User talk:Richhoncho

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

Song versus Single[edit]

The two categories were made to distinguish between the two that have enough information to have a page about the song and songs which were issued as a single.→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That would make it a maintenance category. Are you saying it should be a hidden category? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the point in using songs and singles together because in many cases its easily mislabelled that ABC song was recorded in 20XX, when in fact (and in reality) we do not know when specific songs are recorded. Allow me to give you an example... "I Luh Ya Papi" is a song by Jennifer Lopez. She has been recording her album since late 2012, but released "I Luh Ya Papi" as a single this year. It should be classified under Category:2014 Singles. It is impossible to say which Category:Songs it should come under because we simply do not know when the song recording was produced. However, another song that surfaced from the album was "Same Girl" which Lopez said she released for the fans but was not a single from the album (it will still appear on the album). We have sources that say the song was recorded in 2013, but we list the song in Category:2014 songs because thats when the public heard it and it is an article about a song recording that is notable but not a single. The only way to distinguish between when to use Category:Song and Category:Single should on that distinction. There serves no physical or navigational purpose to have a song categorized under both song and single, whereas it is both logical and useful to be able to navigate through song pages that are about notable recordings separately from song recordings released as singles. I do not understand why that is causing so much tension... navigation does not make it maintenance.
It would be like classfying the iPod as an Innovation (something that is out in the market) and as an concept (something that has been invented but not produced yet).... If it is an invention, it is obviously a concept too, we don't need to state it is a concept. The way that you are saying the song and single categories are used is non-exclusionary, because a recording i.e. "I Luh Ya Papi" can be a song without being a single, but cannot be a single without being a song therefore, by including it in both categories there is no purpose for the song category. I wasn't impressed to be honest that you reverted me because I don't see a guideline or established consensus that articles about singles should go in the song and single categories. If i'm wrong, please do point me in the right direction, I would like to discuss this further and I think we need to establish a purpose for the categories). Also, on a side note, shouldn't Songs be renamed → Song recordings? i.e. 2013 Song recordings, 2014 song recordings etc. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You are misreading WP, it is the song which is notable, not the "single" (whatever that means in today's market) which can make a song notable. Cart and horses and all that.
The songs by year category all say, "Songs by the year in which they were released (or, in the case of unreleased songs, the year in which they were composed or finished)" So generally speaking the year first publication is the correct date.
Without the song by year there is no cohesive categorisation of songs because they have been segregated by medium (oh that's a single so it doesn't belong here, but as the album was released the year before so we can have the year of song). What a Mucking Fuddle that is!!!
A song can be released as a single more than once, but it can only be first composed/published/released once.
You say, "whereas it is both logical and useful to be able to navigate through song pages that are about notable recordings separately from song recordings released as singles." You need to explain that to me carefully, because I do not get it. However I am busy creating categories for singles by record label which would be more what you are thinking of and a whole lot more useful! In any event, what you want is exactly the same as me, save you think you achieve it by removing year of song when it is the same as the year of single. No, that merely muddies the waters.
You suggest that they should be renamed "Songs Recorded" and that is a big no-no, the songs by year category is about a lot more than recording. Check out Category:1744 songs or shouldn't they be categorised until they are aurally recorded?
The category that should be renamed is "Foo songs", to "Songs recorded by Foo." We may think we understand what "Foo songs" means, but we don't.
There were several discussions regarding this matter at WP:SONGS, probably 3 years ago, and now many editors are re-building the song by year back into a useful and meaningful category. My talkpage is not the place to reverse this. I have about another 5 articles to check and I think I have added or re-added, where necessary, the correct year of first publication for all of the 2014 single articles. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
youve completely lost me and I think youve misunderstood my original point. I was trying to say that I though the original creation of the categories was to distinguish between articles about a particular songor articles about a single. Coming back to my Jennifer Lopez example... her song "Same Girl" was written and recorded in 2013, its parent album wont come out till 2014. Which song category would you classify that in? Also her single "I Luh Ya Papi" was releases in 2014. We have no idea when it was recorded... only that it was a single in 2014. Now to me it makea logical sense that "Same Girl" is listed at a 2014 song as thats when we found out the information about it, when it was promotedwhen it gained notoriety whereas "I Luh Ya Papi" ia only classified as a 2014 single. Now using your opinion ans understanding please explain to my what we gain from "I Luh Ya Papi" being classified as both a single and a song? I think the danger about the whole song being published tjimg is that in many cases wwe're assuming. Its a bit like classifying an article about Jennifer LopeZ as both a female and a human, its silly becauase by being female she's a humam by default. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 02:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
A "single" is (was) a piece of manufactured plastic, a marketing term while a "song" is a piece of music with lyrics that you and I can sing in harmony. I can't sing a piece of plastic. The two words are NOT interchangeable. With regard to I Luh Ya Papi and Some Girl I am happy to accept what another editor might suggest. If there is verifiable information that the song was written/created/composed in 2005 then I would have no problem with that date. If there is no evidence other than the date of the release of the single I would accept that date. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Again you've misunderstood what I said. Your use of the world "single" was correct many moons ago when digital music existed. The word single today refers to a song that is released and promoted by a record label, usually that song is released independently from a parent album or parent EP. Any recording can be classified as a song, what classifies it as a single is the action of releasing that said song/recording (whatever the correct term is). I have a lot of respect for the work you do with categories and I can kind of see the point you were making, but it seems to me there is not a clear and established guidelines and different bands of editors do use the categories interchangeably and differently. I'm not gonna go round in circles claiming that you're wrong etc... tbh I don't care enough to do so. Its not a massive issue and I can see that you completely don't understand what I am saying so there's no point in discussing it further. I won't make any changes to categorised articles but equally please don't stalk my edits on new articles and make changes are per your POV. I don't see any kidn of established consensus or guideline so neither viewpoint is wrong. I think I may just steer clear of categories. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I did understand you and I did answer you. Perhaps you would like to explain what a single is? After all most "songs" (and not forgetting many other items which are not songs)are available singly. I see some editors can't decide whether a "radio" or a "promotional" single is a single or not. Most "album tracks" are also available singly. It's the definition of "single" that can't be understood. The creation of a song is easy by comparison.
Songs by year is per community consensus and no discussion on my talkpage can amend it. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
PS. If we had it your way, some singles would no longer be songs!!! And to answer specifically regarding the two songs above you mention, "I Luh Ya Papi" article says it was recorded and released as a "promotional single" in 2014. It is only defined as 2014 song, but not a single. Why not? It clearly says "single". Same Girl again was released in 2014 and there is circumstantial evidence it was recorded in 2013, but not verifiable, so both are 2014 songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree with Lil-unique1. Personally, I don't see the point of listing a song and a single category on a song's article page unless the song was recorded in a different year than when it was released as a single. And with all due respect, Rich, did you thoroughly read Single (music)? It seems like you yourself don't quite understand what a single is. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Richhoncho you clearly have misunderstood me because my very point was that a recording cannot be a single without being a song. The two are not mutually exclusive. "Same Girl" was a promotional single in2014... It was recorded in 2013 but released in 2014. There's currently no guidance as to whether that should be classified as a 2013 or 2014 song. "I Luh Ya Papi" was released as a single (to radio and digital retailers) in 2014, but we have no idea as to when it was recorded. Hence my point was that it should be classified as only a 2014 single because by default, being a single makes it a song. But yoy have seem to have a different opinion based on an ideal image you have of song recordings And singles that is frankly confusing and not supported amongst the masses.→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 13:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The addition of year of song is per Wikipedia:SONG#Categories which has been there longer than any of us have been editing. There is a difference between a song and a single and I am nonplussed that the two of you don't understand the difference, both historically and currently. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I know there is a difference between songs and singles, thats the reason why I startwd this whole discussion and started removing the categories in the first place. I accept that I might bit understand what a single used to be, but I certainly do understand what is presently. The guideline you pointed to still doesnt explain how or when to use the categories. You're inferring that based on your understanding which may or may not be correct and may or may not be what is more widely accepted amongst the community. Evidently, the guideline was written before the digital age and arrival of album track downloads. As much as I respect you Rich, we need a guideline or clear rules for how/when the categories should be used. There might be a time when neither you or I are editing and then if we categorise based on yours or my opinion the situation could easily change. It nees to be clarified I think. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The song by year have the following text, "Songs written or first produced in XXXX." --Richhoncho (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The year a song is written, recorded and published can all be different years and therefore I don't agree that the guideline is specific enough. For example, songs can be classified as published when they appear on song repetoires such as BMI Reportoire, ASCAP Search or Harry Fox Songfile, but you could also say songs are first published when they are first released i.e. when an album comes out. For example... A song might be written in 2011, it might be published on BMI repertoire in 2012 but the parent album might come out in 2013. Which category would you then classify that song in then? I think I know where our issues and different POVs arrive from... I am thinking of the situation from a single/song point of view... i.e. I want to be able to navigate all of the articles about songs in 2014 and be able to differentiate between which ones are singles (i.e. notable for that reason) and which ones are simply notable recordings. You are thinking of it in terms of the year the song is published and separately the year it was released as a song. That's fine but then we have this whole issue about clarifying when a song was written vs published vs released. And we now also have the issue that promotional singles are classified in the regular song categories, along with songs that were written that year and songs that were published that year. Do you know see why I think the whole thing is a messy and arbitrary system? I think a lot of the issue comes from the issue that wikipedia as a whole cannot agree what a single is or isn't. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It is the date it first came to attention, so in your example above only the earliest date, so 2011 written (if verified) is correct - and ONLY 2011. I don't see you your problem regarding which songs are singles - the omission of Category:XXXX singles does not, cannot and will never mean it was not a single. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No, but including it makes it easier to navigate which articles about song recordings are also about singles and not just notable, non-single released songs → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, take a song like And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going and you will see your use doesn't quite work - somebody may be adding 2014 singles soon. Or songs from the 40s which are not categorized as singles because there were no LPs. You are still mixing creation with marketing, too. Doesn't work. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Rich, I'm not sure what "nonplussed" means, but...where in the guideline you linked to does it state that articles for songs released as singles are required to be listed in both categories? Looks like this discussion might have to be taken to WP:DR. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I am aware it is not required to categorize as singles! --Richhoncho (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Erpert. The dispute is because I am following guidelines set down in WP:SONGS which is developed by consensus. Consensus would not change if I agreed with you on this talk page. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're following parts of the guideline. What are you not understanding? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Then elucidate, illuminate and inform me - the floor is yours. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Hey, when reverting me, would you be kind to avoid clicking the "undo" so I won't be disturbed? Appreciate it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you prefer rollback vandalism then? Or perhaps you would be so kind as to undo your edits yourself? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm in a shortage of time to undo the edits myself, and honestly, I'm not feeling enthusiastically about going through my entire edit history. As I stated above, I don't want that red field to show me notifications about something that was recently cleared.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a human being behind that computer? Haven't I told you not to disturb me with this issue twice before?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There is and that human being sees no reason to do things the difficult way when there is a simple way for undoing something that shouldn't have been done in the first place. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Fall in Love (D'banj song)[edit]

Greetings Richhoncho. I don't think that the rating you gave the Fall in Love (D'banj song) article is correct. That article can't be a stub. It's 9,000 or so bytes. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I assess on content, not on size. I deemed that there was nothing about the song save a discography entry the rest is mere filler, some of which doesn't even appear to belong on the song article. Obviously another editor may disagree with me and I don't feel strongly enough to object to an upgrade to start. For what it's worth, I have assessed many shorter articles as start-class because there is something about critical response, contents of the song - all with references of course. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 06:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

An open note in respect of categorising by year of song and year of single[edit]

First, as I keep saying I am following the song project guideline which says that all song articles should be categorised by year. I also note that about half of all song articles have both year of song and year of single, many are the same year. Some don't have year of single as appropriate and vice versa. I also note that the relevant categories say:-

  • Singles : This category includes articles about songs issued as singles, (phonorecords) which were released in the year XXXX
  • Songs: Songs written or first produced in XXXX

Hope you spotted the difference...

Also worth reading two Wikipedia articles, Song and Single (music).

OK, while we are here let's explain what your problem with me is and at the same time give an example. You do not want a song to be be listed twice (song and single) for the same year.

So, let's say we have Song A which appeared on an album in 2013, but was released as a single in 2014. You approve of that being categorised as 2013 song and 2014 single.

Song B was released as a single in 2013. You do not approve of that being categorised as 2013 song, but only as 2013 single.

So now anybody looking for 2013 songs will not find song B because of arbitrary and non-realistic distinction between song and single. What purpose does that serve?

Now let's look at a real live scenario, Perfect Day (Lou Reed song), which is presently categorised as Category:1972 singles, Category:1995 singles, Category:1997 singles, Category:1998 singles, Category:2010 singles and Category:1972 songs. According to your dictum 1972 songs should be removed, but why? It's not as if the song should or could be categorised as a song for each recording. It's that first publication that is important at gets 1972 song. There is also logic why it is not appearing in, say, 2010 songs.

I don't understand the accusation that I don't know what a single is - it is not relevant to the argument here whatsoever. However what is relevant that numerous editors, and not just me, do not agree with you and are freely adding both song and single with the same year when applicable.

So I say again, your argument is not with me but with all/most of Wikipedia. By all means raise a proposal to change the guideline, but do not try and browbeat one editor.

For what it's worth I think your argument is "the container is more important than the content."

As for discussing something that affects all songs on the talkpage of any article, even Single (music), just beggars believe. On the other hand, somewhere where people with a vested interest in songs congregate i.e. wikiproject songs... Oh no you think that's foolish...

I will contribute to the DRN, but that's it, I do not need the hassle to defend all of Wikipedia against people who do not accept Wikipedia consensus. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

this all boils down to interpretation of guideline. Whilst I don't think you misunderstand what a single is Rich, I think you misunderstand why it us significant to distinguish between the two. You refer to the term "published"but it is difficult to classify what published means. It could mean when a song is written, when it is registered with a song repertoire or when a song I s first released (e.g. on a parent album). My point is that the categories should serve as a distinction between singles and songs. If I look in the 20xx songs category I should see articles about songs that are notable but were never released as singles. If I look in the 200xx singles categories, I should see articles about songs that were released as singles. It does not serve a purpose to see an artcile in both categories because the single release is more significant. It implies that a record was released independently of the parent album etc which is the main distinction between songs and singles. That is within the merit if the current guidelines which don't reflect the digital era. Rich as respected as you are, you are not being browbeaten, merely other editors have interpreted the guideline different to yourself. At WP:SONG it does not implicitly say to categorize as both a song and a single. As far as I can tell, that's you're POV so to revert edits and then say that you're way is correct per the guidelines don't sit right with me. The majority of articles about singles (in modern music) gain notability through their single release therefore certainly for modern music, single rather than song is more the defining character. If said article was nit a single, would it have been notable enough forts own article? If not then it wouldn't have the song category anyway. That sums up why I think it is redundant to be so blunt about clasdifying as both a song and single. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I note that you have not bothered to respond in any other manner than I am wrong and you are right. I am, for the last time, going to respond to you, answering every point you have raised. So here goes with your text (in italics) for ease of comparison.

  1. I think you misunderstand why it us significant to distinguish between the two.” Quite, I DO distinquish between song and single which you do not want to do.
  2. “You refer to the term "published" but it is difficult to classify what published means.” It is when it is first published or known to be created. If uncertain there is also Category:Year of song missing and Category:Year of song unknown.
  3. . “If I look in the 20xx songs category I should see articles about songs that are notable but were never released as singles. If I look in the 200xx singles categories, I should see articles about songs that were released as singles.” It does not, cannot and has never said that, all it says that the article has not being categorised as a song.
  4. ” It does not serve a purpose to see an article in both categories because the single release is more significant” This is complete rubbish. A song may become notable because it is released a single, but a single is NOT notable in itself. A single is the method of marketing/selling a song to the public.
  5. It implies that a record was released independently of the parent album etc which is the main distinction between songs and singles” Only if singles are not songs and vice versa. Is that what you are saying?
  6. because the single release is more significant.” Please, please, please think about that! It also contradicts your comment above. Bottle of Beer? Which is more important the bottle or the beer? Single of a song? Geddit?
  7. The majority of articles about singles (in modern music) gain notability through their single release therefore certainly for modern music, single rather than song is more the defining character.” So being a song is NOT a defining characteristic. Aren’t they songs anymore? Doesn’t it mean something that a song has been written, performed and produced to BECOME a single? Shall we use this argument to remove the date of birth of US Presidents?
  8. At WP:SONG it does not implicitly say to categorize as both a song and a single.” If you really believed that was a valid argument, this discussion would not be on my talkpage.

Finally, so we understand each other, I repeat for the 100th time, there are numerous editors adding year of song and year of single, there is a general consensus to do so. No discussion on my talkpage changes that basic premise - it’s a shame that an editor of your standing refuses to accept consensus or fails to try and test that consensus in a more appropriate place.--Richhoncho (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

WOH! I just responded to the Dispute resolution notice. If you note, I said in the previous discussion there is a difference of opinion that is triggered by differing opinions across the different projects with what singles or songs are. I never wished to carry this in further, Epert has inflamed the situation by making a mountain out of a mole hill. I've said on more than one occasion that I couldn't actually care less about the issue... for me its not a useful application of my limited editing time. I have never refused to accept the "consensus" which is very woolly. After thinking about it I can see some use for using both singles and songs categories in the same article. I.e. if a song was included on album released in 2005, but then was covered and released as a single in 2008 then the inclusion of both categories is of benefit. I think the terminology used to describe categorization is confusing and the guide at WP:SONGS should be revised to make it simpler. For what its worth I do believe there's nothing at WP:SONG that bind me to use both single and song categories BUT there should be and that was my point all along. Call this response what you like, but in the world of politics - its a U-TURN. That's all im gonna add about this whole issue (i'm dubbing it category-gate). I am going to pour my attention back into something useful like continuing to improve WP:SONGS and WP:ALBUMS as well as the adjoining infobox templates. I don't really have anything more to say other than I am sorry it has taken this long for me to understand but I was still right in my point it not being set in stone that both types of category have to be used. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I am pleased the discussion is over between us. I want to make a couple of further comments in respect of above, feel free to ignore or respond as you see fit. There is very little compunction at WP - not even to edit, which is why I always referred to "the guidelines." There is now an argument that the guideline needs to made clearer and, finally, there is no point in having a category if some logical members should be omitted. So, if the category was "songs not released as singles" you would be correct, but it's not.
I did accept you had finished with the discussion and was surprised you responded at the DRN - which was the wrong venue in any event. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
PS. If you no longer wish to be part of the DRN I would appreciate you saying so on that page. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Please explain why you moved Swansong to Swansong (Carcass album). There is only one "Swansong" on Wikipedia, the album. There are no other "Swansong"s on Wikipedia. Yes, there are plenty of "Swan song"s (note the space), but none that don't have a space in the name. Your move makes no sense according to WP:DAB. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

How many reasons do you want?
  3. There is at least one other Swansong album mentioned in WP.
  4. There are multiple uses for Swan Songs/Swansong/s
  5. Disambiguation by a space, spelling or punctuation, while possible, isn't the wisest of ideas, because it is not user friendly.
  6. This particular album isn't particularly notable, let alone PT.
  7. As per my edit summary, "too many other Swan/Song(s) be be a primary topic"
--Richhoncho (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that this isn't the primary topic, and that there are other "Swansong"s on WP (I see no other articles in the DAB page that could reasonably use the exact title "Swansong"; every other article uses "Swan Song (DAB)", with a space). I've opened up a requested move on the article's talk page, so hopefully an uninvolved editor will come along and weigh in (if they disagree with me and agree with you, so be it). If it is agreed that article should be DAB'd, I also think the title you moved to is too specific; as there are no other Swansong albums on WP, per WP:PRECISION, the article should only be at Swansong (album), not (Carcass album). Anyway, we'll see first if an uninvolved editor has some thoughts on this. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Blind adherence to one guideline (yes a GUIDEline) over and above all other guidelines may be possible but that does not make it right nor in the best interest of WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Song list[edit]

Not sure what kind of input you want from me here. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 09:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Re:Category: Songs by year[edit]

That might be true but Johnny Mathis recorded the song in 1984. So I don't get why that shouldn't be included? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 15:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The text at the category says, and has said for many years, "Songs written or first produced in XXXX." It is NOT a category by performance or recording, nor is it meant to be. if it was some songs would be listed for every year - pointless and non-defining. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited When I Fall in Love (Ant & Dec song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Stannard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for notification. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Beef Jerky listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Beef Jerky. Since you had some involvement with the Beef Jerky redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Launchballer 07:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Minor" quibble[edit]

Hi there - quick question. Why do you mark your talkpage contributions as "minor"? Surely you've noticed that other folks don't do so. For people who choose not to view minor edits, your posts slip through without alerting them. Would you mind making this "minor" change? Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume, rightly or wrongly, that minor refers to article changes and not talk pages generally. I mean I keep a close eye on my talkpage and would expect others to do so. Also, 99.99% of my article edits are generally minor, so it's a bit of a habit too. Cheers. I shall mark this as a minor edit, too, because it is. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
? Not sure I understand. Are you saying that all talkpage contributions are always minor? Dohn joe (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I said, I assume, rightly or wrongly, that minor refers to article changes and not talk pages generally. IOW I *think* talk page contributions are minor. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok - I was mainly referring to article talk pages, where your comments marked as minor would not show up for editors who choose not to see minor edits on their watchlists. I would think you would want people to know when you've said something, even if you consider it "minor"! Dohn joe (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be concerned if you said my edit summary was incorrect. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Which edit summary? Or am I being dense again? Dohn joe (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't tempt me :). I meant "if you had complained about my edit summaries... I would be concerned. You didn't so that's the end of that. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Gunjō Biyori start rating[edit]

Hi there! I was wondering about the start rating you gave Gunjō Biyori the other day, since it's been rated B-class for WikiProject Japan. You didn't check it against criteria like the WikiProject Japan one, so I'm not sure where I should be making improvements! --Prosperosity (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and I have upgraded to a C. I have judged the article on the content "about the song" rather than stuff about the other songs/album contained in the article - which doesn't really belong there. I cannot comment about the WPJapan assessment which could be right for an Japan-related article. Happy editing. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh right, so like the chord progression and more information about the genre/techniques/instruments. --Prosperosity (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Pink World - Thank you! (And a question or 2)[edit]

Thank you for your review of the album article Pink World, by Planet P Project. I had started it as a new article a few days ago, and I wasn't quite done researching and editing it when it was reviewed, though I was delighted that it received Class C status already! I also see it has not yet been reviewed against the criteria for Class B status. Will it automatically be reviewed for Class B status at some point, or do I (or another editor) need to request that specifically? I still intend to tweak it a bit for grammar, style, links, and formatting and such, and I would like it to be considered for Class B status at some future time when all that is done. I don't foresee the article's importance ever rising above low, as its chart performance was limited (in the USA anyway), but I would be delighted if I could bring this article up to Class B standard. Thank you again! Dcs002 (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Superior (song)[edit]

But, Richhoncho, this song is sung by Squidward because he thinks he's better than everybody else. If you don't believe me, watch the video on YouTube. --Ktommy (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't disbelieve you. I don't see the refs. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Article titles[edit]

I think this comment is inappropriate and you should consider removing it because it contains nothing to to with the subject at hand and is directed as what you consider to be the inappropriate behaviour of another editor. This type of exchange is better carried out in user space or at an ANI. -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed one sentence, I have left my endorsement of Smokey's comment and the statement of fact (106 edits and only one on an article namespace). Trust this meets with your approval, I certainly didn't say exactly what was on my mind. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It is better for the removal, thank you. The point is that no useful purpose is served by scolding B2C in that forum as you clearly have a problem with his style of debate and he already knows that you do, so such a comment is an invitation for a retort that criticises you as an editor (lets face it he is not going to reply "you of course are right! I will immediately mend my ways"), and to that reply of his, if cleverly worded to needle you, you will want to reply, and so on ad-infinitum. I do not think that such an exchange has anything to do with improving WP:AT which is what that talk page is for. -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Only thing is I did not respond to him this time, nor have any intention of responding to him in the future. Oxygen of publicity and all that. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about categorizing album/singles by record label[edit]

If a record label renames itself, do you move the category with all the albums or do you create a new category for the new record label name? Erick (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My choice would be to leave category alone and start a new category for labels. For record companies the opposite. Others may disagree, suggest to take the question to the projects. Thanks for asking. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have another question, if an artist changes a record label, do you leave the category for the artist's former record label from the article or remove (like Category:(former record label) artists)? Erick (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
No. Leave with any record company signed with - after all they will still have rights to any recordings made during the contract period, plus we are building an encyclopedia, not a list of artists and their current record labels. Articles may well list as "previous." Sorry for the delay. I am glad I did, my answer became clearer. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for clearing that up. Erick (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


Clodhopper Deluxe. My fullest apologies, another editor, whom I trust(ed), said it had been changed a year ago and I assumed good faith. I wouldn't have quoted if I had known it was wrong.
...I hope that wasn't me? I don't think i would have. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Without evidence I shall not accuse anybody. I have only my memory to blame :) Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi - I don't know where your apparent antipathy towards me stems from, but I'd like to address it if I could. I truly don't understand the accusations of bad faith at the song/instrumental talkpage. We're trying to figure out best to use these disambiguators. In ictu brought up an analogy to footballers, to which I responded. How is that in any way acting in bad faith?

I always try to act towards others on WP the way I'd want them to do towards me, and have pretty good working relationships with most editors with whom I interact here. I'd like to get on that footing with you as well. Is there something in particular I said that offended you personally, or some other way that I can show you I'm trying to do the best I can by the project and its contributors (yourself included)? Dohn joe (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I edit almost exclusively on song and the occasional album article. The things that concern me are
  1. the continual jockeying for position using the application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which I consider nothing more than a beauty contest.
  2. The concept that the shortest possible title is *always* the best title for songs.
  3. That title stability is probably more important that either of above.
  4. Get the reader to the article they are interested in - and raise interest in other subjects where possible
  5. That "pop" music is generally here today and gone tomorrow for the majority of people (not me, that's why I take so much interest!)
Because there are a few editors (and not even the majority) who wish to enforce points 1 and 2 without any consideration of points 3 or 4, usage, future, or even readers, I get, quite frankly, pissed off. As a result, although I was against automatically disambiguating every album or song with the artist name I have almost accepted there is no alternative unless I wish to ignore stability.
I note that you almost invariably oppose where I support, usually with hardly understandable rationale, to the point that it is almost impossible to assume good faith, that your actions press me to go in a direction which I think is unnecessary and consequently you are your own worst enemy.
If you think I am wrong, review the RM at Parachutes (album)...--Richhoncho (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yikes. Well, where to start....

I could care less about #2. Conciseness is fine, but it's probably the second-least important criterion at WP:AT - maybe even the least important. For me, the most important thing is #4 - get the reader where they want to go. And for me, the best way to do that is with PRIMARYTOPIC. If there is one, then it's best to leave the title without a dab, because editors are more likely to link to it, and readers to search for it, without a dab.

It makes me sad that you find my arguments un-understandable - especially to the point of losing your good faith. I put a lot of thought into these things, and I try to present them as clearly and convincingly as I can, with as much evidence and logic as I can.

I want to improve the encyclopedia - as I'm sure you do, too. There's room (or should be) for all kinds of ideas and perspectives here at WP. Just because you and I see things differently doesn't mean we both don't care a great deal about the project.

And I understand your frustration, but please, if you feel I'm being incomprehensible, talk to me on my talkpage, or on the article talkpage, but assume good faith. Is that reasonable? Dohn joe (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If a reader can SEE where they are going that must meet the requirements of 4, but every time I see you oppose the opportunity of the reader to be aware before they land on the article. This means you are not doing what you say here. I think you get a kick out of being contrary, RMs are a good place for that and I should go back to ignoring you.--Richhoncho (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
My issue is that, of all the ways we can help out a reader, adding parentheses is about the least effective - it just doesn't help. Whether readers arrive at an article from an internal wikilink, or from a search engine, they will already be aware of where they are going before they get there - through context, if nothing else. It's never WP:NATURAL to add parentheses - no one ever searches for "X (something)". Editors won't link there either, unless they already know the parentheses has been added.

So adding parentheses can actually have a negative effect on reader navigation. At best, it's neutral - which makes it a drain on editor time to spend time doing. If it were actually helpful, we'd do it to every article.

For me, having as many primarytopics at the plain name is the best way to make #4 happen. I realize that many RM regulars disagree, but I really hope you can see it's a reasonable position to take. Same thing with the plurals issue. It may seem counter-intuitive on one level, but it makes sense if you look at how readers and editors actually use WP.

And I much prefer when I'm in the majority, btw! (It happens more often than you think.) Dohn joe (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You have contradicted yourself in this thread already. Now go away. I don't beleive you. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
On second thoughts I will explain why you are wrong. There are a number of editors (including one who used to argue the same as you did - nothing like the fervour of the convert!) who are applying WP:SONGDAB as a matter of course, so most readers will expect a disambiguation in any event. This is why you are wrong, but you knew that anyway. Do yourself a favor, don't respond. You are in the minority. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Look, the point of this thread was not to win you over. It was trying to show you that I act in good faith, and have put a lot of thought into these issues. We can disagree about all the above, and still accept the good-faith intentions of the other. (For my own part, there are lots of things that you have said that boggle my own mind, but I try to accept that you are coming from a good place.) That's all. If you still don't "believe me", then I don't know what else I can do. Dohn joe (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Single vs song - You're the Voice by Alan Parsons[edit]

In January 2014 you changed the location of You're the Voice (Alan Parsons song) from Single to Song. Now that the article has been added to the disambiguation page I'd like to debate the definition of single vs song, to make sure it is located correctly. The page concerns the CD release with two songs on it, with a title equal to a song on this release. The song You're the Voice on this release is a Alan Parsons cover of the song by John Farnham. Having read some of the other related discussions on you're talking page, I'd say this page concerns the release and therefore the Single. The Song is merely a cover and is therefore of a lesser importance (as in release date) and would ideally have to have a separate page. In addition the Song White Dawn on this release is an original Song and is therefore probably of more value to this release than You're the Voice, since this is only official release of this Song ever.

Would you therefore agree that the page should be renamed to You're the Voice (Alan Parsons single)? If not so, why not?

Nico.rikken (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dylan cover songs article: sort isn't working consistently[edit]

Hi, Rich. I'm in the process of adding a few artists/songs to List of artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs and noticed that the sorting isn't working properly. Sometimes when I click the Artist header, it works fine. Other times, the order goes awry just after Bobby Darin, at which point sorting is by song title. I checked the hypertext, and everything seems okay, so there may be a bug in the programming. If you get a chance, could you take a look at this? Thanks. Allreet (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I just tried it again, and this time the order is somewhat random after Bobby Darin, not by song title. Such inconsistency does indicate the possibility of a bug. Allreet (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Never has worked for me! I thought it was a history issue. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#data-sort-value. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The issue is either browser or operating system related or both. The sorting works fine here at work where I'm using Chrome v 27 and XP (out of date), but it's intermittently bombing at home using Chrome 27 on Windows 8. For work-related purposes, I also have Internet Explorer 8.0 (another antique), and I can't get the sorting to work at all because of the script that runs; however, nobody should be required to support IE 8.0 at this point. Another issue is that sorting isn't supported on my smartphone whether I use the Mobile or Desktop mode. All of these factors - browsers, platforms, operating systems - make this difficult to debug. But thanks for confirming and replying. I may file something, too, piggy-backing on your report, if I can narrow down other particulars. Allreet (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want to retry it appears to work. Check out Village Pump, too, apparently I screwed up :). --Richhoncho (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


Can I interview you? Like, a 3 question, 2 minute interview. By email. Is this possible? It would be about your Wikipedia contributions.


If you're interested, please email me rather than responding here. I'll get it much faster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnny's Theme[edit]

Greetings! I see you removed Category:1962 songs from this article. "It's Really Love" was published in 1959; "Johnny's Theme" was published in 1962 (different lyrics, not just a subsequent recording). Should it go back? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that Johnny's Theme is first published in 1962, and Toots Sweet 1959. It's either 2 songs, or it's not. Not going to argue with you. I automatically remove subsequent song by year cats. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I had put both there because of the separate publishings. It's because I want to be correct that I ask. Face-grin.svgATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Edge of Seventeen (song)[edit]

You were involved in the previous related discussion; I invite you to discuss another ongoing page move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Accidental edit?[edit]

Please see here I've reverted it, as these categories definitely apply. Maybe you made similar accidents over other articles too--just in case, I'd encourage you to do a quick review of some of your recent edits. If you respond here, please use {{ping}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No not accidental, but perhaps worthy of discussion. A reading of Single (music) infers that the "single" is the A-side, not everything contained on the single. That is why "Double A-sides" are different from "singles" To elevate b-side songs (which are/were generally throwaway tracks, anyway) into "single" is therefore misleading. Just because something is on a single, does not make it a single. In conclusion, for the categories relating to singles to have any meaning it must only include those songs actively marketed as "singles." On refection, do you not agree? FWIW I also note some editors use it to pad out the importance of a song ("it's a single and it charted..."). Your opinion? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oops. Yes, my edit was wrong Didn't spot A & B side same title. But above still stands in respect of some other articles, do you agree? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Album article FAC[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FAC for the article Of Human Feelings? One review has just been finished, but a few more would be appreciated to determine consensus or if anything needs to be fixed. Dan56 (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


Please take a look at the article Karolina Olsson, any help appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob Dylan, reluctant figurehead?[edit]

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

Song redirects[edit]

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

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

Songs that sample other songs[edit]

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

Honestly, I am not sure. There are reasonable arguments both ways. Perhaps nominate and see if it flies? What the creator (or somebody else) doesn't understand is a sample is of a performance (recording), but the songwriting credit can/does remain in place. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
PS. Have you seen Category:Songs with samples by Stevie Wonder. My first instinct was to nominate for deletion? or renaming? or turning into an article? I just am not sure. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not see that and am surprised it's been around as long as it has without me noticing it. That one should be eligible for speedy deletion per this CFD a few years ago. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Reading the comments regarding sampling has clarified my mind. A definite delete from me. Although significant (as is "guitar") it does not mean it is defining enough for a category. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Bob Dylan[edit]

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

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

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

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

Black Sabbath[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Sia (musician)#Requested move 4[edit]

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

Year of song[edit]

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

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

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

The Who songs[edit]

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

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

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

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

Label information[edit]

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

In which case can you add the references. I note you are being reverted by other editors. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I've had edits regarding chart runs reverted; they are not allowed per WP:CHARTTRAJ. I did not know this. I was only going to add a few anyhow. Thanks for looking out. Regards, - Bossanoven (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Putting words in your mouth[edit]

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

You wrote, "So we’re agreed that disambiguation is not required here." If I had said that I would be !voting the same way as you, wouldn't I? Hence the edit summary. Ongoing, I am happy to assume good faith until some point where I think otherwise (if I do). --Richhoncho (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Required and desired are two very, very different things. I was operating under the assumption that the BSB song, being the primary topic, did not require disambiguation, but that disambiguation was still desirable regardless. And since this is a perfectly valid position to hold, I had assumed that you were holding it. — (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Semantics. No point arguing with you. Quote me by all means, but do not paraphrase, especially incorrectly paraphrasing me. End of discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the whole discussion was (sadly) about semantics. I wasn’t looking for an argument, just a clear statement of your position and rationale that was aligned with existing policy… and the statements you had made didn’t seem to be. I never claimed that PRIMARYTOPIC banned us from disambiguating the title, just that it allowed us to not do it and nothing else is forcing us to. Edit: I just noticed your “final response” edit summary, so I’ll assume your “end of discussion” here was literal. Sorry, and feel free to do whatever you want with this comment and to ignore my questions on the RM. — (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories for redirects[edit]

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

Many editors have been adding categories to song redirects, see Category:R.E.M. songs. Redirects are easy to spot because they appear in italics. It seems to me that if a song is worth a redirect, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be trackable by year, artist and songwriters (not convinced about other categories which are misleading without context). This is not the same as categorizing misspellings, alternative names etc. which should not be categorized. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is ill advised. Unless there is consensus somewhere to do this, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects is an established guideline that recommends against this practice. Redirects are not full articles partly because they were not notable enough to be included in such categories. czar  11:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, there is an example, Wile E. Coyote, of a redirect being categorized at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects which does suggest that things that are "different" should may be categorized. Obviously we don't want the same thing appearing twice in the same category, but nobody is doing that. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)amended, --Richhoncho (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
That example is because the coyote and the roadrunner have independent notable value to be included in the mentioned fictional lists, but it makes more sense to categorize the redirect than their combined article. cats. Please refrain from this type of categorization without wider consensus, and please consider reverting your edits. czar  19:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You wrote, The routine categorization of "199X songs" will only clog the categories already covered by real notable albums with "199X albums" BUT, a song is not an album and they do not appear in the same category. You should also check out the criteria for 199X songs, then it might make some sense to you. Furthermore, if [[Wile E. Coyote and The Road Runner}} have independent notable value then why aren't they separate articles? Finally there are approximately 10,000 redirect song articles categorized by artist, year and songwriters, some are further categorized by single, producer, Billboard certification. There will be more added by artist year and writers. Unless of course you can prove that consensus has changed away from categorizing redirects. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The guideline above makes it very clear that redirects should not be categorized in article cats unless there is a specific case for it. I checked your claim of 10,000 redirect song articles, and I have no idea how you're determining that number, and not only does there appear to be nothing near 10,000 based on category population, but every single redirect that I checked was changed by you since even last year. Why would you take this monstrous, systematic change on yourself and then call it consensus? Consensus would mean that editors other than you gave this effort the go-ahead to change, as you said, 10,000-something redirects. I don't see where that consensus was established. If it was never established, per BRD I'm asking that you cease your bold edits and bring it up for discussion in a venue of your choosing. czar  12:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You have already brought the matter up at another venue, at present nobody is responding. I haven't commented yet because there is no need. Consensus was established many years ago (before I was an editor, I think), and certainly I am neither the first nor the last to categorize (song) redirects. Off the top of my head have a look at Category:R.E.M. songs, Category:Song recordings produced by Jeff Lynne. As it has been discussed before in many different places and times I shall leave you to try and change the consensus, until then I don't see why I should desist. I don't think you have looked at the category for songs by year, so I will inform you - that is the year the song is first published, whether sheet music, film, single or album. By adding this date we can get a picture of what is happening year by year. For what it's worth, many of the redirects should probably be deleted, but have you ever tried to have a redirect deleted? At least I am not creating the redirects, and I nominate for deletion anything that does not, in my opinion, meet NSONGS or GNG. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I know the R.E.M. songs is your go-to, but from the ones I checked, you were the editor to first categorize the articles and then another editor added the songwriter credits. Everything on WP happens in public so an editor can be able to show another where the consensus lies, and I can't find it. I'm uninterested in escalating this discussion or preventing you from how you choose to spend your time on WP (and was going to say so before your reply). I'm only trying to determine what value this effort is to the project. However Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Should song redirects be categorized? goes is fine by me. czar  13:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't for the life of me have a clue why the central discussion relating to SONGS should be at ALBUMS. It does suggest that the bee in your bonnet is bigger than the problem...--Richhoncho (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


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

If you check the category, it reads, "Songs written or first produced in 1978." which would make 1982 incorrect. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
So then Deutscher Girls is also incorrect.
I didn't check, but if you are right, please change. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

U Are The One by Nick Voss[edit]

Hi Richhoncho

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

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


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

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

Fritel (song)[edit]

Hi Richo

Thank you for your recent edit on the above article. I'm aware that you tagged it as hoax. Why do you think its an hoax? Thanks! Wikigyt@lk to M£ 19:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk:Ex's & Oh's[edit]

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

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

The banned/blocked user[edit]

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

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

Deletion of Indian film song writer categories[edit]

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

Wikipediapeedy deletion policy is that articles created by a blocked or banned user with no significant edits by other editors qualify for deletion. I will in all cases delete these articles. Had I seen your warning I would still have deleted, but might well have discussed deletion policy with you first. As you are not yourself blocked I will not delete the re-created categories unless a different speedy deletion category applies. Your final comment is, of course, wrong. Wikipedia benefits if its policies are upheld.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Anthony, thanks for the response - I am aware of the policy. You refer above to "articles" and I have no problem with that, I did not recreate any articles, only categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
As I have said, the categories created by you do not qualify, as far as I can see, for speedy deletion. But any posting by a blocked or banned editor does so qualify unless other editors have made significant contributions, which was not the case with these contributions.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at ), it's time to fix your code!

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

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

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