User talk:Wikibones/Archive002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Succession boxes

Succession boxes are added to all Billboard #1 country singles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Country Music. Eric444 12:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hillerbrothers.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hillerbrothers.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bhill2007.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bhill2007.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Song redirects

I assume you're referring to If I Was a Drinkin' Man as far as song redirects. What do you suggest I should do, then -- should I make a page on the album and redirect the song title there instead? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I did just that. WP:MUSIC says "Permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I see no problem with redirecting If I Was a Drinkin' Man to Neal McCoy, since (as far as I know) he's the only person to cut that song; however, I've changed the redirect to point to You Gotta Love That instead, as that's the album it's on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the song" vs. "the recording"? It's one song, it's only ever been cut by Neal, and never by anyone else. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Answered by Wikibones at User talk:TenPoundHammer by Wikibones (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC says "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.". Songs like If I Was a Drinkin' Man seem to be permanent stubs, and therefore should be merged to the album. Am I misinterpreting something here? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STOP

The comments that you've made on Ten Pound Hammer's talkpage are completely out of line, do not follow policy, and could easily be perceived as a borderline threat. Stop now. You have every right to your opinion, and so does 10lbhammer. Get a grip, friend. Songs are routinely redirected to the parent article or recording artist when they are in fact, not notable. This is not an issue with Ten Pound Hammer. If you'd like to change the existing Wikipedia guidelines related to individual songs, so be it. There are different avenues for you to take. Threatening a good faith editor is not one of those avenues that you will find success with. You need to chill out. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My post was not derogatory

But thanks anyway. You are of course, entitled to archive anything yo want on your talkpage. Thanks for not responding to my post. Noted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. No problem. Fair issue.Wikibones (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What's a fair issue? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Cross-post from WP:SONGS

I'm cross posting a comment I just made at WP:SONGS' talk page.

Personally, I don't see the problem with redirecting a song to an album if the song page is unlikely to be expanded beyond a stub -- WP:MUSIC even says "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.". As an example, Something About a Woman by Jake Owen has been on the charts nearly 30 weeks and is struggling to get any higher than #26. I haven't found any reliable sources at all that pertain to the song proper. Therefore, it should be redirected to the album it's on. Note that should such a redirect take place, no info would be lost -- the article on Jake Owen and the article on his album both verify the song's writers, length, and chart position, which are pretty much the only verifiable bits of info in the song article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Song Redirects

What do you suppose would happen if you redirected the song "Yesterday" by the Beatles to the article "Beatles", or if you redirected the song "He Stopped Loving Her Today" to the article George Jones? I believe there would be quite loss of information and quite a problem created. The same standards should apply to all songs. Songs are standalone researchable articles. To redirect a song, loses the vitals on the song. The recording however is a different animal. It is ok to include as much information as possible about a recording of a song by an artist in an artist's article, but don't you think the song as a separate article should remain? Why should a hit song be permanently tied within Wiki to one artist, when the artist's article can clearly link to the song, broadening the benefits of research. Also, the focus on what is a "notable" song and what is not "notable" should not be for one person to decide if the song was a chart hit. Good discussion and I appreciate the cooperation. Wikibones (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I could understand in a case like "He Stopped Loving Her Today", since it was a Number One hit and is considered George Jones' signature song -- and therefore, it's very likely to be the subject of many reliable sources. However, if all you can write is a two-sentence stub on a song, then you just have a permanent stub with no hope for expansion. And what point is there to an article that can't possibly be expanded beyond stub class? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What vitals would "not necessarily be related to Neal McCoy's recording"? Just by looking at Neal's page and the album's page, we already know that the song is 3:18 long, it was written by Byron Hill and J.B. Rudd, it was released in 1995 on the Atlantic Records album You Gotta Love That, and it peaked at #16 on the country charts. All of these facts can be verified by looking at All Music Guide and Billboard. The other two facts in the article (the award the song won, and the song's popularity with recovering alcoholics) are unreferenced. I've been unable to find a reference for either of these facts, and since they are evidently unverifiable, they should simply be removed. Furthermore, Neal is the only artist to have recorded the song (again, this can be verified in the All Music Guide). Given that Neal's page and the album's page already highlight all the verifiable info on the song, I don't see why If I Was a Drinkin' Man can't be redirected to either Neal or the album, since they would probably be the most relevant pages to redirect to (as opposed to redirecting to, say, Byron Hill's page). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem unable to see that a song is a song, and a record is a record, and that both the song articles and the artist articles have one-to-many relationships to other data . Also, I cannot believe you are referencing All Music Guide, one of the most incomplete, un-updated, difficult to correct, ill-cross referenced, mistake-filled sources you can use. I know the publication well. You cannot count on that publication as much of a source. Have you ever tried to correct anything at All Music Guide?? Almost impossible. This whole song redirect thing is an absurd argument. For you to redirect songs to an artist's album page is inconsistent with every song article in Wikipedia, but you continue to want to enhance your own artist articles at the expense of other's song articles. Some of us are focused on songs, some of us are focused on artists. Let the two articles remain valuable independent sources and benefit from the existance of each...link them. Don't erase one or the other with a complete redirect. Redirecting a song articles to one artist's album is no different than someone doing an article on Atlantic Records and redirecting every artist article (anyone who ever recorded for Atlantic) to the Atlantic Records article. Like I said earlier, and I will give you another scenario, why don't you go try to redirect every song ever recorded by Frank Sinatra to the Frank Sinatra article and see what happens. Or...try someone less famous. Try taking every song recorded by Kenny Rogers and directing them to Kenny Rogers and see what happens. Where do you draw the line? Apparently your Neal McCoy article is so important to you that you want every song Neal ever recorded directed to Neal McCoy. The songs in some cases are bigger than Neal McCoy. In the same way you are using your own personal measure of what songs are "notable" and which ones are not, someone may come along (hypothetically speaking) and decide that Neal McCoy isn't "notable" enough to have an article, or that Neal McCoy needs to be redirected to a larger article on Country Music Singers. Your actions on these song redirects is destructive to the vital information on songs, and when you mix that with your subjective decisions on what song is worthy of an article and what songs are not, it gets very strange, and deserving of protest. Wikibones (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I finally see your point; sometimes people have to use my own ten pound hammer to make me see the point. (Not that I have a problem.) The song in question doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable third-party sources, and has virtually no opportunity of being expanded beyond a stub -- and even though it's not policy, WP:MUSIC clearly states "permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Are you saying that I should go against WP:MUSIC? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Song articles

Is there something you fail to understand about "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article"? Or how about "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer seems to be pretending that his DESTRUCTIVE redirects are based on some sensible judgement of whether a song article is or isn't a "reasonably detailed" article. Many of TenPoundHammer's judgements on song articles are unfairly subjective, self-serving toward his own articles, and clearly do not even give song articles a chance to be expanded. As I have told TenPoundHammer, I am not going to make a quest out of correcting his work in general (who has time for that?), but TenPoundHammer is herewith advised that whenever he sees an song article that I have created, it is indeed a work in progress, the song is notable, and any destructive deletions or redirect actions made by TenPoundHammer will be vigorously protested. Wikibones (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is lost with a simple redirect; the history is always available, and as per WP:MUSIC, a merge of a marginal article to its album is acceptable if the single article has no likelihood of being expanded. There's a discussion ongoing at WT:MUSIC regarding this issue, to try and get a general consensus on the redirection of singles to their albums. Feel free to weigh in there. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)