User talk:EddieHugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Jerry Bergonzi - Discography[edit]

Hi EddieHugh, Saw your revert of my recent edit on Bergonzi's page. You're probably right about not dumping tags - I just wasn't sure how to correctly adapt the section and asking for help on talk-pages more often than not doesn't seem to yield any results. Have now introduced a table, but feel that's not ideal either (although I think for people that actually want to read the full discography opening the table might be an easy option - while everyone else doesn't have to scroll through the long list...). Do you have any better ideas? Thanks --RuhriJörg 09:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. On other pages, I haven't seen the 2-column presentation that you've tried, so it's not a preferred option. Opinion varies on how to present discographies and what to put in them. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies that has links to all discographies that are featured lists, but their content and presentation is usually for pop/rock (e.g., list chart positions in multiple countries), which usually isn't appropriate for jazz.
On jazz pages, there are two widely accepted ways of presenting discographies. One is to have 2 lists – 1 for leader, 1 for sideman – as for Bergonzi previously. The other is to have 2 tables – 1 for leader, 1 for sideman. I prefer tables, because more information can be added in a systematic way, to help inform the reader. A caution, though! People disagree about what should be in such tables (look through my talk pages for some of that). Brad Mehldau discography is one that I created. The BM one has my preferred format: four columns (year recorded, title, label, notes (which is mainly personnel). Ideally, year released would be in another column. And ideally, everything should be sourced, of course.
If you think that the problem is that the discography is too big for the biography page, then proposing (or just doing) a page split is the answer. The procedure is painstaking, but not too bad if you follow each step of the instructions at WP:PROSPLIT. There are plenty of instances of separate discography articles that retain the 2 lists style of the previous Bergonzi biography, so you could just split that to a new article – 'Jerry Bergonzi discography' – without any tables.
I hope that answers your query, without too much information. Just ask if there's something else. EddieHugh (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I see a number of the most famous jazz standards are not on the main pages. I would argue that Body and Soul and But Not For Me etc should be on those pages and the rest on dab pages. It's irritating to search for very famous jazz tunes and having to see big dab pages of all albums with the title etc. Do you agree?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In principle, yes. What do you propose? EddieHugh (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Body and Soul (1930 song) is moved to Body and Soul  page to start...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You can but propose it, and see what ensues... EddieHugh (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Body and Soul (1930 song) Requested there if you support the move.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

...that didn't last long, it ended before I'd begun. We should have listened: Unless there's magic the end will be tragic / And echo a tale that's been told so often EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


For your splendid work on jazz. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 17:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC).

Thanks! There's so much to do... EddieHugh (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Joe Locke[edit]

I thought there was an article about Joe Locke. Was it deleted?Vmavanti (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've raised the matter here. EddieHugh (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
It was "undeleted to you", whatever that means. I'm looking at now. Should I copy and paste that into a new blank article? Or what? I can add some material (later).Vmavanti (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
It's just a procedure for allowing access to what was deleted, minus whatever (some sort of copyright violation, plus maybe other things) caused it to be deleted. Yes, copying what's there into a reborn Joe Locke article is simplest. Let me know if you'd prefer me to do it. EddieHugh (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Matt Catingub[edit]

Why was Matt Catingub deleted?Vmavanti (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion G11 & G12, back in 2014. The way to find out is to search for the deleted article's name, then click on the red link to start to create the new article (this doesn't actually create anything at this point), then read "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted" on the page that comes up. EddieHugh (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced material[edit]

I deleted some material in one of those trivia sections that we see so often here. Someone reverted my edit with the reason "this is good stuff but needs to be sourced". Was I wrong? What should I do about this?Vmavanti (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right. My usual edit summary for that cut is something like 'cut unsourced for 2 years. See WP:BURDEN'. That policy states: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". So, 'this is good stuff but needs to be sourced'... I'd respond by pointing out that policy and saying 'fine, put the stuff back in when you have sources for all of it; until then, it stays out and the burden is on you to find the sources'. I don't think I've ever had events go beyond that for a trivia section, so don't know what I'd do if someone kept reverting to unsourced drivel. EddieHugh (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Article titles with diacritics[edit]

I wondered if there is a rule of thumb regarding linking to an article, such as a name, that has diacritical marks. If the name of title is linked, ought the link lead to the article even if the diacritics don't exist? If I type "Dusko Gojkovic" without diacritics in an article and link it, it's a red link, but if I type "Duško Gojković" with the diacritics then the link works and leads to the article. I've seen this occasionally. Usually a person isn't required to enter the diacritic marks when linking or searching. This seems like a good idea to me because it is easy to forget diacritics and many people don't know where all of them are on the keyboard. If the article title "Duško Gojković" needs to be corrected, I don't know how to do it.Vmavanti (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what textual variations redirect automatically. "Dusko Gojkovic" does redirect to "Duško Gojković" for me, so I don't know why it doesn't for you. The first one (Dusko Gojkovic) is a specific diacritic-based redirect to the second, which suggests that diacritic-based variations need to have specific redirect pages set up. EddieHugh (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mary Lou Williams, legacy, influence, impact, and so on[edit]

I'm looking at the Mary Lou Williams article. What do you think of these final sections of articles that bear titles such as Legacy, Tributes, Influence, Impact? My thinking is this: With the possible exception of tributes, which often are symptoms of POV, those subjects involve subjectivity, opinion, and debate, and thus Wikipedia is a bad place for them. They become the trash-heap of the article, accumulations of trivia, opinions, observations, wishful thinking, obituaries, and irrelevancies. It's another way of saying, "Look at what my hero did." Or maybe "Can you believe this jerk?" Either way is hardly impartial. A grand Summing Up of a person's life is impossible even if it were admissible on Wikipedia. Influence? Impact? Legacy? Who can say? Throw a pebble in a pond. You see the ripples closest to you. Who can say how far the ripples go? That's a figurative way of looking at it. Who can see the consequences of one person's existence? It's crystal ball stuff. Magical thinking. With the exception of the fictional George Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life, no one gets to know the story of their legacy, influence, or impact. But what to do with these sections? Sometimes the material is sourced.Vmavanti (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

For important musicians, it's a useful section. I look for impact on the music, and who was influenced (plus in what ways) by the person. A list, such as that at MLW, is not a good way to present such information. If it's important enough, it should be in prose. I'd get rid of all of the albums, but summarize with something such as "several tribute albums to MLW have been released". The podcast is a waste of space. The historical novel could go in Further reading or just be cut. So: I think such sections are a good idea, but they should concentrate on musical impact, not on tributes of various kinds. There's none of that in the MLW one now. EddieHugh (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Straight-ahead jazz[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Straight-ahead jazz#Stub. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Bud Brisbois[edit]

Do you think Bud Brisbois should be deleted? I question the notability. I can't find many sources, and those I find usually point to one person, Kevin Seeley, who I guess was either a student or friend or both. Unsourced (except by Kevin Seeley) since 2009.Vmavanti (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

He gets a little coverage in a couple of books that I have. He was with Stan Kenton for a while, and Kenton has a genuinely fanatical following, so there's probably a lot more sourced information out there to be found. That just leaves finding it.... I'll post updates here if I find more. EddieHugh (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Does the same problem have the same solution?[edit]

Ah yes, the one-sentence article, one of my favorite subjects, right? Or two or three sentences. All written by educated people who ought to know better. What to do? If you look at the Cleanup Listing, click "Expansion Needed", then sort by "Oldest", you'll see a list of at least ten German jazz festival "articles" that absolutely must be in Wikipedia, or the consequences will be cataclysmic. In America, German jazz festivals don't get much press. There's no "German jazz festival" section at the local library. The television news doesn't begin, "But first, there's a new avant-garde saxophonist appearing at Leipziger Jazztage". Maybe you will see a blurb at or or -- if there's a big name who happens to be traveling through Germany. But that's it. I'm open to suggestions as to how to deal with such articles.Vmavanti (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I did look at some of them a while ago, and sighed. A small number of them will have coverage in English; I think I may have expanded at least one that I found info for. One option is an online search for sources, then Prod, to see if anyone appears with sources that are hard to find. Maybe there's more on the German Wikipedia, but in my experience sourcing there is much worse than here. EddieHugh (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Release dates[edit]

I've noticed that your preferred format for discographies is tables with a column for year of recording. That's OK, but I would like to see you add a column for release dates. Outside of the very very small world of jazz discographers, albums are usually listed and mentioned with an accompanying release date. That's what most people are accustomed to seeing. That's what readers expect to see and in fact probably do see when they read an album title, regardless of genre, with a year next to it in parentheses, no matter where they read it. Recording dates are secondary. This is in part because if a reader sees an album, there might be an interest in looking for it, perhaps to purchase, and therefore the release date is the more important piece of information. It's the date the album was made available to the public. That's significant. It left the private world. I've seen many occurrences on Wikipedia where someone has written the album with two years next to the title, one of them in brackets. The bracketed year will be either the recording date or release date. But the reader won't know ninety-nine percent of the time because it's not obvious which is which. The uninitiated, you might say, won't know. That's the very kind of thing I have tried to avoid. In a world of 7.5 billion people, how many of us know what the brackets signify? Eleven? OK, more than that. But not a lot more. Although I have been accused of being a purist or puritanical or snobbish or trying to create a jazz club, I have in fact avoided that very approach. I have tried to be democratic because Wikipedia is a democratic project. I'm often surprised by the number of contributors who don't see it that way, regardless of what they say. Perhaps I can blame my English teachers who early my life instructed me to be aware of one's audience, of one's readers, of the common reader. To try to put oneself in the shoes of others. To imagine their perspective, thus to begin developing the habit of impartiality and critical disinterest. I have had contributors on WP say to me in effect, "That's not at all my approach" or "I'm not writing for the common reader". Well, I am, and I think encyclopedias and reference works usually have been.

I return to a familiar subject: conformity. Why is there often a death section in a WP article that sounds like a newspaper obituary? Because the person who added the information to WP probably recently read an obituary and automatically wrote in that same style if not the identical words. Plagiarism is often accidental because conformity is a hardwired survival instinct. Birds of a feather. No bird is going to say, "Hey, man, let's go hang out with the lions for a while. Let's be open-minded." I've notice that flocks take to the air at once, not one bird at a time. How they manage that timing I don't know. Conformity isn't all bad. It isn't all good either. But by definition it often is automatic, instinctive, done without thought or reflection. People have to decide for themselves how conscious and reflective they want to be and how often by contrast they prefer to be on cruise control. Living in the days of the Chinese virus pandemic might bring this very matter to the front of one's thoughts because cruise control... and...stop...and....think. Why does nearly everyone write "prior to" when it's identical and inferior to "before"? Why for years have so many people begun spoken sentences with "So..." There's a difference between being in a groove, perhaps in that heady feeling of flow, and being in a rut. Regardless, I hope your president gets better soon.Vmavanti (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

We agree that the ideal is to have a column for recording years and a column for release years. Getting the information is the difficult part! Death sections – yes, they often look out of place. But occasionally a separate section is warranted, and I have used them: some people have been murdered, died young in surprising circumstances, etc. In general, though, death is part of life, so a separate section isn't warranted. EddieHugh (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
To some degree. I prefer release dates, as you know. Does a column of question marks help anyone? No. Are you assuming, like others, that a mythical Good Samaritan is going to come along to fill in the blanks? I can show you articles going back to 2009 disprove that idea, the idea that hope rather than realism is a good motive for work. Consider how difficult it is for Wikipedia to get even one photograph for free use, let a long a high quality photo. Professional photographers take millions (exaggeration?) of photos...clickclickclickclickclickclick...but try to get them to donate one, just one, for Wikipedia. What's the big deal? Closer to the point, you told me it's easier to find recording dates than release dates, and that's why you prefer them. I understand that. We've exchanged posts about the difficulties of finding a—kerplunk!—factual release date as immutable as a Commandment. Talk about a mug's game. There certainly is a lot of ambiguity and flux. But it's not 100 percent ambiguity, subjectivity, and confusion, not enough to make me throw in the towel, except perhaps in certain situations (Art Tatum comes to mind). And sometime around the 1980s, companies became much more precise and scruplous about their record keeping, so release dates from those years to the present are more reliable and easier to find. Something to keep in mind.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

discogs - Roberto Magris[edit]

Dear EddieHugh, thank you for your advice about Discogs. I have just removed Discogs, Cd baby and Cd Universe in all the pages that I have created and I won't use it anymore, of course after your useful input. As for the COI, please, have a look at my Robmag profile where I've explained and given evidence of my position (yes, it's Roberto Magris, and I've updated and completed the page on me - which was created by somebody else, not related with me and that I don't know - by creating some more pages about my recordings, plus more - see at my Robmag profile, please - while locked at home in Italy, where I'd returned just in time, in these bad virus-times). As you can see, I've never included nothing but what's strictly referred to the sources (no comments, no promotion, no self-anything) and the sources that I've included are immediately check-able on-line by clicking on the link, of course. As I've seen that you're taking care of jazz and jazz pianists in Wikipedia (thank you!), you will also notice that in all the pages that I've created the sources are Down Beat, All Music, All About Jazz, Jazz Hot and only magazines and websites that are absolutely renowned in the jazz community. Sorry, for including Discogs etc. without being aware that they are not reliable sources, but I must say that, before starting working on Wikipedia (also in Italian and German), I had checked before what sources were quoted in other similar pages of my collegues and I did the same... Sorry, but had used a wrong model... No problem, in the future pages that I'll create and I'll carefully follow the guidelines that you nicely mentioned. I hope I've cleared up the 2 points you made. If not or if there is something more that is needed that I do, please let me know. I remain at your disposal and thank you, once again, for your dedication to jazz. Best wishes. User:Robmag Roberto Magris

I've replied on your talk page. EddieHugh (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Eddie, I apologize for disturbing you again. Somebody placed again a warning on the Roberto Magris wikipedia page, even after you've nicely adjusted it. And a user named Harsh has nominated the JMood Records wikipedia page for deletion. I wonder why there is such an active and continued wish to delete/warn/trouble with pages and information that have been created with honesty and plain evidence, full of links to sources and absolutely true and verifiable information. I wonder if Wikipedia is really an open source or if it must be a place for selected people who continuously select what they want to select. If people like that want to delete all my contributions I'll let them do it (it's a pity for people searching information about jazz musicians) as I'm quite fed up with receiving warnings about things that are evident and obvious and immediately checkable. If somebody has in his hands a copy of the Down Beat magazine (january, february, march, april, may and june issues...) can easily find the JMood records ads as well as the Cd reviews. As a jazz friend and jazz contributor to Wikipedia I ask you, please, if you're able to stop this and/or solve whatever problem these people have for sending warnings more and more (while I'm doing just nothing - I didn't touch anything after you've nicely corrected/adjusted it). I worked on Wikipedia during the lockdown period to keep alive with something in music (also creating the Herb Geller and Ira Sullivan pages in Italian). Now it's quite finished in Europe and I'll be back to my usual concert activities soon and wouldn't like to spend more time to explain to whatever wikipedia administrator pops up that I am not a fake or selfish or what... It's nonsense. If you can help to any extent, please, I'll be very grateful to you. Sorry for disturbing you, but you've been the only kind and useful "resource" for me in Wikipedia so far, where I'm close to close... my contributions. Thank you very much in advance, I hope you're covid-free in your place, Stay well and take care. Best wishes. User:Robmag Roberto Magris

Charts and notability[edit]

Let's start with the easy stuff: the use of "charts". Sometimes people write "made the charts" when they should write "chart" or write which chart specifically was "made" and how. What chart? What magazine? Specificity is always best in a reference work. Of course, they might consider whether that information has any lasting value at all and whether it ought to be added in the first place. What's interesting to one person isn't always interesting to another. I don't know if you ever watched that YouTube link I gave you by Rick Beato. He was a record producer and teacher who has a fairly popular program on YT. He listed by memory the number of jazz albums that have gone platinum or gold. Less than ten, I think. He said if you can get a thousand friends to buy your album, it will show up on the jazz album chart at Billboard. This is yet another example of where the methods and language used in other genres and subjects needs to be qualified or modified or jettisoned when dealing with jazz. It's a minority genre. That doesn't mean it's superior. That doesn't mean it's inferior. It's a report of the numbers. What I'm getting at: Notability. Sometimes when a person tries to "save" an article from deletion, their defense is that it made a chart somewhere. Finland, Botswana, doesn't matter, according to the rules. But while that might make it notable, it doesn't provide us with enough information to write an article of substance, to say the least. A chart is simply a list of items with numbers. Not words. Not information from which to write an article, though some have tried. We end up with a lot of album articles that lack content. It's not all that difficult to have one's album on a chart somewhere. But given the reasons I mentioned here, it ought not to be enough to prevent an article from being deleted. It ought not be used as a motive to create an article. I say this every deletion discussion: There have to be sources because that's where the information comes from. You know, words. Not white space. Actual words.Vmavanti (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw the Finland one. The album notability requirements are very low, but so are lots of others: having played one game in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League is enough. In this way, I suppose, Wikipedia becomes all encyclopedias combined. Yes, it's overkill, but it's what consensus has determined. Technically, though, meeting notability criteria doesn't mean that an article has to be kept; if it's never going to be expanded beyond a sentence or two because there are no more known sources, proposing a merge or change to redirect is a possible way forward. EddieHugh (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Then the consensus is self-defeating.Vmavanti (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Why you reverted my edit[edit]

You reverted my edit of linking Canada in coronavirus article and cited policy that countries should not be excessively linked. I don't see Canada being linked even once in Coronavirus article about Canada, so one link certainly does not seem excessive to me. Roman (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Roman, that's not what MOS:OL says. The part about excessive links is the preamble to the list of guidelines. The guidelines state: "the following are usually not linked: ... The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: ... countries". Canada being a major country, it shouldn't be linked. EddieHugh (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The policy say what generally should not be linked, it does not say it never can be linked. I believe the intent is to prevent excessive linking. One or few links to Canada are helpful in any article about Canada, so users do not have to type and search for it if they want to find information about Canada which is not in the article. One or few links to countries are common in about every Wikipedia article and they are helpful. Even article about Canada has links to other common countries such as United Kingdom. Roman (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you really believe that someone reading an article such as '2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada' will need to look up 'Canada'? There's probably no such thing as 'never do X' on Wikipedia, but... really.... EddieHugh (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a recent discussion at the MoS talk page on this. The summary is: don't link 'Canada'. EddieHugh (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Eddie, It's literally the first thing I do when landing on those articles. It says "824,230 confirmed cases in USA" and then I absolutely need the population of USA to make sens of the data. I think you are confused by MOS:OL wording ? If united-state was mentioned in the core text, it doesn't have to be linked all the time. But the article is 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, so it makes sens that United stats is blue in the lead. I do use them. Iluvalar (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I really do believe that someone will need to look up Canada. I missed the link to Canada exactly for the same reason as Iluvalar. To make sense of the data I needed more info about Canada. And while you might know how many people are in Canada, I don't think most people do. I can't see how a single link to a country which the article is very strongly related to can be harmful. Some people might need it for completely other reason, so adding per-capita data will help (are you also going to update it daily?), but not everybody. I do use those links. Your edit Eddie made my Wikipedia experience worse. Roman (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, "someone" needs to, or at least might want to. For everyone else, it's clutter on the page that makes it more difficult to read. What do you do once you have the population? Use a calculator to work out the death rate, I suppose. But by the time you've done that, you could have found the death rate figure on the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada page – yes, updated daily; no, not by me. EddieHugh (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. For me, "the U.S. death rate was 129 people per million population" in the same paragraph would be enough. EddieHugh (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You raise a good point, though... encouraging editors to put cases per capita in the infobox is a better solution than wikilinking countries that everyone knows. EddieHugh (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[edit]

But I am in Belgium currently !

--AXRL (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not in Belgium, but I wouldn't expect to see 'Belgium' linked in the '2020 coronavirus pandemic in Belgium' article. It encourages yet more unnecessary linking: that article has 'school holidays' and 'carnival' linked in the opening paragraph! EddieHugh (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion proposals[edit]

You may have seen my deletion proposals. You are free to participate in the discussions. All the proposals are reasonable and noncontroversial and have been motivated by the desire to improve WP.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Will you take a look at this? I'm trying to understand it. Thanks. Vmavanti (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been doing much here for a few weeks. You've been cracking on with the improvements, I see, which is good. On "Confirmation": I argued against linking to Google books when the link shows only the existence of the book, but some people do it. As page numbers have been added, it's reasonable to assume good faith and that the citations cover the information that has been added. Or ask the person who added them to confirm that. For me, the coverage in Jazz Standards and Charlie Parker, Composer is a good start.
I share your frustration with people who say variants of 'there must be sources', and there's even the classic 'So fix it, someone [other than me]' in this AfD. The positive side in this instance is that putting it up for deletion got some proper sources and information. EddieHugh (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I saw that you commented on one deletion discussion but the admin closed it as "No Consensus", which baffled me and annoyed me. What you wrote made sense, but the admin didn't even comment on it. I've been working on the assumption that one must link directly to sourced content, not merely the existence of the book or book cover. If one doesn't have access to the information itself, then what's the point? That really is an irresponsible way of writing sources, in addition to being simply unhelpful. If such a thing were done in the real world, there would be consequences. But here? No. And so people have been writing articles and sourcing them badly for a v. long time. Then when someone comes along and says "No sources", they say, "What?" There's no need for this confusion. To me proper sourcing is at the heart of Wikipedia, not a frivolous debate. If people have become accustomed to wrong methods of sourcing, and have been allowed to do it for ten years or more, it's no wonder they get annoyed at deletion discussions.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this official guideline: "A link to Google Books should only be added if the book is available for preview." EddieHugh (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To ask a favour[edit]

I know that you do a lot of editing work on jazz articles and wondered if you would be interested in creating a new one for Michael J. Thomas. I assume it is this individual who recently contacted me via e-mail, on the back of some referencing work that I undertook on Boney James' article (albeit over two years ago). Thomas states that he has had two recent No. 1 Billboard hits. I have no reason to doubt him, so I would not have thought that notability is an issue. I intend to reply to him to say that I have "put feelers out", but if you are not interested, I fully understand and will ask elsewhere. Actually, given that my involvement in jazz articles is normally not much more than tidying up references etc., any suggestion as to which other Wikipedia editor(s) I might approach would be very helpful. Just to be clear, there was no mention of financial, or otherwise rewards, for creating such an article. Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the approach. He might meet WP:MUSICBIO #11 for notability, and #2 if genre charts are accepted. Am I interested in doing it, though? The jazz project states that it doesn't discriminate, but personally... smooth jazz is an area I avoid. I might do some tidying, as you do, for existing articles, but there's so much to do in the areas that I am interested in.
There is Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Jazz, but it gets very little traffic. Chubbles has created a lot of music articles and might be more open-minded than I am.... EddieHugh (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, but it feels like the notability requirements for jazz musicians are tightening, in such a way that writing an article for this musician may be an uphill battle without an impressive raft of third-party coverage. Maybe when he makes his way into (several?) jazz encyclopedias. Chubbles (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think they're making encyclopedias anymore. Not sure why, though... EddieHugh (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Lol...and sigh. Chubbles (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you gentlemen for your response. I will give Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Jazz a try and see if that solicits any response. Thanks - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sade (band)[edit]

There are several things going on here. See the Talk page. Unlike 95% of the musicians in the jazz project, Sade was a popular band. That's one reason Wikipedia should try harder to get it right. The band is in the jazz project but Sade (Helen Adu) herself isn't. That doesn't make sense. One person has been blocking this because he believes Sade is smooth jazz. I don't. I say this as a fan by the way. I owned those records on vinyl. One argument is that if a person appears on the Smooth Jazz chart at Billboard magazine, that person is therefore a jazz musician. It would be generous to call that reaching. Charts don't determine genre. They determine sales. This is where Billboard becomes an industry booster, a cheerleader. Billboard reports on the music industry, but it also is a cheerleader for the industry. It's not a newspaper, though libraries will often stock it with newspapers and the people at Billboard would like to think it's a newspaper. Unlike newspapers, it doesn't come out everyday. Unlike newspapers, it rarely tries to be impartial. This is another "jazz tinged" matter which people respond to in a Pavlovian way. They see the word "jazz" and bing! like magic it has become jazz. Pop jazz, jazz pop, jazz rock, jazz funk, jazz rap, soft jazz, jazzy, caffeine-free jazz. This is marketing. This is money talking, not much more. I'm surprised that anyone on Wikipedia would support that kind of thing, given that most of the time they say they are against it.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

One source for some type of 'jazz' isn't enough for me, when considered in relation to how much coverage Sade has received. I'm trying to let these things go... I removed Dean Martin from the jazz project recently and got reverted, but my explained re-revert (taken from the project's talk pages of a while ago) hasn't encountered any opposition yet. But... the same person restored unsourced categories to the article... I just left them... there are probably too many people who think that anyone who sings with a big band is a jazz vocalist. A solution for me is to improve the articles on ones that I believe are really of the jazz world. EddieHugh (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
People get nutty about those categories. I don't know why. I'm constantly seeing categories that don't belong, and someone will revert and want to challenge me to a duel over it. Jesus on figure skates. If we need categories at all, we don't need many. So much time wasted. If you don't want to weigh in on the Sade debate, that's OK. Who knows better than I do? But Sade strikes me as a particularly obvious mistake, the kind of debate I never expected to have because it's so obvious. In all the books and magazines I have read, never have I seen Sade called a jazz band. As I said, I followed this band long ago when it was popular. I owned the albums and read the articles. I never thought of them as a jazz band or even a smooth jazz band. In fact, probably the only time "smooth jazz" pops into my head is when Kenny G's name pops up, and that's because people call him that. I wouldn't call his music any flavor of jazz. I would call it pop or easy listening. That's not a put down. It's a description. The only time I have ever seen the always mild-mannered, decent Pat Metheny lose his cool is when Kenny G dubbed himself onto Louis Armstrong's recording of It's a Wonderful World. He flipped his lid. You might be able to find it on YouTube. I think what happens here is a point I made in the past but removed from my User page: Jazz became elevated practically into a religion. It's considered...Important...profound...oooohh.....So when I say "not jazz", they become insulted because to them it's a value judgment or moral judgment. But it isn't. What do I care? I don't care what music people listen to or if they listen to music at all. It's foolishness.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
You make a good point about big band singers. Years ago, at the beginning of my time here, those are the sorts of debates I expected to have: Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, the difference between swing, dixieland, New Orleans jazz, Spyro Gyra, and then the far out stuff. God knows I've walked away from many situations. But I think there are some bad habits that can be corrected. One of those bad habits is dumping everything in the jazz project when they don't know how to classify something. Is it a bot that does this? Simply because the word "jazz" is in the article? I don't know. I do know that there's behavior that's accepted when it comes to jazz that isn't tolerated elsewhere. The reasoning is something like, "Well, those articles aren't as important". I disagree. A person's habits continue in other contexts.Vmavanti (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm close to certain that a bot did add some articles to the jazz project based on what was in the articles (the primary goal was to add project classifications)! But that shouldn't happen now. EddieHugh (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Vocal jazz[edit]

Wikipedia has an article about vocal jazz. Should it be deleted?
Vmavanti (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I know: it's so small because it was almost entirely unsourced and I cut all of that. There's 'jazz piano' (also with awful sourcing), but no 'jazz trumpet' or similar. There's also 'vocal music' (terrible sourcing). I can picture the objections to deleting it... but it could probably be covered adequately in the main 'jazz' article. I mean, what's so different about singing, apart from (sometimes) words? The usual story: it could be something worth having, but is anyone going to work on it? EddieHugh (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Next day's thought: redirecting to Vocal music: Jazz and popular music would make sense. EddieHugh (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
What about scatting like Ella Fitzgerald? That could be jazz singing. Read the introduction to Scott Yanow's book The Jazz Singers: The Ultimate Guide for a decent attempt at definition. If you don't have access to it, let me know, and I'll figure something out. Regardless, there are distinctions many people won't make or can't make:
  1. Subjects
  2. "Important" subjects
  3. Subjects that belong in Wikipedia
  4. Subjects that could be in Wikipedia
  5. Subjects that follow the rules of Wikipedia
  6. Notable subjects
  7. Articles about the subject
  8. Articles that have a realistic chance of being written and developed

You'll notice it took me until #8 before any actual work takes place. Those are hurdles we face every day.Vmavanti (talk)

OK, I've got Yanow's book in front of me. This is from the introduction. He calls "What is a jazz of the most difficult questions in jazz...A jazz singer is a vocalist who improvises at least in subtle ways through notes, words, sounds, and/or phrasing. is not necessary to scat or to swing...but it is important that a singer not put on the exact same performance night after night, year after year. Some vocalists, such as Betty Carter and Mark Murphy, proved to be radically different from night to night, while others, including Lady Day and Oscar Brown Jr., changed their shows gradually over time. Cabaret singers and middle of the road crooners tend to keep things the same once they are worked out often prefer their sidemen also play set solos."Vmavanti (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
But how does that differ from instrumentalists? EddieHugh (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The singing?
Vmavanti (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the category American female jazz singers. Many are not jazz singers. I removed some of them from the project a long time ago but chose not to remove "jazz" from the infobox or categories or lede because I thought it wasn't worth the fight. You know how fanatical people are about those categories. I remember getting into huge fights over Doris Day with one guy. I was trying to take Doris Day albums off the project and he kept restoring the template in rage. Robert Flack, Chaka Khan, Queen Latifah. These aren't jazz singers, even if they have made one attempt at a "jazzy" album. They're R&B, pop, soul. Mostly pop. They are dabblers at best. No one calls Michael Jordan a baseball player because he tried to play minor league baseball at the end of his career. The truth is, Norah Jones really isn't much of a jazz singer, but so many people like her that the resistance would be enormous if I tried to tell them the truth. I remember the Linda Ronstadt battles. Then you have a lot of singers from the 1920s and 30s who were really blues singers. People think blues and jazz are interchangeable terms. They're not. And R&B and funk have nothing to do with jazz. Some teenager will sing a Gershwin song on American Idol or Postmodern Jukebox or a similar show and suddenly that person is a jazz singer. Awful. That does a real injustice to real jazz singers. They must hate being lumped in with all these frauds. Most of all, it does real injustice to readers. Essentially they are being lied to. It does bother me sometimes that I help perpetuate these fallacies. But there's so little I can do when it comes to strangers on the internet. Why should they listen to me? They never met me. We have Wikipedia editors whose religion is infinite expansion, who create articles that have no hope of ever being finished. It's like living in a neighborhood with broken windows and condemned houses that no one wants to demolish, but they don't want the houses fixed either. They want to live in the ruins, and you can't persuade them they are living in the ruins because they have taken leave of their senses. They wouldn't notice a wrecking ball swinging into their living room while they were watching television. Their eyes don't see and their ears don't hear. Have you ever had someone claim you write something you didn't? You think, "I never said that and if this person had read the words properly they would know that". It's an interesting phenomenon. As though their eyes had wandered from the screen or from the words themselves, free to meander in the white space to let their own thoughts and...interpretations...take over. I think of all those awful teachers out there encouraging students to read between the lines, thus creating private meanings and making communication impossible. The first step in learning is probably attention. But they would their own thing.
Vmavanti (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of jazz history[edit]

Hi, I started this. I will gradually source it and expand it, but feel free also to work on it!† Encyclopædius (Dr. Blofeld) 20:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Good to see you in a new guise! I know that Knuand created a lot of jazz by year articles (hence their Scandinavian leaning), but it looks like they were followed by an indef block. That article has the potential for infinite expansion.... what are the criteria for inclusion? I know that jazz histories often present a timeline, so I suppose it makes sense to have one here, but... I'd want to rethink the whole concept: is someone being born or dying really an event in jazz history? Maybe for Warne Marsh. Can something as (usually) fluid as the evolution of a music be captured in a list of specific dates? Maybe for a tiny number of instances – this? EddieHugh (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The Brother Theodore of Wikipedia. Jazz fan, metaphysician, podiatrist...Vmavanti (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Lars.Dormans. I noticed that you recently removed content from Marion Meadows without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Lars.Dormans (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Read the edit summary: "cut unsourced, which is nearly identical to". That's a more than adequate explanation. EddieHugh (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
My favorite part: "If this was a mistake, don't worry". So reassuring. Thanks, doc.Vmavanti (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

1970s in jazz[edit]

This looks like another grandiose vanity project to me: open-ended, selective and therefore opinionated (violating NPOV), largely unsourced and destined to remain so.Vmavanti (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Having a prose account of this would be useful, but not huge lists (but I'm prepared to listen to arguments in favour of them). Look at 'List of jazz albums' if you want a classic.... EddieHugh (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Arrrrrrrggggh....List of human beings on Earth...Vmavanti (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of "collaboration"[edit]

Word inflation strikes again. The word "collaboration" on Wikipedia is being stretched beyond its definition. There's some wiggle room here but not so much that deception is acceptable. If a musician performs on a song or two on another person's album, that isn't a collaboration. It's a guest spot, the equivalent of a cameo on television or film. The degree of responsibility varies with the situation, but I tend to think of collaboration as more like being a co-leader or a member of the band in which there is a greater degree of responsibility, effort, and income. What I've been seeing is a little like padding one's résumé. Inflated language is the result of the attempt to inflate someone's reputation. Not the greatest sin, but it's unacceptable. It also may be the result of contributors whose first language is something other than English.Vmavanti (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Antonio Faraò[edit]

Eddie, I would like to see you enter release dates for albums in addition to the recording dates you've been adding. Moreover, seeing years with question marks, as in the Antonio Faraò article, doesn't help anyone and isn't all that much different from leaving them out altogether. If reference books don't provide people with information, then what's the point? The other thing is, tables are difficult to edit. My approach would be to make sure information is nearly complete before putting it in a table, otherwise enter the information in a column the way we've been doing until someone else can fill in the blanks. Tables with blanks don't help much.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

In principle, I agree. In practice... I'm being honest when I put a question mark in. Serious discographies also use them (but that's not my excuse!). I wonder where the years in lists (rather than columns) come from. Also in practice: a table is much more useful than a list (if it provides extra information, blah blah), and having articles with tables encourages new editors to use tables and fill them in (I've seen this happen). It's a balance: do what looks best now, or make a good start on something that looks rough now in some cases but provides the scope for everything being much better in the future. I should have gone about it differently: include both recording and release dates; include refs in tables, maybe other things. I'm a long way through the jazz pianists list, putting in tables, and may start at 'A' again once I've finished, applying these improvements. But then I do other things, such as trying to get the cleanup list down, and this gets put aside. EddieHugh (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Labels from 2009[edit]

You might think about what you want to do with these labels:

  • Cadet
  • Commodore
  • De Luxe
  • Major Minor
  • Nixa
  • Schirmer
  • Sunshine
  • Trend
  • True Tone
  • West Craft

Vmavanti (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


I see this subject mentioned a lot by Wikipedia users, but I don't know if anyone has ever attempted to solve the problem of requiring IP editors to register before they can edit. Do you know if that has been attempted or where or how it would be attempted? Thanks. I suspect it comes down to money. Building an infrastructure for registration would cost money, and bosses would rather waste employees' time before doing anything to help them.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's doctrinal. Wikipedia used to promote "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" prominently, and that meant no account was required. Based on that history (and some practical reasons), there's too much opposition to not allowing IP editors. EddieHugh (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Opposition from Wikipedia editors or Wikipedia management? What is the nature of the opposition?
Vmavanti (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Some editors: it's against the original ethos; people should be free to choose; possibly something about protecting editors who might be targeted by governments (this is tied in with vpn use). 'Management'? They're too busy forcing through their own ideas of progress [1] and requirements that everyone be nice all the time: [2] EddieHugh (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

My Old Flame[edit]

Can you add anything more? Can't believe it was missing. Surprised Denny Zeitlin's albums are missing too!† Encyclopædius 12:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I can add some bits and pieces, possibly more. I'm also surprised that it didn't exist; thanks for pointing it out. EddieHugh (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone playing games[edit]

Yesterday I edited the Andy Quin article but my edits were twice reverted. They weren't controversial, so I went to the Talk page of the person who made the edits, Thanoscar21. He seemed like a beginner, but from the beginning his comments didn't ring true. He apologized and said he didn't realize that a revert meant reverting all of the edits that a person made. This is odd given he has rollback rights. On his Talk page he has already been accused of being a sock puppet, edit warring, and not knowing what a minor edit is. The top of his page reads "Wikipedia is no place for humor", and there's some other goofy stuff there. I sent him a long message about how to do things, which he deleted from his Talk page. I returned to the Andy Quin article today to edit it again (not restore). While I was editing, a redlinked user named Oregon Joe reverted my edits when I hit submit. Again my edits were noncontroversial and no reason was given for the revert. I don't know what to do about this, so I'm asking you to handle it. Or ignore it, it's up to you. I'm sure it's someone playing games. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand Thanoscar21's rationale there. And rollback shouldn't be used unless vandalism is used. I doubt that Oregon Joe is the same person, but I'll look again later. EddieHugh (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanoscar's objection was that unlinking London and England was against the MOS. Right, and I never said anything about vandalism. He brought that up and used the term incorrectly. As I said, there's a lot here that doesn't ring true.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It's in keeping with the MoS (MOS:OL), as you pointed out.... EddieHugh (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Oregon Joe now blocked as a sock puppet; nothing to do with Thanoscar21. EddieHugh (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Private Eye[edit]

Hello - do you have difficulty in distinguishing the satire from reported facts in Private Eye? Do you know the difference between the journalism and the joke pages? If you do not, is it not a reasonable question to suggest that you are not qualified to make judgments on this? Is it perhaps also reasonable to ask what your opinion of the publication is, because your edit summary on Dominic Cummings is interesting in that regard. -- Knucmo2 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

PE is very good at satire, meaning the distinction between what you label "facts" and "satire" is intentionally blurred. If it's an important part of the DC narrative, then finding another source shouldn't be difficult. EddieHugh (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
'What you label as facts' is a curious statement. Things are facts or they are not; I don't have facts of my own and nor do you. Your response seems to indicate to me that you are incapable of telling the reportage, satire and joke pages apart and therefore you should refrain from comment on the publication until this distinction is clear to you. Knucmo2 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I gently suggest that what you say are "reported facts in Private Eye" might be facts... or might not be. I point interested parties towards this. EddieHugh (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Your hero seems to have a slippery grasp of what facts are too: --Knucmo2 (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
My "hero"? EddieHugh (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, a bit sardonic on my part. I do note that you like to 'protectively' edit biographies of right-wing persons but I think your balance edit to Cummings is fine incidentally. Knucmo2 (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I like to point out when the sources don't match the content and when content has been presented with editorial bias. I suppose I find those things more often in articles about the 'right' than the 'left'; perhaps that's to do with who's in power in major countries. When I'm not doing that, I edit articles on that well-known collection of right-wing extremists – jazz musicians. EddieHugh (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I know I have my biases and dispositions and happily you share one with me musically speaking. If you're a jazzer then you will know better than to hold Tory sympathies... --Knucmo2 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse[edit]

Did you know non-admins. can close Afds? I didn't. Did you know college students can edit Wikipedia? I didn't. Did you know many Wikipedians like to play hall monitor? That I did know. Did you have hall monitors in England? In my early school days, up to the age of 12, I went to a peculiar school. A hall monitor was a kid who was given power. Already a bad idea, right? Usually it was a kid the other kids disliked. That was the second bad idea. This loser would sit at a desk in the hallway, and if a student was in the hallway (instead of in class) without a permission slip or some other identification, the hall monitor would either order him back or tell the teacher or both. It created a lot of problems. The hall monitor program didn't last v. long because it became obvious even to my moronic teachers that it failed. We had another thing called a swirly. That was when a kid or group of kids confronted an annoying kid, dipped his head in the toilet, then flushed the toilet. Swirly for swirling water. Or maybe swirled hair. Surprisingly effective. Unless they don't learn. Then they become Mark Zuckerberg, who could use another swirly or two. We had a saying in those days: Stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. I suspect kids don't learn that anymore, which is too bad because it's a good lesson. Everything on the internet is words. Inferior to action.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bill Mobley[edit]

Talk:Bill Mobley
Vmavanti (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Can't do much more than ask, although that one is from 3 years ago, so maybe newer ones are different. EddieHugh (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)