User talk:Ojorojo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search[edit]

Can you put to WP:ALBUMAVOID? Because acccording to RS noticeboard, Tenebrae says "Forbes "contributors" are not Forbes editorial staff, but suppliers of user-generated content." (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@ ALBUMAVOID includes "Websites with user-generated content should never be used as sources ... It is also important to be cautious of websites that publish user-submitted album reviews." So, any content that can be shown to be WP:USERGENERATED may be removed. The discussion at the RS noticeboard didn't specifically recommend adding Forbes to the list. Maybe bring it up at WT:ALBUMS, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure[edit]

that you want me at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. I am a wikianarchist and am an inclusionist and am one of the folks who would like all cover versions of a song to be listed somewhere, either in the songs article or in a separate List of cover versions of . . article. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It's up to you (I wasn't aware of your view). Since we discussed it length before and you're active in that area, I thought I'd pass it along. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. I do a fair amount of music editing but am of the Rules are made to be broken school, and naturally believe that all my rule breaking is for the good of our project and I hate it when other editors break the guidelines and do stupid edits. I suppose it is a vanity thing. I tend to stay out of arguments that hinge around interpreting the rules. Mostly I just mutter curses at my dog and back away from those sorts of discussions, I am still annoyed about loosing my list of session players on Bobby Day's Rockin' Robin (song) because supposedly the source was not reliable. I am sometimes a bomb thrower and am often best left out, but I do thank you for your invitation. Carptrash (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

article for deletion[edit]

Ojorojo, please look at this, and verify it is poorly sourced. I can not understand how any editor worth their salt could vote to keep... (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The rest of them (cont.)[edit]

Hello @Jc86035: "Album chronologies for film franchises and series" at WT:ALBUM didn't get much response, but I think it still should be pursued. Maybe be bold and remove a few and see what happens or open a RfC. BTW, the Infobox song error numbers haven't changed much since last month.[1] Where do we stand on completing the merger of Infobox single and song? I see Zackmann08 is back. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've stalled it for a while and worked on some other stuff due to a bug in AWB which I didn't really want to work around, but with manual review for each edit and a few tweaks I should get a few hundred more done. A lot of the remaining song infoboxes are not fixable automatically or have brackets like "(featuring Quavo)" or "(remix)" or "(acoustic)" which aren't handled yet or need to be checked and removed manually, and then there are the split US/UK chronologies which aren't formatted consistently or correctly. Jc86035 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: OK, I'll focus on those with brackets, etc. I've already seen many odd/problematic uses of chronologies, which are basically for navigation and have little to do with the actual article. Something so trivial presents a major stumbling block. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)