User talk:Richhoncho

Welcome to my talk page, if you want to start a new topic, then click here please! I will reply here, so please come back to check. If I posted something on your talk page I'll check your talk page for an answer.

Bob Dylan, reluctant figurehead?

Hi Richhoncho, Happy new year and best wishes for 2015. Perhaps you could give your opinion about discussion currently taking place on Bob Dylan talk page? Mick gold (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Song redirects

Hello there. Some time ago there were two discussion to redirect songs to album articles: Welcome Home (Sanitarium) and ...And Justice for All (song). I'm not sure if I followed the procedure correctly, so you might do a check here. Also, does the template from Talk:Master of Puppets automatically removes after the redirect is done?--Retrohead (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You did it perfectly. I have added R from song and some cats and reassessed on the talkpage. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Songs that sample other songs

Hi Rich, do you think the sampling of older songs in a new song is a defining characteristic of that new song? I'm thinking of nominating Category:Songs which sample or interpolate other songs for deletion, but maybe that fact is defining. The songwriter of the sampled song is usually credited as such and thus in Wikipedia categorized that way too. I'm curious to your opinion. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not sure. There are reasonable arguments both ways. Perhaps nominate and see if it flies? What the creator (or somebody else) doesn't understand is a sample is of a performance (recording), but the songwriting credit can/does remain in place. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PS. Have you seen Category:Songs with samples by Stevie Wonder. My first instinct was to nominate for deletion? or renaming? or turning into an article? I just am not sure. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not see that and am surprised it's been around as long as it has without me noticing it. That one should be eligible for speedy deletion per this CFD a few years ago. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Reading the comments regarding sampling has clarified my mind. A definite delete from me. Although significant (as is "guitar") it does not mean it is defining enough for a category. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

McKuen

Hello Richhoncho - I see that you have both created and suggested for deletion the cat "Songs with lyrics by Rod McKuen," and I have to assume that your re-edit of "Seasons In The Sun" stems from that, as there was no edit summary. However, deleting that category compromises the integrity of any Wikipedia information regarding McKuen, as indicated in my edit summary. McKuen did not write "Seasons," nor any of the several score of his other collaborations with Jacques Brel. Brel wrote the melody for this number and the lyrics in French; McKuen rendered the lyrics into English. That was the nature of their collaboration, and the copyrights with BMI identify all of these as "By Jacques Brel and Rod McKuen." As many songs as McKuen wrote completely on his own, a goodly number of the best-known ones were at best half-written by McK, lyrics only. To call these creations "written by Rod McKuen" is simply inaccurate - as McKuen himself acknowledged whenever he spoke about his work with Brel. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A songwriter writes words and/or lyrics. In the case of McKuen, it is proven that he writes words and/or lyrics. If we broke down, as you suggest, then every songwriter would finish up with 3 categories according to what they supplied, words, music or both. I see no value for two or more categories for the same thing - especially as they would only contain half a dozen entries in this case... The question for you is "Is WP compromised" or is the reality we have a category that contains all the songs McKuen has contributed to the creation? Splitting does not serve the reader (who may not be aware of McKuen's contribution without reading the article). Further as you say above, BMI confirms that McKuen "wrote" the songs where he may have provided lyrics only. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

Why are you reverting these without even giving a reason? Could you please cease and discuss first? - Bossanoven (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Because I see no value in removing the Bob Dylan template without asking the Dylan project. Please continue to return the Dylan template until you have a general consent from the Dylan project. Thanks.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Dylan template doesn't even include the said articles within it. Navigational boxes are supposed to serve in aiding navigation between related articles. The songs on the album are the most related articles. - Bossanoven (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Removing the Dylan template is not constructive. Whether an album template has any value when there is always a link via the infobox is debatable. I have taken this to the Dylan project - in the meantime do not remove any more Dylan templates. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

There are no track listing templates for this band, so it would seem that a navigational box is the way to go. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

why not create a track listing template then? Creating a whole new scheme was never the way to go. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I will certainly abstain from creating new navboxes for now. We have navboxes for albums such as Sgt. Pepper's or rock operas, but I would understand if those are exceptions to the rule due to the plethora of related articles. - Bossanoven (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Sgt Pepper is not a track listing. Why don't you ask for your creations to be deleted as author? save the rest of the community much time. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the other navboxes are not merely track listings either. I don't see the problem with having an album navigational box at the bottom of appropriate pages, even if there is already a track listing template in use for the respective albums. It simply increases the ease of navigation. What does it hinder? - Bossanoven (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you checked out the comments on the templates I have already nominated for deletion? You are still a lone voice and it has been mentioned on the albums and the Dylan project. Some comments are entirely disparaging. Why nobody else with your opinion? Do you really think the others would survive a TfD? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a case by case basis, I suppose. It is dependent upon how many articles are related to the album. - Bossanoven (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine. If you want to waste your time. I shall nominate for TfD in due course. Nothing more to be said. Cheers--Richhoncho (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop being a dick. - Bossanoven (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sia (musician)#Requested move 4

I invite you to an ongoing move request; you were involved in one of previous discussions. --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Year of song

I forgot to check for these categories. Thanks. - Bossanoven (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC) In addition to my edit summary, there would be multiple producers listed for a lot of these songs, cluttering the categories section. It wouldn't make sense. Ergo, I'd say original producers only. - Bossanoven (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In which case, take it to discussion and let the community decide - otherwise don't revert. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Pray tell, where? - Bossanoven (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Wikiprojects, music, Led Zeppelin, songs for a starters. I also draw your attention to the last comment on the section above. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Who songs

You're going to need to be more specific. To what liner notes are you referring? I'm going by the Deluxe Edition of My Generation, which is from 2002.

Try the references given. If it's not referenced it doesn't count. I must say this is now bordering on disruptive editing and I now have to consider starting giving you warnings. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote

Hi Richhoncho. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (105th), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Label information

Certainly, one of them is Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles (various editions of this exist, the one I'm using is from 2011, it might be difficult to obtain in England). Another source are the liner notes to Complete Greatest Hits (The Cars album). - Bossanoven (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In which case can you add the references. I note you are being reverted by other editors. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had edits regarding chart runs reverted; they are not allowed per WP:CHARTTRAJ. I did not know this. I was only going to add a few anyhow. Thanks for looking out. Regards, - Bossanoven (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have updated my response on the Songs page since my last post. - Bossanoven (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Putting words in your mouth

Re your edit summary here: Please remember to assume good faith. You stated that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC permitted editors to agree on the existence of a primary topic, which I took to mean accepting that it permitted editors to choose not to disambiguate the title for the primary topic (“This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article.”). It was a simple misunderstanding, possibly caused by the fact that you’ve never denied the claim of primary topic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You wrote, "So we’re agreed that disambiguation is not required here." If I had said that I would be !voting the same way as you, wouldn't I? Hence the edit summary. Ongoing, I am happy to assume good faith until some point where I think otherwise (if I do). --Richhoncho (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Required and desired are two very, very different things. I was operating under the assumption that the BSB song, being the primary topic, did not require disambiguation, but that disambiguation was still desirable regardless. And since this is a perfectly valid position to hold, I had assumed that you were holding it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Semantics. No point arguing with you. Quote me by all means, but do not paraphrase, especially incorrectly paraphrasing me. End of discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the whole discussion was (sadly) about semantics. I wasn’t looking for an argument, just a clear statement of your position and rationale that was aligned with existing policy… and the statements you had made didn’t seem to be. I never claimed that PRIMARYTOPIC banned us from disambiguating the title, just that it allowed us to not do it and nothing else is forcing us to. Edit: I just noticed your “final response” edit summary, so I’ll assume your “end of discussion” here was literal. Sorry, and feel free to do whatever you want with this comment and to ignore my questions on the RM. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories for redirects

Hey, I noticed that you added categories to No No No (A Pink song). I thought redirects weren't placed into categories? Should I add back the categories on other song articles that are now redirects? Random86 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Many editors have been adding categories to song redirects, see Category:R.E.M. songs. Redirects are easy to spot because they appear in italics. It seems to me that if a song is worth a redirect, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be trackable by year, artist and songwriters (not convinced about other categories which are misleading without context). This is not the same as categorizing misspellings, alternative names etc. which should not be categorized. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is ill advised. Unless there is consensus somewhere to do this, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects is an established guideline that recommends against this practice. Redirects are not full articles partly because they were not notable enough to be included in such categories. czar ⨹ 11:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, there is an example, Wile E. Coyote, of a redirect being categorized at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects which does suggest that things that are "different" should may be categorized. Obviously we don't want the same thing appearing twice in the same category, but nobody is doing that. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)amended, --Richhoncho (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That example is because the coyote and the roadrunner have independent notable value to be included in the mentioned fictional lists, but it makes more sense to categorize the redirect than their combined article. cats. Please refrain from this type of categorization without wider consensus, and please consider reverting your edits. czar ⨹ 19:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You wrote, The routine categorization of "199X songs" will only clog the categories already covered by real notable albums with "199X albums" BUT, a song is not an album and they do not appear in the same category. You should also check out the criteria for 199X songs, then it might make some sense to you. Furthermore, if [[Wile E. Coyote and The Road Runner}} have independent notable value then why aren't they separate articles? Finally there are approximately 10,000 redirect song articles categorized by artist, year and songwriters, some are further categorized by single, producer, Billboard certification. There will be more added by artist year and writers. Unless of course you can prove that consensus has changed away from categorizing redirects. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The guideline above makes it very clear that redirects should not be categorized in article cats unless there is a specific case for it. I checked your claim of 10,000 redirect song articles, and I have no idea how you're determining that number, and not only does there appear to be nothing near 10,000 based on category population, but every single redirect that I checked was changed by you since even last year. Why would you take this monstrous, systematic change on yourself and then call it consensus? Consensus would mean that editors other than you gave this effort the go-ahead to change, as you said, 10,000-something redirects. I don't see where that consensus was established. If it was never established, per BRD I'm asking that you cease your bold edits and bring it up for discussion in a venue of your choosing. czar ⨹ 12:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You have already brought the matter up at another venue, at present nobody is responding. I haven't commented yet because there is no need. Consensus was established many years ago (before I was an editor, I think), and certainly I am neither the first nor the last to categorize (song) redirects. Off the top of my head have a look at Category:R.E.M. songs, Category:Song recordings produced by Jeff Lynne. As it has been discussed before in many different places and times I shall leave you to try and change the consensus, until then I don't see why I should desist. I don't think you have looked at the category for songs by year, so I will inform you - that is the year the song is first published, whether sheet music, film, single or album. By adding this date we can get a picture of what is happening year by year. For what it's worth, many of the redirects should probably be deleted, but have you ever tried to have a redirect deleted? At least I am not creating the redirects, and I nominate for deletion anything that does not, in my opinion, meet NSONGS or GNG. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I know the R.E.M. songs is your go-to, but from the ones I checked, you were the editor to first categorize the articles and then another editor added the songwriter credits. Everything on WP happens in public so an editor can be able to show another where the consensus lies, and I can't find it. I'm uninterested in escalating this discussion or preventing you from how you choose to spend your time on WP (and was going to say so before your reply). I'm only trying to determine what value this effort is to the project. However Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Should song redirects be categorized? goes is fine by me. czar ⨹ 13:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't for the life of me have a clue why the central discussion relating to SONGS should be at ALBUMS. It does suggest that the bee in your bonnet is bigger than the problem...--Richhoncho (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Friends

Friends (Adam and the Ants song) is not a 1978 song, and the article doesn't say that it is. It says that it was performed at a John Peel session on 10 July 1978. The version on this single was recorded in 1979, and released as a single in 1982. If the song year should be the year it was recorded, Deutscher Girls should be a 1978 song.

If you check the category, it reads, "Songs written or first produced in 1978." which would make 1982 incorrect. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So then Deutscher Girls is also incorrect.

I didn't check, but if you are right, please change. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

U Are The One by Nick Voss

Hi Richhoncho

I,m Nick Voss and the song you edited ( U Are The One) is mine. The links to The Aria list of number ones streaming charts 2013 (Australia) has changed. The link had a pic of the Us X factor contestant Nick Voss as the artist to my song u are the one. I have spoken today to aria, and the pic has been removed and the original album cover has replaced it. If you placed these links on .can you remove them and replace with the new amended links. Im not sure where to find them ,but aria sent me the new amended PDF charts #1202, #1203. #1204.

Thanks Nick Voss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntv2011 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Song?

But that's his single from his album Music Is Better Than Words. (Film Guy on Wiki (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC))

The article you have categorized is the musical, if there is a song article it isn't there. Please be careful. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Fritel (song)

Hi Richo

Thank you for your recent edit on the above article. I'm aware that you tagged it as hoax. Why do you think its an hoax? Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The references don't work, the cats are unlikely to be correct, the talkpage was a copy and paste from some other article and the artist is already deleted last year as NN. Of course I could be wrong! --Richhoncho (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ex's & Oh's

Is this article title in compliance with WP's manual of style? Thanks for all your work related to song redirects, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, se WP:AMPERSAND. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The banned/blocked user

Might want to put up a SPI for that! Thanks Wgolf (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC) BTW check here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj. Wgolf (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a cat that you might want to recreate that will be deleted soon Category:Songs by Indian singer (put in brackets to get the category-not putting in brackets as it will link your talk page as this). Wgolf (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Indian film song writer categories

@Wgolf: @Anthony Bradbury: @Sphilbrick:. Wgolf nominated a bunch of categories for deletion on grounds of the work of a sock (and I did warn I would re-create), then two of you deleted and removed some of the cats from the articles, then I came along and recreated all the cats I could (I missed some and some wouldn't be recreated because the articles had been deleted). I am not sure who benefitted from all this activity but it wasn't WP nor the 4 of us. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipediapeedy deletion policy is that articles created by a blocked or banned user with no significant edits by other editors qualify for deletion. I will in all cases delete these articles. Had I seen your warning I would still have deleted, but might well have discussed deletion policy with you first. As you are not yourself blocked I will not delete the re-created categories unless a different speedy deletion category applies. Your final comment is, of course, wrong. Wikipedia benefits if its policies are upheld.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, thanks for the response - I am aware of the policy. You refer above to "articles" and I have no problem with that, I did not recreate any articles, only categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As I have said, the categories created by you do not qualify, as far as I can see, for speedy deletion. But any posting by a blocked or banned editor does so qualify unless other editors have made significant contributions, which was not the case with these contributions.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) (song)

I thought that the first word of a title in brackets should be capitalized. If I am right then the above move was incorrect, if you are right then there are 1000s of articles that are supposed to be moved. Thanks for you clarification, I am never sure on some of the rules! --Richhoncho (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I just double checked this. I was going by WP:BANDNAME, in which the word "and" is not capitalised, and that we don't capitalise words simply because they are in brackets - so Barrett (album). But you are correct - MOS:CT, on which WP:BANDNAME depends, says "For titles with subtitles or parenthetical phrases, capitalize as if they were separate titles (e.g. "(Don't Fear) The Reaper")". So I will go back and undo my changes. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Visnvoisnvo

Do you think it's time to take Visnvoisnvo's rampant inappropriate article creation to WP:ANI after today's new article they made that fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, after tonnes of warnings from various users?

I would allow for good faith at the moment. Just another rampant fan who thinks their "band/act" is the greatest thing since... Also there is another user going through the Hank Williams and George Jones catalog for the same purposes. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Virgin (song)

I recently started a move request. --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bend It Like Beckham

There's an ongoing move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Montt (Song)

Is Notabily in Iberoamerica, see this. Best Regards --The Silver (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No. The existence of a YouTube video does not establish notability. Are there quotes from critical reception? Did the song chart? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No, in Latin America did not have the technology of USA in 1968, even they had color, or charts, all we have for this are people, people who listen to this song in his youth in his juventud.Nosotros Latin Americans are a different culture and we can not compare with more developped countries. Good luck and best regards --The Silver (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

New Clapton ratings

Hi, I would like new Eric Clapton ratings for his songs and albums I improved. thanks --Matthiasberoli (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing the project tag doesn't work, the article gets lost. You could remove the present assessment and, hopefully, somebody will spot the articles and assess. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Life on Mars (song)

I started another RM; make your decision. --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Any idea who?

It's evidently the sock of someone linked to the WP:SONGDAB history, and noticed this grammatical correction edit from "when you" to "while you" which to me at least may indicate a non-native speaker of English? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Music Hour (Porno Graffitti song)

Actually, after hunting for sources I think it doesn't deserve an article. There are some sources in Japanese, because the song was used in some advertising campaign, but in Japanese and hardly notable. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The third blind mouse

It's just occured to me that there are similarities between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_third_blind_mouse comments and a particular pop editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably. Any editor who creates a new account merely to respond on a talkpage to somebody else's post isn't worth the time of day. Or put it another way, s/he is such a moron that they are incapable of being any help at Wikipedia. I do hope I am on the relevant person's watchlist! Meanwhile I shall toil at seeing how many Ghits a certain album gets. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"IWannaDoItWithADonna"

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from IWannaDoItWithADonna, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I had meant to Afd, but hit the wrong button. Now you have added refs I am happy not to pursue an AfD. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Good news.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Strawberry Fields Forever

You raise a truly interesting point here, and I am not sure there is an adequate reply. To be sure, there is a song, which may be recorded or performed many different times, and then there is a particular recording, which some may regard as a standard or paradigm. But then Wikipedia is clearly not consistent. The article Strawberry Fields Forever begins ""Strawberry Fields Forever" is a song". Right, so it's a song, written by Lennon and credited to Lennon –McCartney. But later it says "Numerous music critics consider it to be one of the group's best and most adventurous recordings". Right, so it's a recording? It goes on "The song was later included …" – so it's a song again, or does it really mean recording, given that the one included in Magical Mystery Tour was that recording? (I think). There is also a whole section Strawberry_Fields_Forever#Recording, which is only about the original recording.

There is also a likely confusion with 'arrangement' or 'scoring', where it would be appropriate to have 'arrangements featuring Mellotron', at least if this was regarded as distinctive or essential.

I am not criticising your point, only raising the inconsistency that it implies. It's a good point. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is quite simple. It is a song which was written by Lennon and credited to Len/Mac. It was recorded several times by the Beatles (perversely we call it a "Beatle song" which is also technical incorrect), including with an acoustic guitar and with a mellotron (which was the first official release of the song). Subsequently it has been recorded by other artists. What many music fans mix up is the difference between "song," "single" and "recording." One of these has been sorted by the use of the category, "Song recordings produced by XXX" that one word, "recordings" changes the meaning significantly.

As you can see, SFF is not defined by the use of a mellotron on one recording. Most editors appear to agree with that at the present time, perhaps you should listify, (List of recordings featuring a mellotron?) as supported by some editors. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I defer to your impeccable logic. I am a bit sad though, as I grew up when many of those, er, recordings were made. The mellotron sound for me was distinctive and absolutely defined them. I had never heard anything like 'hole in your shoe' before. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

sieh Only Holy Story und Stay Gold (Steady & Co. song)!

do you just going to delete uniteresting things? then it would be increase blank spaces in your brain. do you have no brain that search anything? just search'em on the google or something...then it will filling blanks in your brain by the knowledge... Dj nix (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)