User talk:Ojorojo/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Got My Mojo Working

Especially for verbatim quotes, I would have thought it would be better to include the source, adding a tag if necessary, rather than removing the source completely - even when it is from a blog. Such sources may be "generally unacceptable", but I don't think that means they should always be removed, especially when it leaves quotes unreferenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello there. I did a google book search hoping to find other similar quotes, but couldn't find anything. Maybe paraphrasing would be better (I doubt his shyness and dye job is needed). Change as you see fit. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll take another look in a while. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I've tracked down the report of the Strachborneo case - here - so the link will need updating. The description of Foster (..." A Black man, about forty years of age, he appeared with bleached blonde hair and highly modish clothing....") is at footnote 10. I included it previously in order to make doubly clear that the song's author was not the actor Preston Foster, which has been the source of much confusion in the past. As you're actively editing the article, can I leave it to you? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: I didn't know when you were coming back, so I made some interim changes. Since you found the Foster material, go ahead and add it as you see fit. This is one of the very best-known blues standards and should be brought up to a GA. Speaking of which, I was thinking that adding more songs to the list of blues standards might shift the focus from the warhorses and that more than about 50 might have less of an impact. Thoughts? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I finally remembered to do this, and updated the link to the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

My GA nomination of Fortune (Chris Brown album)

Finished my exam today and I'm glad to let you know I can now resume working on the article! --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

L.A. Woman (song)

Sorry, but I don't get it. Surely we don't doubt that Jim Morrison sang on that recording? So what's the problem--the Fender Rhodes and the tack piano? They are confirmed by a bit of Googling--and that same information is in our main article, L.A._Woman. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Happened to see this and I thought I'd attempt to explain. There have been a range of IP's persistently performing disruptive edits across all the Doors articles and a few others but mostly directed at the Doors and always small unsourced edits. As such we have agreed all info needs to be sourced as the personnel sections are not always as straightforward for the band as one would think. Here you can see attempts being made to curb this by identifying the IP's and protecting the articles. The IP's edit you reverted back to is possibly/likely the same IP we are attempting to revert. Robvanvee 17:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP farm, as it's been described, has been wreaking havoc with Doors' articles for several months (why not more Talk:The Doors#Page protection?). One area in particular is the personnel sections, where they have been advised on numerous occasions to provide reliable sources (or sometimes they add a source that does not support the statements made). The reference used in the Personnel section for album article does not contain the details listed; this is outlined on the album talk page and that section will be trimmed significantly. At this point, if someone wants to add material, it needs to be verifiable as coming from an identified RS. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

OK--I'll look into the IP and other matters. In the meantime, one of the quickest ways to handle this for any single article is to add the proper, sourced information, so that unknowing admins like me have a baseline to fall back on. And edit summaries need to be a bit more complete, otherwise we don't know what to do: and in this case, the information seems to be correct, based on what I found in a quick internet search. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You can add this to the list there... Drmies (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

And this. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks! So many articles are involved it's sometimes hard to try to fix everything. So frustrated editors are following WP:BURDEN: "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[2] the contribution.[3] ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." —Ojorojo (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I know, and I understand--but I hope you understand my POV as well: I wasn't just going to block without knowing what was going on. Anyway, you probably saw I just pinged you from elsewhere. Keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Hi. You recently removed my addition of the Rolling Stone Top 100 peak position for Led Zeppelin (album). The album did chart on the "Rolling Stone" Top 200. What is the correct way to add the Rolling Stone peak position in the article? Is it possible that the version that charted on the Rolling Stone Top 200 is the 2014 reissue? CountyCountry (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I'm unsure how useful it is to add info about a chart that started in July 2019 for an album that was released in 1969 and reissued in 2014. The Rolling Stone link indicates the number 45 position for July 12–18, 2019. However, the expanded listing info shows "Peak Position 26" and "Weeks on chart 132"; where does this come from? Also, it doesn't show what edition (orig vs 2014 deluxe). Is there a link for album peaks like for Billboard that shows the date?[1] —Ojorojo (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The number listed under "peak position" is the daily peak. The Rolling Stone Top 100 updates daily. The peak that we use in Wikipedia articles is the weekly peak. So to find the weekly peak, you would have to go through the weekly charts and see which week it peaks the highest. WP:RSCHART can explain it better. I don't think that there is an "album peak position" page for Rolling Stone charts. Also, now I think the version on the chart is the 2014 reissue because after the 2019 reissue for the Beatles album, Abbey Road, was released, it was assumed that the charted version was the 2019 reissue and not the original version, even though some of the charts didn't specify. So maybe the Led Zeppelin version that charted on the Rolling Stone Top 100 is the 2014 reissue because it is the latest version. CountyCountry (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

After looking at the charts, I have some questions:

• 1) Did you go through the Top 200 for the last thirty plus weeks to find the chart peak at #45? Or is there a short cut? There should be an easy way for readers to verify a peak without having to search through many dates of data.
• 2) The RS methodology statement[2] shows the numbers for standard and deluxe editions are added together, so it can't be said that the position is for one or the other (apparently some song sales are also added). While the assumption may be OK for for the Sept. 2019 Abbey Road edition, which is experiencing first time sales, LZI is being sold in several different configurations, with the latest now over five years old.
• 3) Since the RS Top 200 only began in June 2019, whatever info it shows for LZI is for well past the album's peak of popularity (1969, 2014). Therefore, it really can't be compared to other charts that were in existence at the time.

While the RS Top 200 might be useful for albums released after June 2019, I don't think it is relevant for older ones.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I went through all the weeks to see where it peaked the highest. Unfortunately, I don't think that there is any other way to verify. Rolling Stone should create pages that show weekly peaks like Billboard does (what I'm talking about is the Billboard link you have above). Hopefully they do that in a future update to make things easier. Also, thanks for answering my questions! CountyCountry (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

How many times

I found a second source also saying the credits added Wolf since 1993 so what do we do?

https://www.musictimes.com/articles/6250/20140520/7-songs-other-than-stairway-to-heaven-that-led-zeppelin-stole.htm

JulienSorel1965 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like another user generated-type source, also not by an established expert, is just repeating bad info. There have been many books on LZ and Page by reputable authors published since 1993 that don't mention an added credit for Wolf, although all note that LZ "borrowed" from him. The 1993 Complete Studio Recordings only lists Bonham, Jones, and Page, as does the 2014 LZ1 reissue. The current ASCAP registration lists the four group members.[3] If in fact "since 1993, the song has included a credit for Chester Burnett a.k.a. Howlin' Wolf", why is his name not on these releases nor in ISWC or ASCAP? I think you need to be more careful about the sources you use (see WP:Reliable sources). Also, usually songs are the subject of plagiarism claims, rather than albums. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Ojorojo

Thank you for creating Songs for Groovy Children: The Fillmore East Concerts.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for another very informative article on a possibly confusing Jimi Hendrix release.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stop Messin' Round

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stop Messin' Round you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stop Messin' Round

The article Stop Messin' Round you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Stop Messin' Round for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: I'll be working on this a bit at a time. How are we on Fortune? I'd like to feel that it meets #3 "Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic" and is comparable to other GAs. I'll willing to assume good faith if you say there are no good sources to expand the "Music and lyrics" section. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I already had it planned for me to have more of a look tonight but thanks anyway, I will follow through and try to see if there are good sources. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Started to expand now, still got a bit to go and the good news is that there is potential there that I'm capitalizing on! This is the article, looking good so far? --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stop Messin' Round

The article Stop Messin' Round you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stop Messin' Round for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Back in Black

Bro, I do not know how the fuck this happened!!! I have just seen this and have not had a chance to properly check this out but let me just say that I would not revert one of your edits! I have dealt with you for a while now and out of respect would have discussed it with you as you did on the talk page. I doubt anything dramatic happened like my account was "hacked" or anything, in fact I suspect a pocket edit most likely after viewing my watchlist and not exiting Wikipedia properly and dropping the phone in my pocket. My apologies for that. Robvanvee 16:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the edit I totally agree with you. So weird! Robvanvee 16:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: No problem! I didn't realize that several articles have this same type of "overkill". The last reverting editor is very insistent on minutiae (although doesn't like to discuss), so this may wind up as a RfC. Your input is appreciated. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

GA nominee

Hello Ojorojo, hope you are well! I was wondering if you had any time to review the article Tommy Tour, which is a GA nominee currently. I would appreciate any additional feedback and review. Thank you! Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 16:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

There's certainly not much activity for music GANs! Anyway, my prior contribution with the peer review may make me unsuitable as a GA reviewer. I'll try to keep it in mind, but a fresh set of eyes would probably be better. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Break on Through

The Doors were certainly influenced by Them’s “One Two Brown Eyes”.

Here’s an excerpt from Ray Manzarek’s book Light My Fire (which quotes the lyrics of that song) upon Jim Morrison meeting Van:

“Jim was transfixed by Van. He studied his every move. He put the eye on him and he absorbed. Van Morrison was - and is - the best of the white blues men. No one has that soul, that torment, that anguish. And he displayed it all at the WHiskey ... and we watched, mesmerized. All of us. I especially loved the way Van would grab the mic stand, thrust it into the air, turn it on its head with the base pointing up to heaven, and continue wailing into the Shure 47. "She got one, two, brown eyes ... Hypnotize!" Goddamn he was good.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by T252 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Given that context, I’d say it’s more speculative to include a comparison to “What I’d Say” by Ray Charles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T252 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There has been a lot of vandalism of Doors' articles, so it's important to cite verifiable sources. I've been thinking of expanding the article and will check out some sources. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are a couple:

• Dave Brubeck: A Life in Time by Philip Clark: "Another Doors hit, 'Break On Through (To the Other Side)', had a bass line clearly indebted to Ray Charles's 'What I Say'".
• "One Two Brown Eyes" song review by Richie Unterberger: "For the song starts off with a bossa nova-like drum pattern very much like the drum beats that kick off the Doors' own first single (released at the beginning of 1967), 'Break on Through.' The drums are joined by a descending, circular bass pattern that, again, is similar to the bass keyboard riff that anchors 'Break on Through' (though the riffs are not identical)."

I'll continue to look before adding. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Tone

In respect of my edits to provide a meaning to the lyrics of : Shake Your Moneymaker (song), I accept your explanation of why it was inappropriate to do so.

However, I would ask you to be more careful in your tone. You wrote "For almost two years, Arrivisto has been attempting to add an interpretation of the song's lyrics.", which suggests an obsessive or even irrational mindset on my part. I'm not thin-skinned, but I would rather any such critiques of edits were made in less personal a way. Arrivisto (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arrivisto: Since you actually look at some of these lyrics, do you have any more info on the flip-side "Look on Yonder Wall" or "Boot Hill"? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to add except that it was covered by Fleetwood Mac's Peter Green after he made his belated return to music with his "Splinter Group". Arrivisto (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are few reliable sources for earlier blues songs. I'll continue to look. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song)

The article Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song)

The article Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bluebird (Buffalo Springfield song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Ga review

I will request to remove the review to the GA review on The Man Who Sold the World just so you don’t have to cause me and other editors all these problems. And from now on, can you leave me alone. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Album Chart

That chart is as valid as any other, and I don’t know why you are so fixated in just deleting it off Rare’s page when there are literally a bunch of other pages that still have it in the charts tab. Acr970901 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone Top 200 Albums chart has been identified as a chart which should not be used. It was added to WP:BADCHARTS on April 8, 2020, following the discussion at WT:CHARTS#Rolling Stone chart problems. They are in the process of being removed from articles; you can help by deleting them when you see them. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Why did you destroy my edits Leonardopavon02 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Madonna & Blond Ambition

Hello how are you? Listen, regarding the Blond Ambition Tour dates table; if that's how the guideline states tables for concert dates should be, would you mind helping me do it to all Madonna tours? I'd really appreaciate it.

Thank you!!

--Christian (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chrishm21: OK. The Cry of Love Tour and The Untouchable Tour are two GAs that follow the guidelines and Tommy Tour almost does, so you can see how some others do it. There are different options for fixing the headers that span several columns in the middle of the tables, which are usually used for identifying "legs" or continents: make separate tables for each (Tommy & corrected Blond); one table but with another column for continent (Blond test 2nd "Shows" section[4]), or just remove (Cry & Untouchable). For Cry, I couldn't find a reliable source that actually identifies or distinguishes "legs" – an earlier version had three, but they seemed arbitrary/OR – so I felt that the location and venue columns were sufficient (is it really important to the article that Australia is in Oceania or the U.S. is in North America?). So, if you want consistency, you can choose one that works well for all her tours or use the one that works best for each individual tour. BTW, U.S. or US is perfectly OK to use in WP articles and probably is preferred in tables (see MOS:ACRO Exceptions). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Copied this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Madonna#Madonna tour articles. Since it involves several Madonna articles, better to continue the conversation there. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you said Tommy Tour "almost" follows the table guidelines, I fixed the tables. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 22:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That works. I'll note it on the project talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Bon Ton Roula

Really? Berkely, California is correct and not a typo? kennethaw88 • talk 16:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed typo. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sad news re Ronhjones

Hello, I am very sorry to report that Ronhjones passed away with his wife in a house fire last April. Since your user talk page came up among the ones he most edited with non-automated messages per his edit count statistics, I thought I should let you know. Graham87 12:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear. He was very helpful with some automated article clean-up a couple of years ago. Cheers, Ron! —Ojorojo (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Charley Patton revision

Hey Ojorojo! You are right in the facts you named for justifying your revision: citation "Patton (died 1934) was not signed to Third Man (founded in 2001)." Correct, as for the purely historical approach. Of course I never ever intended to state false historical facts. In good faith my starting points was (and still is) that we Wikipedians are editing for contemporary readers/users. That just have a practical information interest, not a focus narrowed to history. Surely you are aware that most people are not historians (or high school students who have to write a historical summary) but normal people who want to know for example at which labels that artists are actually published or what roster quality music labels have. Especially when it's about Third Man Records specialising in colored vinyl records. So my addition of a category:Third Man Records artists is due to a user friendly approach that is not a historian's approach. -- Now let's come to the practical solution. Do you have any linkable hint that the Wp community decided that your approach (history) is more valid than mine (non-specific contemporary users)? Otherwise your revision should be corrected. Well, I do accept that I might be wrong in this details. But I'm not conviced that this is the case for now. Best wishes, - Just N. (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi It's good to see the continuing interest in early blues icons. My edit follows the guidance at Template:Infobox musical artist#label: "The record label or labels to which the act has been signed". If all the record companies that have reissued an artist's material over the years are included, the field could become too long. If it were the intention to include all these, the guidance could simply say "The record label or labels that have released the artist's recordings". While you point out the current appeal of being on Third Man, an encyclopedia should take the longer view. Document, Yazoo, Arhoolie, Biograph, Indigo, Wolf, etc., etc., all have their fans, who might make similar arguments to include reissue labels in the box. However, this does not mean they shouldn't be mentioned in the main body or in the discography section, if noteworthy. With the additional information and reference(s) that they would require, they would ultimately be more useful to readers than names alone. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not completely happy about it but I accept your statements. -- Just N. (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

MetroLyrics

Yesterday I was checking the MetroLyrics parameter and verified that we should only link that are locked. The issue is, no pages are locked? ("Locked" is not displayed) in fact no one is allowed to edit said lyrics despite having "edit lyrics". For instance, when I tried to change some lyrics, to see if it was working, I was not able to do so. All in all, they are locked but they appear editable, despite not being. I was wondering if you could give your two cents on this matter and how to proceed, as I saw you opened several discussion regarding this topic.

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Over the last few years, I've brought up problems concerning MetroLyrics (some are linked in its entry on WP:NOTRSMUSIC; see also the related Musixmatch entry). I believe they are serious enough that ML should not be used as a source or external link. However, others do not seem to agree, with the feeling that "people like lyrics". Among the problems is ML frequently changes its methodology and providers, so what may look like "approved" or "official" lyrics one day may be no better than user-generated the next. In some cases, ML is forced to remove lyrics because it lacks or loses the authorization, but the links in WP articles remain. I used to try to stay on top of the various twists and turns, such as the "locked" problem, but don't see the use. Good luck if you want to pursue it, but I would just remove any ML links that don't appear 100% legit, following the WP:SONG#LYRICS advice "If there is a question regarding the licensing or accuracy of the information, including songwriter credits, please do not add a link." —Ojorojo (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I will kepp and eye out, I do agree with you. I see no use for the lyrics in wikipedia. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

List of blues musicians

Thanks for all the work undertaken by you on this article. One thing puzzles me, and that is the use of an asterisk (*) throughout the article. It does not appear to be explained anywhere. Or am I missing something ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Asterisks are used in the first two tables when refs other than those listed for the artist show different details. At the bottom of those tables, you'll find "An asterisk (*) denotes that other sources give different dates, origin, or style." For the last table, they're used as a temporary reminder that the info (usually from the earlier list or WP articles) is not in the ref and need additional sources. Maybe it's better to leave them blank, because I may not get around to adding more refs for a while, if at all (I'm up to "E" so far). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Derek R Bullamore: I've blanked the entries in the last table that are not in the sources (usually Eagle & LeBlanc), except for "Primary style", which have been simplified to either electric or acoustic blues. Of course, citations should be supplied for additional info (now beginning on "J"). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Eric Clapton

I would appreciate an clarification on the reason content was removed. The content identified the point in Eric Clapton's career when he transitioned from guitar playing to songwriting. It marks a change. It was a first. From this point on he became a singer-songwriter. Doug.r.macrae (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with "One of the songs is the first written by Clapton, Presence Of The Lord":

• There is no inline citation to a reliable source that supports this statement. It is important to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context."
• It is misleading. Prior to Presence, Clapton co-wrote "Tales of Brave Ulysses" and "Sunshine of Your Love". He is also is credited with "Badge", along with Harrison. Everett writes: "Harrison wrote most of the verse lyrics, and Clapton wrote most of the music". So Clapton had prior songwriting experience with writing both music and lyrics.
• Claims about a "transition", "marking a change", etc., needs reliable sources. In Clapton's autobiography, Presence is only briefly mentioned twice: "I had already written [Presence]" [p. 110] and "Steve [Winwood] had said, when I wanted him to sing my song [Presence], 'Well, you wrote it, so you ought to sing it.'" [p. 116] In fact, Winwood sang Presence and Clapton did not contribute vocals at all with Blind Faith, unlike with Mayall and Cream. So Clapton did not become a singer-songwriter at this point. If Presence marks some kind of milestone, Clapton didn't think to mention it.
• The sentence doesn't follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music): Song titles use "quotes marks" and not all words are capitalized (see MOS:TITLECAPS). Notice that the other songs in the article follow these guidelines.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Doug.r.macrae (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

FAC review

Hi, I do not believe we have interacted before. I have opened a featured article nomination about the singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor and am hoping to have comments from users with knowledge of both music articles and the FAC process. Please check it out if you have time. :) NØ 07:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I'll try to give it a closer reading, but one thing I noticed at first glance: there are several details in the lead that maybe should not be there (Big Yellow Dog, Kadish, "All About That Bass" is mentioned three times, certifications, etc.) The lead is supposed to serve as an overview or summary of the article and leave the details for the rest of the article. BTW, I made some suggestions during the Untouchable Tour GAN that are also applicable to her other tours. I'll update those tables, so all of her tour articles are consistent, unless you feel otherwise. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MaranoFan I read it – I'm not familiar with her, so really can't comment on the scope, accuracy, etc. Since the previous FAC failed, I think it's important that someone more knowledgeable review it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for giving it a read, that is understandable. I am fine with you carrying out the changes to her tour articles. Have a great day.--NØ 15:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Keeping your suggestions in mind, I went back and re-wrote the lead section in my sandbox. Do you think any more changes are needed?--NØ 08:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely better. Some thoughts: including "All About That Bass" and new artist award in the first sentence may give the initial impression that she is a one-hit wonder; the mentions in the following paragraphs may be sufficient. Maybe the fact that she's a top selling artist (#49 in digital sales) or similar would give a better impression: "is an American singer-songwriter who is one of the top-selling pop artists of the 2010s." Also, the linked "diamond certification" and full "Recording Industry Association of America" produce a lot of blue. Usually, I try to avoid links in the lead that don't relate directly to the topic; maybe "which reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and sold over two million copies, but ..." Of course, these are stylistic preferences and others may not agree. I'll try to put in a comment on some aspect at FAC. Good luck. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Riders on the Storm

Ojorojo in the page of the song Riders on the Storm, Ray Manzarek plays Fender Rhodes piano instead a piano.[Lenhoff, Alan; Robertson, David (2019). Classic Keys: Keyboard sounds that launched rock music. University of North Texas Press. p. 234. ISBN 978-1-57441-776-0.] Unkownsolidier (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Riders on the Storm#Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Tours

Hi!

I will thank you once more for your several edits on various tour articles on wiki, showing the guidelines to it as well so others can follow suit. I just have a couple of questions that I would like you help with it.

I tried to fix the table on the The Doo-Wops & Hooligans Tour but I'm having trouble with the size of the boxes, trying to make them similiar. I was thinking of either splitting the first table to solve the issue but there is another with the leg 5 and 6, not sure how to merge it? As you can see the I tried to emulate your model on the other articles, but this tour was quite small when compared to the others in what comes to dates.

I also noticed you didn't add a scope row collum or anything like it to the cancelled show on the 24K Magic World Tour. Was that on purpose or you just forgot?

When replying, please ping me. Best regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Hello. I'm not sure if I brought this up with you, but do the sources actually identify the various "legs"? (too many refs to go through). Otherwise, it may be original research to assign leg numbers/names and WP:STICKTOSOURCE should be followed.

The leg table format has been repeated to the extent that some may think it's a requirement, but is it really necessary to identify the continents (essentially the same as "legs)? Nowadays, tours are much more international; it is not unusual for a tour to bounce back and forth between North and South or Latin America, Asia and Oceania, with little time separating them. (Beyonce's I Am... World Tour#Shows goes Asia–Europe–Oceania–Asia–Europe–Africa–Europe).

I don't see the importance of identifying Egypt as being in Africa or Australia in Oceania for one stop on the tour. But if you think it is still important, an additional column can be added for continent, thus eliminating the need for a bunch of separate tables (see this test for a Madonna tour[5]).

For 24K, I edited the "Shows" section, which doesn't include the cancelled shows. I meant to go back and fix it, but now that you point it out, is a separate section needed? Perhaps it can be another table in the preceding section (updated of course).

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't recall if you did or not. Nevertheless, lets say some do call it legs for instance so these are the first shows in the US, the tour in Europe will begin soon, I guess there is a separation for some shows. Not all. So how do I aproach the fact that some are legs while others aren't? Since it is only one show...maybe not a separation is need, but it needs to be clear it wasn't part of the tour, meant to be but cancelled. Any ideas for it as well? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I'm not quite following you, but 1) only shows that sources identify as officially part of The Doo-Wops & Hooligans Tour should be in the article; 2) "Leg #" should only be used if a source specifically identifies it as such, regardless of separations (don't assign your own leg numbers/names). If there are one-off shows/cities that are a part of the tour, but not officially designated as a leg, separate tables based on legs should not be used. Add new table headers that identify just the continents (with date ranges to distinguish later shows if necessary) or scrap the use of separate tables altogether and add another column to one master table (the Madonna test example) that can list an additional identifier, such as the leg, continent, or whatever as appropriate.

For the 24K article, I updated the cancelled show table format and header and moved it to the shows section (see Bangerz Tour#Shows, Blond Ambition World Tour#Tour dates, etc., for others that use this layout).

—Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

1) Of course, 2) What I meant was that some sources say for example "European tour" (with all the shows that are part o it), so that would be a leg, correct? While others just say the dates. I have sources from both ends, some say "here are the dates for the european tour", while others just have a bunch of dates in a row. I saw the 24K Magic fix, thanks. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Then these are not official designations, but rather informal descriptions used inconsistently by writers. You should not be trying to supply your own interpretations to try to make them fit into some preconceived classification scheme. Once again, why is it so important to identify everything as being in a leg? What purpose does it serve? The city, country, and venue is sufficient info for the readers. I don't know what else I can say. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Not my interpretations, just trying to understand what they mean with it. Nothing else, that's all I needed to hear. I will use either the Beyoncé or the Madonna one, which one fits better. Once again, thank you so much. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: This example using I Am... World Tour may be of interest – it has some one-city dates in a different continent that may be closer to Doo-Wops. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I did very close to it on the article. Take a look, if you don't mind. Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Looks good – it's a better way to handle the back-and-forth continent problem, IMO. Good luck with the rest of the review. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware

Hello O and thanks for your editing on WikiP. Please do not use the bare url inline template as you have done a couple times today. First they cause all sorts of extra work for those of us who fix bare urls as they have to be dug out one at a time. Next, and more importantly, they do not allow access to refill2 they way they regular template at the top of the page does. There is a group of editors that work on fixing these regularly so the one at the top of the page will only be there for a few hours at most. Your help in working with us will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 16:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hi there – I appreciate your work. Normally, tags on articles stay there for a long time, sometimes for 10+ years! But if your group responds to these rather quickly, I'll gladly go along. I added a note at Template talk:Cleanup bare URLs#Version for use in a section, which seemed like a reasonable alternative. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply O. I have posted at the thread you created as well. I hope you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 18:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Changeling

Number of views is irrelevent, the problem was lack of participation. Honestly the AfD should have been relisted, and not closed by a non-admin. Why are you so eager to delete? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep it all in one place: copied and responded at Talk:L.A. Woman#Proposed merge of The Changeling (The Doors song) into L.A. Woman. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just so you know, it's generally not a great move to have an edit war over a (sourced) cover version, when one editor objects to you removing it. It's clear that you want the article deleted, so I guess you are settling for sabotaging the content. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You really need to look at the history of the editing of Doors' articles before deciding who the bad guys are. It has been necessary to add page protection to 30+ Doors articles and block 20+ IPs (and whole ranges). It doesn't look like you edit many song articles, so you may be unfamiliar with the consensus on trivia, cover songs, reliable vs unreliable sources, etc. The Doors were an important group and I'm sure there are plenty of sites where fans may add what to them may seem like interesting tidbits. However, they really deserve encyclopedic-level treatment. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Explain how a review in a Dutch magazine counts as trivial. It is NOT merely a discography listing, which can be rejected as a small-time band performing a certain song. Rather, it is an important cover version in the context of the article, which doesn't have any other covers. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we can include more information, so I don't see the issue. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You've already brought this up on the project talk page, so it's better to keep the discussion in one place. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Breaks in infoboxes

Hi Ojorojo. Your edit summary here includes the advice "<br> shouldn't be used in infoboxes (causes WP:ACCESS problems)". I wonder could you provide me with a link to where that advice/ policy is written down? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Pretty basic stuff: Template:Infobox musical artist#Notes includes:

For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists the use of {{Flatlist}} or {{Hlist}} is preferred as they offer a benefit to users of screen readers. Vertical lists should always be implemented by {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}} and never by <br /> tags for reasons of accessibility.

Also, Template:Infobox song and Template:Infobox album use class=plainlist for several parameters. The template guidance inlcudes: "Format the items as a normal bulleted list; don't use other list templates or <br/>."

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for copying out the relevant info. Ah, I see, pretty basic stuff. So I'm assuming this applies to all infoboxes, not just those for musical artists,songs and albums, yes? And is that just for constructing vertical lists, or is it intended to exclude breaks from (all) infoboxes completely? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC) p.s. I had thought that the markup <br/> was now deprecated in favour of <br>

Let me know when you've figured it out. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Graham87 and User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, I probably have figured out the markup now, thanks. But not the other two questions. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Amairo no Kami no Otome

Hey, thanks for keeping Wikipedia well-sourced. I don't think finding sources is a problem as there are multiple articles for it in different languages and the song is covered by multiple artists. Once the stub article has more sources, will that satisfy your editorial requirements for there being an article instead of a redirect to a different article that doesn't mention the topic? Saledomo (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NSONGS explains the notability requirement for song articles: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" (see the link for the footnotes). Also note: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

I redirected it because it was tagged "Unreferenced" for 20+ months and nobody bothered to do anything about it. Another editor restored my redirect, so it's not just my opinion. Actually, the article is over 13 years old without any references; it's surprising it wasn't deleted or redirected a long time ago. If you think you can meet WP requirements, go for it.

—Ojorojo (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Steel guitar

Hi Ojrojo, Thanks for your collaboration on Slide guitar in 2017. Do you have time to take a look at what I have done on "Steel guitar"? When I began working on it, it was essay-like and was completely unreferenced (zero refs)— I have rewritten it entirely, trying to improve the article to be the "parent article" for all types of steel guitars. Do you think it has any potential for GA status? Prior to this I worked on Steel guitar and Slack-key guitar, and granted there is some overlap and redundancy there. Best regards, Eagledj (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello again: Your work has vastly improved the article and I think it's a potential GA. My interest in instruments is more artist-oriented, as came out in the slide guitar article; I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about steel guitars to comment on the details. But a couple of general comments:

• As a "parent article", it provides good background/historical info, but there may be too much detail in the "Steel guitar in country music" section that may better more appropriate in the "Pedal steel" section (maybe "Main article: Pedal steel guitar" should only appear in that section). WP:SUMMARY gives some guidance on levels of detail.
• I realize that it's under development, but there is a fair amount of unsourced material.
• Misc MOS concerns, such as sometimes inconsistent use of italics and quote marks ( "Hawaiian Conservatory of Music", frying pan).

Maybe I can mark up a sandbox copy, but no guarantee that a GA reviewer will agree. Sometimes the Guild of Copy Editors can be very helpful.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in Stop Messin' Round

Hi, you have added a reference to "Hunter 2017", but no such work is cited in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cod'ine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cod'ine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moneytrees -- Moneytrees (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've left comments on the review, overall very good. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 03:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cod'ine

The article Cod'ine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cod'ine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moneytrees -- Moneytrees (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Wirz.de

I see you've removed citations at Willie Mabon to Wirz.de, on the basis that it's a "self-published site". That's true, but WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." In the case of blues records, and particularly some of the more obscure details, Wirz.de is regarded as a highly reliable source produced by a universally-acknowledged world expert. It's very favourably reviewed here, mentioned here as an "important web site" (one of only two listed), here ("prolific and meticulous"), here ("best and most complete publicly available discography"), etc. Would you care to reconsider your edit? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

While it's helpful with all the photos of the releases, I've encountered some problems in the past. The "Proven Expert" website entry is rated by anonymous users (doesn't he also sell items?). Perhaps take this up at WT:ALBUMS for possible addition to the list at WP:RSMUSIC. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe he sells anything (if he does it's a very minor aspect of the site). It would be interesting to know what problems you've experienced there, though the site is continuously expanded and updated, as I understand it. It's many times more accurate (=reliable?) than a site like Allmusic, as I'm sure you must realise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I try to use other RS, such as published bios, so it's been a while (problems with Elmore James, if I remember). Many sites that have supposed discographies are way off (including AllMusic, discogs, rateyourmusic, soulfulkindamusic, etc.). I ran into a problem trying to use wangdangdula.com[6] for a featured list, until I showed that it had been used in highly regarded bios and a musicology PhD dissertation. If you're really interested, I think a wider discussion is needed for an addition to RSMUSIC. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I've used Wangdangdula as well - I would rate Wirz.de at least as highly. I will see if I can find some more support for its credentials. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: Was your discussion of Wangdangdula at Elmore James discography? I've been looking for the discussion but can't find it - can you give me a pointer as I'd be interested in seeing the arguments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Copied from FLC review (without links):

"Only remaining concern is if globaldogproductions.info and wangdangdula.com are actually reliable sources; they both appear to be personal blogs. --PresN 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to use these, but think Peter Hoppula (wangdangdula – unfortunate name) is acceptable. His discographies are cited in several publications: The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia notes "Sources: discographical detail from Peter Hoppula's Roy Gaines listing at the excellent www.wangdangdula.com seen online 20 Feb 2006";[6] and his catalogue listings are included as a footnote in an Enthomusicology PhD dissertation for UCLA;[7] and in Blues: A Regional Experience he is acknowledged under the list "We have also consulted many of the other standard references in the field. We have made sometimes copious use of works or comments by ... Pete Hoppula".[8] [globaldog was replaced] —Ojorojo (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)"

Another thing I noticed on his Elmore James page, Wirz includes a lot of copyrighted photos (attributed, but no clear indication that they are used with permission) and links to youtube of songs uploaded by fans (not official). Adding links like these in WP articles may be considered contributory copyright infringement.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed seeing that response. I will suggest at WP:RSN that Wirz.de be used for blues discographies, rather than for any images. Should I raise it at WT:ALBUM as well, or will one discussion suffice? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

RSN is probably the best. If you want to add it to WP:RSMUSIC, perhaps include a discussion notice at WT:ALBUMS. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

My edit was not unconstructive/disruptive.

I was reverting the listing on Madame X tour back to the way it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.254.88 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Please note: this report is not against you; it is about an editor we both recently warned for their on-going, long-term abuse. Figured you might want to add-in your own two-cents. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Livelikemusic: For the table format issue at least, is it worth pointing out that several blocked users and IPs have been making the same edits as the editor in question or would it just complicate matters? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: If you feel it necessarily to list, in help of the report against the user, then I would not object. I am merely following their on-going, 19-month editing history. I do know they have edited out of their own account prior to them joining. Am unsure if they have post-joining. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: So we don't duplicate efforts, I'll add the diffs for the ACCESS problems, unless you already have this info. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: If you readily have them available, by all means, go for it! livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11