User talk:Richhoncho

re: covers

Thank you sir. Perhaps its time to revisit our fancy-schmancy list and start aggressively widdling this down? - eo (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

more on this

What's your opinion on what to do with the songs that are recorded, then covered, in a different language? If recorded first in, say, French, then covered in English, should we keep the article under the French title when merging? - eo (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Vanity Kills

You vanity kills is wrong and been changed. See-ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.222.92 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing You (The Saturdays song)

Why did you add "class=GA" to the article? I only just nominated it and so far no one has taken up the review. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair play. I can only recall removing WPSONGS once.... I don't deal with those types of edits anymore=. =) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I defo agree. There's a small team of editors out there working on it slowly lol. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Down in the Willow Garden

I wrote this article (so I may be a little biased), but article rating is becoming a bit of a bugbear of mine. I know it's not a massive article, but ... start class? Really? I quote: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources... The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent". Comparing the article to these criteria, I don't think it is start class. It might meet the B-class criteria, but if not where it is lacking would be good to know. Would you mind reconsidering, and rechecking the criteria for future article ratings? Fences&Windows 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Christmas Shoes (song)

I'm a little baffled at you tagging this for notability. Even in the (crappy) revision you tagged it in March, it said that it was a charting single for two different artists, one of whom took it to #1 on a major chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan photo

Hi Richhoncho! How are you doing? Maybe I should have written more of an explanation on my edit. I'm sorry I didn't. I was suspicious about the status of the uploaded photo, and sure enough if you check the photo's file it has a "no copyright tag" template and a message for administrators to delete it. I figured even if I left it, it'd just be deleted in a couple of days and we'd be left with a blank infobox until someone restored another photo. I hope that's cool. Take care and talk to you again later! Moisejp (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Stefanie Ridel (singer) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, one learns something new every day at WP. However, I have now also reverted my changes to the talkpages, added a request for a move and note that no history was lost in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Vote

Help us come to a proper consensus and vote Talk:Jessica_(entertainer)#Move.3F. Thank you. 200.21.15.109 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Donald Maughn

Hello, Richhoncho. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ace in the hole

"And yet, if I hadn't AFDed this, it would still be a one-sentence, unsourced stub. Funny how you sometimes have to rock the boat to get something done..." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 05:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Beach Boys song redirects

Hi, I notice that you added categories to the Beach Boys songs that I redirected. I don't mean to offend, but is that helpful in any way? I'd find it useful if they weren't categorised, because I like to keep a track of the number of articles at Category:The Beach Boys. This way I can be sure that no non-notable song has its own article, instead of being a redirect.—indopug (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Move request

Hi Richhoncho. Are you proposing that I Want You Back (Melanie Brown song) be moved back to I Want You Back (Melanie B song)? Because that's not what the move request currently says (it currently says "I Want You Back (Melanie Brown song) --> I Want You Back (Melanie Brown song)", i.e. no change). I think if you correct the desired name at Talk:I Want You Back (Melanie Brown song), a bot will update Wikipedia:Requested moves/current‎ within 15 minutes. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon reflection, it's pretty obvious (to me) that's what you meant, so I've updated to move request. DH85868993 (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Mel B

Because the subtile 4 the article on her album Hot is Hot (Melanie Brown album). since that article credited her as Melanie Brown instead of Melanie B, i decided to credit al her songs as Melanie BrownDbunkley6 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

HotCat can make more than one change at once

Hi Richhoncho, I saw that you were adding multiple categories to several Traveling Wilburys song articles via HotCat - one category per edit. Just wanted to point out that you can make more than one category change in one edit if you first click the "(+⁺)" link. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan song articles

Thanks for the "atta boy." In between HW61R and Witmark Demos, I've been wandering around the landscape, and there's definitely a lot of trimming, digging and planting to do. Where I can, I'm bringing the text up to speed, at least to the point where we can assess what else might be needed. One thing I can't do much about are analyses. Hard to tell whether the editors did these from sources or just laid down their own interpretations - no doubt a combination - but unfortunately they're almost universally uncited and since it's difficult to confirm an opinion, all but worthless. The solution, I guess, is to invest in a few more books and start over. Anyway, I enjoyed the year-long hiatus, because it gave me the chance to concentrate on a few other things, but I did miss the "cause" as well as the general comraderie. Hope to see ya around. Allreet (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hot Cat error?

Hi there. A while back, you used Hot Cat to add Category:Songs written by Irving King to the article Goodnight, Sweetheart (1931 song). However, this does not match what the article says. Was this an error by Hot Cat? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, two of the songwriters used "Irving King" as a joint pseudonym. Although it appears that this song was credited to their real names, not the pseudonym, I'll add the category back. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Kono Yoru o Tomete yo

What would it take for you to bump up "Kono Yoru o Tomete yo" from a C-class to a B? Also, would you be able to have a bit of a look at "Toilet no Kamisama" and see what needs fixing up? --Prosperosity (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What's Love Got to Do with It

You see just like Just a Friend 2002 and Just the Two of Us, the Warren G version is a completely different song, it shares the same title and the chorus is similar, but other then that, they have nothing to do with each other. Plus the Warren G version is notable on its own. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

P G Wodehouse

I owe you an apology: I didn't see your message on my talk page about List of songs with lyrics by P. G. Wodehouse until this evening. Are you still looking for help with sourcing, etc? -- I have pretty much everything published about Wodehouse, including the standard bibliography and a book on "The Lyrics of PGW", so if I can help, just let me know: I'll try not to miss your message this time :) Jimmy Pitt talk 22:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Music published by Northern Songs

Hello. You recently removed Template:Category banner from Category:Music published by Northern Songs. I'm assuming mistook the template for a talk page banner, which it is not. I created the template and it is meant to be placed on category pages, not talk pages. McLerristarr | Mclay1 17:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for Category:Songs written by Buddy Holly. Also, the DEFAULTSORT for that category is correct. A page will sort by its name by default unless a DEFAULTSORT is given so the category would sort under S anyway. Sort keys given for individual categories override the DEFAULTSORT so the category was not incorrectly sorted. McLerristarr | Mclay1 17:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect categories

Hello. Please do not add redirect categories using HotCat. Redirect categories should be added using redirect templates. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages (there list is currently incomplete). Thank you. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just how you add them. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, which is quite outdated really, says you should but don't have to add them using the templates. The best way is to use the templates because they produce a message that can be read when viewing a diff. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said you had to. I said "please". There's no need to be hostile. I'm just saying redirect templates are the best way of doing it and are much more useful. To be honest, directly added categories are a pain in the arse when you're trying to re-arrange the categorisation of redirect categories, which I have done on numerous occasions. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am replying here so that readers can see my comments. Firstly you only made the above comment when I listed a template you created for deletion, furthermore, irrespective of the please there is a suggestion that I have been doing something incorrectly, which is refuted by the page you sent me to read. This conversation is now closed. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, just because I don't know who you are, doesn't mean you should be a jerk. But I'm not here to give you a life lesson, I was just trying to give you some advice on Wikipedia editing. This section is irrelevant to the template you nominated for deletion. I just happened to see you had added redirect categories with HotCat while I was going through your recent contributions to see which of my other edits you had reverted. But if you can't be civil, I can't be bothered dealing with you. P.S. "I am replying here so that readers can see my comments" – yeah, that's what you're supposed to do for all your comments; you keep a conversation in one place. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, for completeness this is what I wrote on your talkpage :-

I have read your note on my talkpage and will ignore it. If you can show me somewhere which says you can't add redirects with HotCat I will review again. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, as you quoted, but don't have to add them using the templates. Therefore I am not wrong adding with HotCat. End of story. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As for rudeness, I think the first and only example was when you called me a jerk above.

And as for where I post, if you had asked me to post on my talkpage I would have done so, as you did not, I assumed the best place was on YOUR talkpage. You could have had the same argument if I had posted here ("why didn't you post on my talkpage?"). I couldn't win, could I? I have never claimed to be a mind-reader. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Sabo

Hi. Nearly three years ago, you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND (by its subject, who does not seem to have been the original author) so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Tear-Stained Letter

You tagged it as possibly not notable back in March. I've expanded it with notability. Somehow our (blocked) article creator never realized the song was also a top 10 country hit for Jo-El Sonnier. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. The art is to save the good and delete the bad. Well done. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Carfax Abbey

Hi. In March, you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. The request lists various achievements: I have explained to the IP that references are needed, but suggested that if he is not confident about dding them he can note them on the talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User

Don't threaten me with blocking when I am totally against vandalism of every kind. WP:Civil please! Yids2010 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The adding of inaccurate information is vandalism. Having all already posted a polite note on your user page a warning regarding your continued vandalism was warranted. If you continue to add inaccurate information you will be blocked - removing my warnings from your userpage will not stop this happening. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Richhoncho. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep Young and Beautiful (song).
Message added 22:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Related discussion elsewhere

Although you were fairly silent when you responded at Talk:Grammy_Award#Grammy_Award_for_Song_of_the_Year, you may have an opinion at Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Lady Antebellum

Debate's been open 9 days now. Should it be split now? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I split it for you and made an article on Dave Haywood. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I took care of it for you on the 1st. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Vanity Kills (interfearances)

ive taken over looking after the vanitykills section now, no need for you to be there anymore pal.

Vanity Kills (interfearances)

ive taken over looking after the vanitykills section now, no need for you to be there anymore pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanityKills (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Vanity Kills (interfearances)

ive taken over looking after the vanitykills section now, no need for you to be there anymore pal.

sorry ofr the repeats,there was a problem with wiki (not me)

Stubs

Hello, I do feel that the amount of articles that you are downgrading to a stub is unnecessary. Despite the fact that I am the creator of the article and the content it has, I don't give a bias rating to suit myself. All ratings are based on Wikipedia's quality scale. The Sharkey single "Out of My System" is certainly much more than a dictionary definition. The start class states "The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas." The content is all referenced and gives a good amount of information on the actual single. I noticed that the article "Hurricane (Leon Everette song)" was given a start class rating which is yet even smaller than "Out of My System". Ajsmith141 (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand although speaking on the topic of the music and lyrics surely ends up being original research. I do add any critical reception I can find but this isn't always possible. Any writers/musicians are mentioned though, in both the actual information and the personnel section. I wouldn't say it was fair to state the articles are mainly made up of chart information, aside from the chart table, there is only a couple of sentences that explain the commerical success/failure of the single. Sometimes I add extra chart information about the previous/following single which relates to the artist's career in terms of commerical success. Ajsmith141 (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, no problem in adding the WPSongs. I never said that anybody was assessing the articles based on chart performance, just that the articles written aren't only about the chartings. The articles that you have re-graded are overall acceptable although I do feel the Out of My System article deserves a start rating. I can't think of any categories at the moment but will let you know if there are any. Ajsmith141 (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and help, cheers. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent assessments

Recently, you assessed three song articles that I created. All are similar in style, length, graphics, refs, etc., but two were assessed "Start" ("Checkin' Up on My Baby" and "Driving Wheel") and one "Stub" ("Don't You Lie to Me"). Since I try not to create stubs, would you please explain what criteria (other than the general quality scale) you use and/or why the one is a stub? -Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I may have missed something. Has WP:Songs considered a specific assessment scheme as other projects? -Ojorojo (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Songs written by Lennon/McCartney

Category:Songs written by Lennon/McCartney, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent redirects

Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages says "Discussion pages. If a discussion/talk page exists for an article, please change the article's class to "class=Redirect" for all projects." WP:Songs uses Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Non-standard grades which says for Redirect-Class "Any redirect falls under this class." WP:Albums uses the redirect assessment for talk pages, rather than a redirect. Where does it say otherwise? -Ojorojo (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points, but not supported by the guidelines. Oh well, back to the salt mines. -Ojorojo (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Different projects seem to interpret this differently. Perhaps it should be clarified/standardized by WikiProject Redirect. Let me know when it has been decided. -Ojorojo (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Hey. If you are going to propose an article to be merged please start a discussion about it and don't drive by tag. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 15:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing songs by producer

Multiple versions I agreed that song articles that have multiple recordings might not be categorized by producer because it implies that all of those versions were produced by the same person, but with a redirect, that ambiguity is eliminated as the target redirects to one artist or album in particular, so it is clear which version is in question. The ambiguity would only exist for full-fledged articles--why only redirects...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Song redirects Give me an example of a song article redirect recorded by multiple artists... I don't see it happening. That having been said, the examples you have (e.g. King of Birds (song)) have only been recorded by one artist (R.E.M.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability It's irrelevant if someone somewhere has re-recorded an R.E.M. song--that cover would not be notable. I'm not asking you to definitively prove the universal negative that no one other than R.E.M. has recorded or performed I Don't Sleep, I Dream. I'm saying that no one else's recording of it is notable, so it's not a concern that this redirect be categorized by producer. I honestly don't see why categorizing song redirects by artist or year is more useful than producer nor why self-produced songs are a special example of this problem. I agreed that if the producers in question hadn't produced other material then the categories might be useless, but Michael Stipe and Peter Buck have produced several artists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-contradiction I didn't disagree with myself and I'd like to see this instances where I have in the past. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Go home

you are not wanted on vanity kills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.9.235 (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your advice, but as I am at home I have nowhere to go. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Unassessed song articles

Great job and dedication on clearing Category:Unassessed song articles by assessing the song articles. Would you know how to populate Category:Redirect-Class song articles? There are plenty of talk pages for song articles assessed as redirects using the WikiProject Songs banner, {{WikiProject Songs|class=redirect}}, but they end up being categorized as NA-Class song articles. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hands Up (Give It Up)

No need for the prod if the artist is a redlink. Just A9 it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sort-of

Greil Marcus liner notes There is a ref in Bob Dylan for this. I'll just copy-paste it to those first eight Dylan studio albums. Next time you want to post to my talk, please assume good faith and don't be rude to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh And it looks like you're trying to get me in hot water as well (with a fraudlently-marked "minor edit.") What is the purpose of this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh Now I'm really confused. You wrote:

"I have checked the Dylan article and at no point is there a claim that Marcus did liner notes for Blonde on Blonde - or any other Dylan album, for that matter..."

By the time you had written this, I already did what I said I was going to do: copy and paste the reference into each of the eight studio albums featuring Marcus' liner notes. The ref is here on the permanent link of Bob Dylan and you can find it in the article's text with Ctrl+F and enter twice: "In the same week, Sony Legacy released Bob Dylan: The Original Mono Recordings, a box set which for the first time presented Dylan's eight earliest albums, from Bob Dylan (1962) to John Wesley Harding (1967), in their original mono mix in the CD format, accompanied by new liner notes by Dylan critic Greil Marcus."

I honestly have no idea how you checked that article and didn't find it and also didn't notice that I had added that identical text to eight other articles based solely on your suggestion. Then you have the audacity to say:

"It does also seem pertinent to check what the article says, which you have not done!"

I'm at a loss.

I'd rather this was laid to rest now as well, since this is a complete non-issue. I accommodated your request and then you posted this nonsense to my talk—you're not pleasant to me, you make accusations that are baseless, and you apparently have some desire to get me into trouble based on nothing at all. I don't want you to retract anything; I just want you to stop doing what you've been doing. I'd be happy to have you post to my talk if i it was polite, germane, and instructive, but when it's rude and divorced from reality, it's a waste of your time and mine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay I thought you were done, but if you're telling me that only some of these albums have new liner notes by Greil Marcus and I am misreading the ref or the ref itself is wrong, then please take out the appropriate album articles from the category. I fail to see how the entire thing is misleading and should be deleted, but WP:CFD is there for you to make your case. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

RE:Adding The Beatles template.

The ones u're removing WPBeatles template from, are covers by Ringo. :P --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 14:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

CfDs

I liked your closing comment ;) Nobody discussed the "definingness" of his production on an album at all. The irony is, the one album that is defined by his production (he had it printed on the front cover just to make sure) is Pussy Cats and it's not even in the category! It could sit quite happily in the parent category without the producer category though. As you say, there's a whole lot of bigging-up going on. I came across Category:Albums produced by Norman Smith (producer) from another CfD (rename in this case), picked Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd and his name's not even mentioned! Uniplex (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Richhoncho, the point I was trying to make about counting tracks is that WP is supposed to get all its facts from outside sources, so WP editors counting tracks and “assigning” a producer to the album based on whether the number of tracks crosses a threshold that WP editors have set, goes against that a bit. However, I think it becomes moot if we make the rule that credits can't be split. E.g. for Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records, we have only 2 choices: categorize in Albums produced by Peter Asher, Tony Cox, ..., Phil Spector, Tony Visconti or don't categorize the album by producer at all. I would go for the latter, since no-one is ever going to say that the album is defined by having had that set of people as producers. Not allowing credits to be split, logically seems the right thing to me: if I'm looking a list of albums categorized as being produced by X, I know (from how WP's category system works) that each album I see listed in the category is defined by the characteristic of having been produced by X, so X's production of the album is pretty special or interesting in some way. If I click on an album in the list and then find that in fact X didn't produce the album, only co-produced or partially-produced the album, I'm somewhat disappointed, so I hit the back button, and try another shot in the dark with another album in the category list—not fun. Whether or not disallowing credits splitting works well in all real situations, I don't know—please let me know your thoughts on this. Another thing that occurred to me was that legislation on this should not really be needed at WP:ALBUM if it's clear at WP:Category names (for any artistic work). So I asked the question at WT:Category names but did not get an answer that clarified things much to me—is it's any clearer to you?. Replying here instead of at WP:ALBUM to try to avoid smothering the discussion completely with my rambling thoughts. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Over at my talk, you suggested to add "categories should only be added if defining for the album." but had I not already done that in the 1st sentence of the boxed text at WT:ALBUM? It says: ‘an album may be categorized by characteristics such as performer, producer, ..., only if these are “defining” characteristics of the album’. Uniplex (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've updated/clarified the proposed text a bit. Uniplex (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We're 9 days down the line from your suggestion to leave it 7 days. Unless you think otherwise, I'll go live with the proposed text with a comment to say that of course, if things pan out differently at CfD, we'll update it accordingly. Uniplex (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I put it at WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Categories (where this stuff has been for a while). Do you think it needs a reference at WP:ALBUM (the parent page) as well?

Hey, I've just looked at WP:SONGS and the example there seems wrong: it has the song in cat Category:Songs written by Barrett Strong; should it be Category:Songs with lyrics by Barrett Strong? Uniplex (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I've checked the sheet music for the song and it's “Words and Music by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong”, so it's correct in this case. Uniplex (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re your WP:Songs categorisation post: in fact, what went into WP:ALBUMS was copy-edited a little from the last proposal on its talk page (and incorporates the discussion about certified-sales category splitting) but of course, its very close to what you pasted. Not surprisingly, I'd vote for this to apply to songs as well but I'll hold off posting for now, in the hope that other editors chip in—don't want to be seen as steam-rollering stuff through. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Category Sergio Franchi songs

Hi there! Got your message re Wiki Project Songs. Glad to join project. Have reviewed the guidelines. Have just completed my first Wiki article as "Sergio Franchi discography." Waiting for review. About two-thirds of the way into the projest, I learned about Categories. Am now going back and trying to add Franchi to any existing Wiki song pages. Along the way, I am also trying to improve stubs by adding Reference Pages, references of Sergio's recordings, DEFAULTSORT's, lyrics by, music by, and even other singer categories. So I have about 100 other Franchi songs to check for internal references. Also, I am making note of songs for which I might want to add a page for later. When I have finished with Franchi's songs I will go back and review the guidelines and continue with the project. Am adding the WikiProject Songs to my user page. Thanks, CatherineCathlec (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! I joinrd the WikiProject Songs. However, I have a question. Why can I no longer access the list "Sergio Franchi Songs? It does not appear any longer on my watch list either. I am not finished with this list, as I still have song wiki pages to review. Can You answer? Thanks, CatherineCathlec (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New Caledonian anthem

Hi. I had specifically categorised Soyons unis, devenons frères under "Anthems" rather than "National anthems" because it pointedly is not (officially) the national anthem. You changed the category, which does make sense to a certain extent; I'm still rather uncertain where it should be categorised, given its particular status. Aridd (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Bob Dylan article

Hi Richhoncho, I hope all is well with you. I would be interested in your opinion on this question. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen

Why did you put List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen back into Skibbereen (song) without any discussion and ignoring the fact that had just split if of from the song? Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Rich, there was an ambiguity in WP:SONGCOVER that may have suggested that a separate list is okay; I've attempted to fix this. Technically, a list-of-song-performers article is not a song article so is not covered by WP:SONG; however, I think it unlikely that a list of song performers would ever pass WP:N, so the guideline, as is now, is fine. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good luck—I'll chip in where I can. "Not established as a defining characteristic in the lead" is always good for starters. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)