Another Side of Bob Dylan would qualify. Note how Knocked Out Loaded was recorded over years. Down in the Grove even used a five-year old outtake among more recent recordings. Let us set aside that reason, which I would agree with you on, and discuss the points I have articulated here. I will summarize them:
- 1) It is hard to discuss a "studio album" without a definition. Clearly a studio can be anything from Columbia's A&R Studios to Dylan's Garage (for Good as I Been to You and World Gone Wrong). But, I think what the intent of the "studio album" designation is meant to capture is a album that is meant to represent a musician's most recent work, released with intent by the musician himself as current reflection of his sound and thought. On the other hand, a compilation album is compiled work from earlier that does not represent the musician's most recent work. Further, compilation are often assembled by someone other than the principal creator.
- 2) Dylan, is released at a time when the tracks were three years old. Further, it is compiled and released without Dylan's consent by CBS. It is released at a time Bob Dylan is recording Planet Waves with The Band, which represents his recent work. In this regard, it is very much like a release like Another Self Portrait...it assembles, or compiles, work from an earlier period, not to reflect his most recent work, but to achieve some other aim.
- 3) The Basement Tapes were never intended as an album. We all know this. They are really a kind of proto-Bootleg Series before that series existed. In fact, there are parallels between the work that Robbie Robertson did on the tracks in 1975 in terms of mixing and adding parts and the work done on "Series of Dreams" in 1991 for the first Bootleg Series release, where an organ and guitar part were added in 1991, even though the song was representing a 1989 recording session. Or, for example, how banjo, organ, and other parts were added in 1994 to "Dignity," for the 1994 compilation Greatest Hits vol. 4. Eight years after the basement recordings, Robbie Robertson, largely (or some say entirely) without Dylan's involvement, compiles some of these demos, adds some subsequently recorded Band tracks, and the label releases it in between Blood on the Tracks and Desire. Both Blood on the Tracks and Desire represented Dylan's contemporary work (songwriting, arranging, playing, production, recording, etc.), The Basement Tapes did not. They were already legend when they were released, a curiosity. The double LP from 1975 was a compilation that was meant to satisfy curiosity, but it didn't even include some of the most sought after tracks from eight years earlier ("I Shall Be Released," "Quinn the Eskimo," among others).
- 4) Finally, if you observe how Dylan writers discuss these two albums, and I am thinking of Robert Shelton, Paul Williams, John Bauldie, Clinton Heylin, Michael Gray, none of them include these albums in the narrative of what is going on with Dylan or what Dylan is doing at the time the albums are released. They exclusively refer to an earlier period. Dylan is relevant when discussing 1970 recordings not 1973. The Basement Tapes are relevant when discussing 1967, not 1975.
- I think these would be the relevant points to consider. Thank you, Richard!
- Take this discussion to the project, there is no value in us discussing the matter. I am particularly interested in what Mick Gold says on the matter. BTW remember to sign your posts. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap
You claim that redirects are not cheap. Perhaps you would care to nominate some of these redirects for deletion. Or these. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, because I am not familiar with those subjects would have to study the reasons and effects of these particular redirects. There are editors more experienced to comment. However, the search engines at WP are no longer case sensitive and will preload suggestions, so for one of the redirects I didn't get around to nominating had 3 different varieties:-
- According to present guidelines, an article (if an article) would be at Neon Gravestones. Now try typing those titles into the search engine. You will note there is no benefit to the searcher whatsoever in having 3 options (2 didn't even show up for me) i.e. you have found what you are looking for long before all letters have been typed.
- Unfortunately we have one or two editors creating redirects like this all the time going through their favourite albums, including at times, alternative and quite useless misspellings and other variants. If this continues then redirects start to take up some serious searching time AND space on the servers. Speedy deletion is a way of keeping this is check.
- I was leaving the principal redirect and notifying for deletion the others (if any). As there was only redirect for Levitate, Levitate (Twenty One Pilots song) it would have been improper to try and speedy a delete. Not that I think we need a redirect for every album track.
- Another editor told me about getting duplicate redirects deleted by speedy and I have had a number deleted as I assume they had too, I'd like to see a little consistency over and above any decision here. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC) edited. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RHaworth:. Having replied to your question, are you going to reply? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
What do you want me to say? Sorry, Wikipedia is full of inconsistency - that is part of the fun of it. You and I have different ideas about redirects - let's leave it at that. If I notice any redirects tagged by you for deletion, I shall not touch them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RHaworth:. I see your promises are not kept. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RHaworth: Confidante (Paul McCartney song). You reverted my DB edit in spite of your comment above. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
When I do a speedy deletion, I do not usually look to see who has applied the tag. And even if I am removing a speedy tag it is possible to do so without seeing who applied it. But I have now noted your name and style and will be more careful in future.
Please approve this clutch of deletions. But I will leave you to decide whether we need all 54 of these redirects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RHaworth: Again, I do not hold myself out to be a specialist in all subjects at WP. I do note that the following (for example) Curse Word, Curse word, Curse Words, Curse words, Curse-word because of the way the search engine works are superfluous to *ALL* requirements, over and above Curse word, although I admit I didn't check to see if that redirect needed to exist, just an assumption of good faith, as suggested by WP itself. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I was about to remove the speedy tag from Opening Station (Paul McCartney song) but I restrained myself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RHaworth: Much appreciated, but I'd prefer to see some consistency amongst admins --Richhoncho (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
CFD result
This discussion ended in a result. Please don't implement the result you were seeking but failed to gain consensus for, as it looks like you did here. Thanks! Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Ha
I saw your creation of this talk page show up in the new pages list and had to do a double take to see that it wasn't vandalism. That's a weird one. Home Lander (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Weird page title, thought it was a vandal at first glance.
Home Lander (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I see. Somebody is creating redirects for that reference aliens and Martians, I am merely tagging them as songs. Both actions are a waste of time. I see your point. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Weird page title, thought it was a vandal at first glance.
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
December 2018
Your recent editing history at Good Years (Zayn Malik song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Read what I wrote when I removed your talk page message. That doesn't mean continue reverting as you see fit. You seem to think you can get away with reverting editors as many times as you like. I'll report you to an admin if you keep it up. This isn't the first time I've seen you engage in this type of behaviour. I suppose you don't care about WP:BRD or WP:3RR. Ss112 00:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- And I took the edit to your talkpage to discuss, which you decided wasn't worth discussing and deleted my post. If you think this needs to be brought to an admin then please do, but don't bother with this self-serving threat above. Thankyou. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Clearly you don't know what the actual F WP:BRD says, so let remind you: it doesn't say "go to the talk page of the user who reverted you". That's not visible to those interested in the article. Go to the article talk page. I already suggested you tag it with R from unnecessary disambiguation (and I tagged you in the summary when I removed your pointless little discussion so you'd see), but I guess you're incapable of reading when it suits you to not do so. And you're being a bit hypocritical there—I've seen you exceed three reverts and get off scot-free. Ss112 00:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Enough already. I asked you for your considered opinion and you deleted my qestion. FWIW, I've already had the discussion above, maybe you should read here. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Clearly you don't know what the actual F WP:BRD says, so let remind you: it doesn't say "go to the talk page of the user who reverted you". That's not visible to those interested in the article. Go to the article talk page. I already suggested you tag it with R from unnecessary disambiguation (and I tagged you in the summary when I removed your pointless little discussion so you'd see), but I guess you're incapable of reading when it suits you to not do so. And you're being a bit hypocritical there—I've seen you exceed three reverts and get off scot-free. Ss112 00:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Christmas Is
Did I do the right thing?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I, and others, will be happy with what you have done, Others may say differently --Richhoncho (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, we'll see.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Walk on Water (Basshunter song)
Hello. Was it your annonymous edit and do you wanted to say "Walk on Water" is the same song as "I Can Walk on Water I Can Fly"? Techically it's different instrumental and has different titles. Eurohunter (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- No it wasn't me. No idea what you are talking about. Nor do I do anonymous edits. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder because you said "No! it's still a 2007 song" in the edit description. Eurohunter (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Year of song is the year song was created/first known of, not date recorded. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder because you said "No! it's still a 2007 song" in the edit description. Eurohunter (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Songs by instrument
Do you want to take care of this? Category:Songs by musical instrument. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am trying to remember a similar scheme which has already deleted, my recollection was Mellotron, but I can't find it. Not that practiced at multiple entries, but the category is an insult to readers, do you want to do it, my support is guaranteed per previous discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Patience, I found it here --Richhoncho (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Categories
Hi Richhoncho, I see that you re-added some categories to some redirects that I restored, per WP:RCAT "Redirects are not usually sorted to article categories". So I am just wondering if the song article categories are an exception to this guideline? Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- The quote above says, "Redirects are not usually sorted to article categories" Actually most redirects are catted, for instance, R from misspelling, R from alternative title, but not further because the target is the article and duplicate entries are not encouraged. However a song remains as a self standing item, if not a WP article. So when redirecting the facts of year of song, main artist(s) and songwriters do not change and help readers who may wish to see who wrote what etc.
- I have tried to find some examples for you in non-music fields, Louise Ellis was an EastEnders character not worthy of an article so exists only as a redirect, but the redirect is categorised as 'EastEnders Character' You will find similar redirects for real events where the individuals do not rise to WP notability.
- You will also note that redirects appear in italics in the target category, which wouldn't be necessary if we weren't supposed to catting redirects!
- Many people have been catting songs for a number of years, if there is to be a change, then a wider discussion is necessary.
- Hope my explanation helped - if not please ask again. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks Richhoncho for the explanation, I will bear this in mind when partolling redirects in the future. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Gold
Hi Rich, do you think Gold (John Stewart song) should be categorized under Category:Stevie Nicks songs because of her significant part as backing vocalist, probably more than many songs from today that have a "featuring" credit? Thanks. 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- No. It was marketed as a John Stewart song. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cameo Records singles
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190411234414im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Category:Cameo Records singles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Category was incorrectly used as a duplicate to Category:Cameo-Parkway Records singles. Cameo Records does not have any known WP articles to link.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. LongLiveMusic (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Cameo Records singles has been nominated for discussion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190411234414im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Cameo Records singles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. LongLiveMusic (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
I can't thank you enough for your contributions to Wikipedia. If I haven't given you a barnstar before, then this one is long overdue. Thanks again, and happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC) |
Category:Songs written by Basshunter has been nominated for discussion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190411234414im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Songs written by Basshunter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)