User talk:Ojorojo/Archive 7

Uploaded by ElvisPresleyVEVO

Hello! I have a question about this [1]. Okay, I added the link to the wrong box, thank you for noticing. But did you look at the link before saying it violated copyright? Here, look: [2]. (Is it okay? Can I add it now?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Maybe add something like:

"Hear My Train A Comin'" on Vevo

—Ojorojo (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The video is not on Vevo.com, it's on YouTube. Therefore I think the link should say "YouTube". What I would agree with is that the link to the Wikipedia's YouTube article in my version is redundant. But everyone else seems to use the {{YouTube}} template, so I use it too... (And AFAIKR, when I didn't, someone came and "templated" the video link. I don't use the template only when I want to add several videos in one infobox. Otherwise it would look too bulky.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Noting that Vevo is source would remove questions about potential copyright problems. WP:MUSICSTREAM includes "It is recommended that "<!-- This is a licensed stream for the album, which is allowed under Wikipedia policies -->" is placed beside the link". Maybe add something similar for authorized videos or audio: "<!-- This is a Vevo [or authorized, official, etc.] audio/video, which is allowed under Wikipedia policies -->" (something similar is in the Hendrix example above). At least this would show that WP:ELNEVER and WP:ELPEREN § YouTube issues were considered. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added a comment as you advised [3], thank you! This is only the second time someone reverts my link addition as a potential copyvio, so the idea to add a comment like this didn't occur to me. (The first time was here: [4].) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. I updated "Brown Eyed Girl" – the complete audio and an audio sample both don't need to be in the infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Come On (Earl King song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Laser brain (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Kashmir

What was going through your mind when you removed live performances in Kashmir? Where is another source necessary, and why didn't you just add a source if you needed there to be one, like a normal civilized person. LpmedVH (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:BURDEN:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution ... 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. (emphasis in original)

—Ojorojo (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well what actually needed a source, this would all be a lot easier if you acted normal and answered the question. LpmedVH (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to stop by and personally thank you for taking the time to review the Theory of a Deadman discography. It was promoted to FL today. Your patience throughout the entire part of your review was the glue that made everything stick. It was absolutely commendable. So, thank you! Please let me know if I can repay the favor anytime in the future. :-) — Miss Sarita 06:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Sarita: Congrats! I must admit it was rough at times, but the credit is really yours for keeping it going and calming everybody down. If you're interested and have the time, I have a current FLC. Spoiler alert – it doesn't have the contentious issues brought up at your FLC (no columns left out, no Discogs). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You got it! I'll have a look at it soon and leave comments/support! — Miss Sarita 00:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Sarita: Thanks for your review – I think it looks a lot better now. I'll ping you if I re-add the UK certification info. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. It looks good. Yeah, ping me if there's anything else you need/want. I also noticed that this is the third FLC process the list has gone through. If you need to nominate it again anytime in the future, let me know so I can throw my support back in. But here's hoping that it goes through this time! — Miss Sarita 16:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Iveta Mukuchyan

Hi. I have listed the article "Iveta Mukuchyan" for peer review. I was wondering if you would be willing to help me. The article is already GA but I really want it to have a Featured Article status. Thanks. Harut111 (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello: As you are probably aware, I have little experience with FAs and my GAs are for songs, except two albums and Paul Butterfield (which was my first GA). I'm not familiar with what is the accepted practice for musician/actress/model FAs and wouldn't want to make any incorrect suggestions or recommendations. That said, I've read through the article and think it is informative, well-written, and has a lot of citations. One thing I noticed was that it is has little information about her style of music, songwriting, or voice (suggested in WP:WPMAG). Another was several sources have "blog" in their name or are retail sites (Apple music). Ref #29 shows "dead link". It may be beneficial to compare FAs on similar artists (Katy Perry?, et al.) or ask one of those nominators for suggestions. Receiving comments during a peer review is not a requirement for FAC, but it advises "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination." Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You helped me a lot. Harut111 (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Shangri-La (BeForU album)

Good call, redirecting Shangri-La (BeForU album) to the band. <sarcasm>It skyrocketed all the way up to number 221 on the Japanese album chart, where it dominated that position for one consecutive week.</sarcasm> [5] TJRC (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely Maybe Review

Hi there, I saw your comment on the article I began reviewing. I am not an expert in those types of policies, what does this entail for the review? Thanks for your input. Basilisk4u (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the nominator did not follow the GAN instructions. That and the fact that they haven't responded to the review notice[6] makes this an easy fail. Talk:The Doors/GA1 and Talk:Vietnam War/GA1 by the same nominator were also failed and may give you ideas on how to proceed. Although DannyMusicEditor has expressed interest, they haven't made any edits to the article since February. They can simply re-nominate the article when it's ready (that way, it will be their nom and not tainted by not following the instructions). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ojorojo, leave it up to him whether to fail it or not. Is has someone willing to respond to it, godsake. Let's not be counterproductive. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: Just pointing out the obvious. Your 28 April note "I can try to fix this" hasn't been acted on – large sections of the articles still have no inline citations to reliable sources (see GA criterion #2 "Verifiable with no original research"). cc:Basilisk4u —Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That is because he has offered nothing on the review yet. "large parts" like what? Probably not a big deal, those can be acted on. dannymusiceditor ^oops 14:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

My experience with GA reviewers is that they require citations for nearly every sentence (except the lead). Most obvious are the sections "Singles box set", "2014 reissue", and "DVD", which only have three chart links (including the no longer used ChartStats). There are other examples throughout the article:

The album received widespread critical acclaim along with commercial success, with many critics and listeners welcoming the album's fearless optimism, particularly in an era of rock which was dominated by American grunge which seemed at odds with the album,[31] while also praising Noel Gallagher's songwriting and melodic skills along with younger brother Liam's vocals.

The ref is for one song on the album and subsequent quotes don't support "praising" Liam's vocals. This is synthesis at best. An album as popular as this should have plenty of sources from which to draw.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

My experience with GA reviewers is that they require citations for nearly every sentence (except the lead). That contradicts everything I learned here. I have numerous GAs listed without doing so. And I find the GA fail by Basilisk to be premature. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If an editor is not able to provide a source, it usually means one thing: it's original research. Move on – the article can always be renominated. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Multiple sentences can be covered by one reference tag. That's what this article is doing. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So which inline citation is supposed to support all of the info in the "Singles box set", "2014 reissue", and "DVD" sections? It's certainly nowhere near the sections. Seriously, drop the stick and back away from the horse. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That stuff's easy. You'll see when it's listed as a GA before the second week of June. I'd bet on it. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirection of I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song)

Hey Ojorojo, why was I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song) turned into a redirection? There was no consensus with the move. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7: I responded at Talk:I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song)#Redirection of I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song). Please continue the discussion there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. I didn't see any consensus on the talk page so I reverted your redirection. I don't know much of the topic so I'll respectfully bow out and see what the consensus would be. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 19:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC for Succession boxes

You mention same in recent edit summaries: could you point me to where they are discussed? thanks --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

OK (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles0. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We Love You

What exactly was the problem with the addition of the J.B.C single with the three different mixes of their cover version of "We Love You"? Eyevocal (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eyevocal: The text that was added[7] was not referenced and did not show that their version(s) meet WP:SONGCOVER (please note that preceding sentences are tagged "citation needed" or have refs). WP:BURDEN includes "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." A similar problem was pointed out in August 2012. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Removing_succession_boxes_from_song_and_album_articles

Thinking about it... Could I have a bit more info? Am I right in thinking to remove all

From {{S-start}} to {{S-end}} OR

From {{S-start-collapsible}} to {{S-end}}

Plus any heading immediately preceding? i.e. "==" then some new lines (but no text) before the "{{S-start", Only on articles that use "Infobox song" or "Infobox album" templates and have the word "succession" Not too difficult, then I spotted Rubber Soul - succession box inside a Navbox (sigh) - OK probably not a problem, lucky I saw that one first.

So are there any other ways that a succession box gets hidden in some other template?

I assume this is mainly a one shot run - and then , say, a weekly check to make sure they don't get created?

Please ping, I have a watchlist that is way out of control Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: From the few dozen I've removed, I think you've covered it. All were found in articles that use Infobox album, Infobox song, or Infobox single. Most used {{s-start}} and {{s-end}}); a few used {{s-start-collapsible}}, occasionally with Template:S-prec. Most were in an "External links" or "References" section, following the links or refs, but before navboxes or categories. When they are the only item in the section, the header and spaces should be removed, but when they occasionally appear before the links or refs, the preceding header shouldn't be removed (if this is a problem, an empty "External links" section should be acceptable). A few are in a separate subsection, such as "Chart succession"; these headers should be removed or if it is too difficult, skip these all together. A few are included somewhere in a "Charts" section. Only a few were in navboxes; again, these may be skipped if too difficult (I don't remember succession boxes used in other templates). If it would make it easier, I can try to remove instances of these last examples before running a bot. One run should handle it – an occasional check is a good idea. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds OK, Plain and collapsible OK, header before the S-start OK, not sure about NavBox yet - may be easier to add a cat to flag for manual processing, I'll see how it goes. It won't be quick to finish, my last BRFA was about 5 weeks from filing! I'll mark the request page as in progress as well. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

BRFA filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#RonBot_5. You can see the results of a dummy run at http://ronjones.org.uk/misc/4001.txt - first block of text is API call result (of 100 page titles), then there is the page content before and after for each page. Where I found a NavBox constructed then I add Category:Music pages for manual succession box removal (Cat will need to be created) to the page (2 hits out of the 100) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Some boxes did not use the word "succession", so I've searched on {{S-start}}, also I found some people used {{end}} instead of {{S-end}} - always trust the public to make life difficult. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: From what I can tell, the first six look good. I've started removing those in navboxes – I don't think there are enough to worry about, but flagging them may help. I haven't kept track of all the minor variations, but a couple had errors (missing "{", etc.) A couple articles also have multiple s-start and/or s-start-collapsed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it will only be a few - I can do a dummy run just to find those now, if you want (as long as there is less than 5000 results in any search). Normally it should find the first {{S-start}} and then go to the nearest {{S-end}}, if there is a second set of start-end, then that will be deleted as well, but not the "stuff" in between the first "end" and the second "start" (assuming I got the RegEx OK!)Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Spoke a little too soon. It needed a few tweaks (trial is approved) See Special:Contributions/RonBot between 18:51 and 20:47 - use the "diff" to see the action. Now there is a minor issue - The search for S-start with the special search - still finds then ones I have done. I assume it takes a finite time for the search engine to re-index the page and fully update. So I'll finish the trial tomorrow. I had issue with Led Zeppelin IV the preceding line had an "=", and the RegEx assumed it was a title, so had to change to look for at least 2 "=" together. See also Category:Music pages for manual succession box removal Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Looks good. A couple of other non-record chart succession boxes were removed from articles that use infobox album though: Whiplash (2014 film),[8] Precious (film),[9] Half-Life 2,[10] and Cats (musical) (added to cat).[11] I don't think that there are many of these (maybe skip s-achlaw?). I will go ahead and fix these. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. We could skip "S-ach", will that catch every thing? Should we skip all pages with an infobox that is not album/song/single - count "infobox album" and "infobox song" and "infobox single", and compare with count of "infobox X"? Might be better - the odds of having "infobox album" in a film article that does not have "infobox film" must be negligible. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: That should work. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We Love You

What I don't get is this "verifiable source" thing now no longer including Discogs. First of all, like Wikipedia, it allows editing by others, so not including it is frankly hypocrisy. Its entries get hacked a lot less than Wikipedia articles do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyevocal (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:SELFPUBLISH explains it pretty well. Also, WP:CIRCULAR includes "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources [emphasis added]". If you wish to pursue the issue, you should take it up at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

My mistake which you corrected

I have seen your edit summary for this edit, and I apologise for my mistake. Thanks for putting me right. I suppose that sort of mistake would have been less likely to happen if you had originally made two separate edits, one to revert the "addition of garbled material" by the IP editor and another to make your own contribution. (That is in no way a criticism of you, as I often make similar dual-purpose edits myself, but perhaps we both might think about changing our practice.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: No problem. I understand (and appreciate) what you're doing to revert all the crap added by blocked users. I'll try to revert first, then make my changes. Do you really think my use of lyrics in "Stop Messin' Round"[12] went beyond justifiable fair use? I thought it was similar to Like a Rolling Stone#Themes, which is included as an acceptable use example in WP:LYRICS. One 12-bar verse per song is less than 30 seconds, which would be allowed if it were an audio sample. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I may be unduly influenced by my personal belief that the "fair use" provisions both of United States copyright law and of Wikipedia policy are unreasonable and morally indefensible. I won't quarrel with you if you revert my edit in that respect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Music samples

Hi Ojorojo. What a coincidence. You recently removed quite a few music samples with the edit summary "removed music sample (doesn't meet fair use – song not discussed in article)". I wonder could you just clarify whether, if the song had been discussed in the article, fair use would have been met? And if so where this is guidance is written down as policy? I'm getting rather mixed messages about fair use of music samples in the discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. And now I'm even more confused. Many thanks for your kind help. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I started to convert some of the the older Template:Extra music sample to the newer Template:Audio sample and found several in artist and album articles that seemed out-of-place. To use copyrighted material, it must meet WP:FAIRUSE, which includes:
Meeting the contextual significance criterion

Two of the most common circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are:

• where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or
• where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. [emphasis in original]

So, if the song, etc., is not discussed in the article ("no sourced commentary"), under fair use guidelines a music sample shouldn't be included. Otherwise, music samples could be added to discographies, record label articles, genre articles, etc., where the song may only be named. It also interferes with WP's goal to be free content. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So those are "two of the most common circumstances". What are all the other circumstances, whether common or uncommon? I don't see the logic behind that "otherwise", though - if the rule is simply "that song has to be discussed in the article", that's perfectly clear on its own. I guess there might be some debate as to what constitutes "discussion." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A mention (as in a track listing) versus a discussion/commentary (as in music or lyric analysis) seems fairly clear. Of course, there are those who will debate about anything. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, there are also those who will blindly follow anything they are told, without any debate. I'm not sure which approach is most useful. So theoretically, if a discussion/commentary could be found for the samples you have removed they could be restored, or at least replaced in the new format? I would be very grateful indeed if you could briefly add what you have explained here at the relevant thread at Template:Extra music sample, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions since there appear to be some editors there who are wholly unaware of this policy, and others who seem to think that a sample can be used only in a dedicated article about that particular song. Many thanks again for your help with this. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Extra music sample is no longer used. I've updated WP:SAMPLE#Inclusion in article to show that Template:Audio sample is now used (and a currently used example of Template:Listen). Maybe that will help. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link. Thanks for clarifying at WP:SAMPLE#Inclusion in article anyway. So theoretically, if a discussion/commentary could be found for the samples you have removed they could be replaced in the new format, in those respective articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

All I know is that whether Ojorojo's removals are technically right or wrong, they have made the Hines article poorer - a pity, surelY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1D:80D4:F700:41D3:2EC6:6731:9302 (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

IP 2A01, my personal view is that all the articles are made poorer by these deletions. I think music is best "understood" by giving a 30-second sample, rather than by giving a written description. There is some irony for me if the written description has to be there first. It just comes as an extra surprise to me after 10 years from uploading. Copyright seems to be full of all kinds of pitfalls. I guess for the time being, rules are rules, even if they look very shortsighted. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Would you say, for example , that there was enough "discussion/commentary (as in music or lyric analysis)" to warrat this addition? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It would also be very useful if you could point to one or two exemplar cases where there are no issues over fair use justification. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

These kinds of questions show that the guideline needs to be clarified. A discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music samples#Clarify number of audio samples. Please continue the discussion there. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that link to the discussion. It would be very useful if you could point to one or two exemplar cases where there are no issues over fair use justification. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I've made some suggestions on the MOS talk page. See what you think. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

So it seems that an audio sample may be used in more than one article, provided there is a fair use rationale for each e.g. File:Electricity.ogg? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, although the "sourced commentary" in the CB article is an unreferenced caption for the sample (also the additional six samples?). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That would hardly seem sufficient, according to the guideline you have explained. But the article also says: "The song "Electricity" was a poem written by Bermann, who gave Van Vliet permission to adapt it to music." And this claim is fully sourced? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The sample caption (with a ref) should be moved to that paragraph along with the sample, thus providing more commentary/discussion (see also WP:CAPTION). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all music samples should be supported by sourced discussion in the caption field? Or just this one? Is that a written guideline? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 5

Bot Approved. My bandwidth Mon-Fri peak time is limited, so I'll start 4am (UK) Saturday (after Bot's Tasks #4 and #1 have completed) - it will be a multi hour run (doing about 15 pages a minute on average at the trial = 900 per hour). There are 5 pages currently in Category:Music pages for manual succession box removal, - expect that to grow. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed boxes from 3799 then "fell over". Not sure why, just stuck somewhere - it was a big ask!. I'll leave it a while before next run - let's wiki get those pages indexed so they don't list again. It was close to finishing the first search (4602 titles pulled in on search for Infobox song). I can do that search live, when it drops to around 600, then we go again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Looks good. I'm removing those in Category:Music pages for manual succession box removal as we go (so far only about six). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I had noticed that cat shrinking. Live search now says 800 for the infobox song, I'll start again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Finished all "Infobox song", has moved onto "Infobox album". BTW, by chance, I found Face the Shadow (Genealogy song) - it was a pure copy of Face the Shadow. I deleted it as a copyright violation (no attribution to the original article) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

All done! 3799 last night and 2777 just now = 6576 pages changed. I've left Windows Task Scheduler to run it 4am every Saturday. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Great! While cleaning up the category, etc., I came across some more[13][14] that often don't use the usual terms. Should I remove these manually or ? —23:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"Start Box" redirects to "S-Box", so a simple tweak of code should find them - we might as well make it all encompassing. I'll fix it later today, and run again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 11:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And there was "End box" as well. Another 1159 pages fixed.Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: At the risk of jinxing it, I think you've done it. How many were removed? The initial estimate was about 6,200 aricles, then 6,576. —18:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I removed a couple that were re-added, fell through the cracks, etc. Should I wait until the follow up run before providing an update on WT:Albums? Less than 2 months from the first discussion to the removal of 6.5K+ is worth noting. Thanks for seeing it through. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

If they do get re-added, then the next week's run will revert - hopefully they get the message and discuss! Total run was about 6576 + 1159 (two main runs), add in the 500 trial and the 2 x 50 trials (although some were films and reverted in trial 1) - about 8300 total. Bot will run 4am (UK) every Sat morning. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I checked Danza Kuduro in my logs, it was down as a change. Trouble with wiki is that sometime edits fail for all sorts of reason, if it fails then it just skips. Now the backlog is cleared, the next run will be short, and lead to a small log file, which I can check manually. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: OK, we'll wait a few days and see what shakes out. I've removed over 150 and other editors have removed some, so the total may be closer to 8,500. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There can't be many more left ! :-) - I'll set it running when I go to bed (about 2h), and we'll see how big the log is. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It was so quick, I had not left the PC - SIX more pages done. See User:RonBot/5/FinalMainLog Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Weird - it said 6, but actually only one Like I'm a Warrior was done. Must be something wrong with the other five. May need manual edit. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, all is fine...

1. Get the Party Started - only box start (picked up twice - two infoboxes)
2. Runnin' from tha Police - only box start and end (nothing between)
3. Start Over (song) - false positive "chorus-start" in the text
4. Rockferry - someone swapped bottom half of box 2 above first half of box 1 - no idea what they planned to do - fixed the page.

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: It looks like these were oddities and there probably will always be one more. I'd say the bot is doing its job. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. 4 odd balls is not too bad - out of 8000+ pages. No need to change anything on bot's code. Just let it run every Sat now. We know all current pages are processed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything Is Love

Would you like to weigh in this discussion regarding Metacritic's indication of "universal acclaim" be used to verify that this album "was met with widespread critical acclaim"? Editor SummerPhDv2.0 has objected to this, reasons detailed here above the discussion. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the almost unanimous "no" view and really don't have anything to add. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Free Hand

Hi Orojojo. You removed the audio clip here with the edit summary "removed music sample (doesn't meet fair use – song not discussed in article". As you will see, the "Reception" section says this, with a source:

"... and the renaissance/retro, part a cappella/part folk-rocker "On Reflection"; the latter combining four pieces of group scribed fugue."

I wonder could you confirm that this does not count as "discussion" and, if so, how much more material would be provided to justify inclusion of the audio clip? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose some may consider that OK, so I'll re-add it to the section where it's mentioned. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the long quote makes it difficult to format, so I left it in the infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought the exact same thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge

Responding to the merger with Template:Audio sample, Template:Extra music sample, and Template:Audiosample note you left on the 30th, now I've virtually finished RonBot6, and it's at WP:BRFA. What actually needs to be done. I looked at the discussion, but there was more talk about merging infobox templates than the audio ones - maybe someone made the job too big? - rather than breaking it down into smaller tasks... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Thanks for following up. A lot was attempted at the same time and the samples didn't receive much subsequent attention. I know little about bots or what prevented the clean up for the mergers. I looked at some of those in Category:Audio sample to be checked and many seem OK (most use {{Extra music sample}}). Since there are no longer documentation pages and monthly error reports for {{Audiosample}} and Extra music sample, it's difficult to see what the problems are (the reports for {{Audio sample}} are usually fine).[15] So, it would help to know which article uses of the two older templates need to be cleaned up manually, before a bot can complete the merger. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you can get a discussion going at, say, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs? A vague outline for a bot is not going to work. You need to know exactly what you expect the bot to do. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: How about "for all occurrences of {{Audiosample}} change: |Upper caption= to |header= (unless |Upper caption=Audio sample, then remove parameter (default in {{Audio sample}})) and |Audio file= to |file=; add articles with other unspecified parameters to Category:Music pages for manual Audiosample cleanup" (most pages only use |Upper caption= and |Audio file=, but this will take care of odd uses of |Background=, |Name=, |Description=, etc.) —Ojorojo (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't beat a few examples to see if I have it OK - some picked at random (picked to all be different!) First two can be changed, final 3 rejected....

==============================
{{Audiosample
  | Upper caption = Audio sample
  | Audio file    = Karma Police.ogg}}
{{Audio sample
  | file    = Karma Police.ogg}}
===================================
{{Audiosample
| Upper caption ="Whatever You Want", 16 seconds (of 3:48)
| Audio file  = Status_Quo_-_Whatever_You_Want.ogg
}}
{{Audio sample
| header ="Whatever You Want", 16 seconds (of 3:48)
| file  = Status_Quo_-_Whatever_You_Want.ogg
}}
===================================
{{Audiosample
  | Upper caption = Music sample
  | Name = Let Me Ride
  | Audio file= Dr. Dre - Let Me Ride.ogg
}}
Has "Name" - Add to Category:Music pages for manual Audiosample cleanup
==========================
{{Audiosample
| Audio file    = To Cut a Long Story Short.ogg
| Upper caption = <!--Omit to disable caption-->
| Background    = Song
}}
Has "Background" - Add to
==========================
{{Audiosample
| Audio file= Michael Jackson's Hollywood Tonight (album version).ogg
| title="Hollywood Tonight"
}}
Has "title" - Add to Category:Music pages for manual Audiosample cleanup
==========================

@Ronhjones: Looks good. But I see a potential problem with odd upper captions: "Remove when |Upper caption=Audio sample or |Upper caption=[BLANK], add other instances of |Upper caption=XXX to Category:Music pages for manual Audiosample cleanup". Also add if not difficult: "change |Background= to |type= only if |Background=song or |Background=single, otherwise, add to Category". Also, upper and lower case parameter names should be targeted: Upper/upper caption, Background/background (audio file doesn't seem to be used in View source for Template:Audiosample). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I ran some AWB tests, to see the scale of the job

• 723 contain insource: Audiosample
• 584 contain [Uu]pper caption\s*=\s*[Aa]udio sample
• 28 contain [Uu]pper caption\s*=\s*[Mm]usic sample
• 56 contain [Uu]pper caption\s*=\s*[Yy]es
• 2 contain [Uu]pper caption\s*=\s*[Ss]ample
• 3 contain [Uu]pper caption\s*=\s*\|
• 23 contain [Uu]pper caption\s*=\s*<!--Omit to disable caption-->
• 2 pages had audiosample not as template
  

Leaves 25 pages - added to Category:Music pages for manual Audiosample cleanup I think a semi-auto AWB run or two will do (saves having bot request). Just need to get the find/replace all correct. Will update as appropriate. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Just under 400 converted. Leaves 333 in Category:Music pages for manual Audiosample cleanup Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I'm cleaning up these now. The documentation for {{Audio sample}} says that the default for |type= is "single", which is also the default for |Background= for {{Audiosample}}. Imagine my surprise – the default for Audio sample is actually "other" (Audio sample uses {{Infobox album/color}}), which produces a "peachpuff" header instead of khaki. So it will take a bit longer, but I plan to fix them all. Thanks for your help. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

removed as per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles)

@Ronhjones: Category:Music pages for manual Audiosample cleanup is now empty and I think I've cleaned up all the conversion problems. Let me know if there are more. The next Audio sample monthly error report might flag some. Should a note be left at WP:TFD/H "Arts 2017 May 10 – Audiosample" so the template can be deleted, etc.? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Audiosample - I see 17 transclusiona. I've put them in the category for you. Once fixed, then you can go for TfD. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Empty again (and also removed some succession boxes). Will note at TfD. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Speaking of succession boxes, I removed one from a song that didn't have an infobox.[16] I doubt there are many of these and I'll remove them if I see any more. BTW, I'm trying to revive the Extra music sample merger to Audio sample. It seems that substituting {{Extra music sample}} will take care of most of them. Any suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

How I hate templates! the number of brackets...! Looking at the code for Template:Extra music sample - Jc86035 appears to have changed it to call {{Audio sample}} anyway. I see TheSandDoctor says he knows how to do it, maybe he has some existing code that will work for you.Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: So easy to create, so difficult to get rid of ... Anyhow, I started it on the template talk page and will continue there. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Audio samples

Hello Ojorojo. Is it better for audio samples to be uploaded to Wikipedia or to Commons? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can't upload audio to Commons unless it is completely compliant with the GNU Free Documentation License. That's why I can't upload the ELP / King Crimson reworking of Ravel's Bolero, even though I played all the instruments and can chose whatever copyright I want, the composition is still in copyright in the US for a few more years. For 10 second rips of albums, you'll have to make do with an FUR here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Or even 30, I assume. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Zep stuff

Elsewhere, you wrote, "There is so much written about LZ, it should be easy to find material for their articles". Couldn't agree more, I've already queued Physical Graffiti for a GA review having blitzed through the article citing and copyediting everything, and I reckon I could probably do all other the album articles to the same standard in a few weeks with two book sources. Maybe I should revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin for this purpose. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of reviewing PG, but FunkMonk beat me to it. Reviving the project may run into the problem you encountered at talk:STH, etc. – I'm still leery. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Wow, you're going to wake some people up! I think "Achilles Last Stand" meets NSONGS and has lots of sources. I'm going to give it a shot and we'll see. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. I only redirected it because the text was a copyvio from Lewis 2012, apart from the quotes which were close paraphrasing anyway. I suspect there are more G12-able articles floating around, so if there's activity ramping up in the project, that might be something to look at. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ojorojo!

Hey there Ojorojo! Guitarhistory here.

I wanted to drop you a quick line & thank you for your contributions to the community. I just edited (adding content with additional citations) on the Electric Guitar page. I'm hoping you will find satisfaction in the content; if you would like to add anything to it, there are pages & pages of additional references for the subject & companies associated with the early development. (Rickenbacker) aka (Rickenbacher) in particular.

If you think it's best to re-locate the photo of the Electro-Spanish Ken Roberts instrument in the article, what do you think about placing in the heading? The guitar is, after all, the first full-scale electric guitar. All of the Gibsons & Fenders that would come to fruition in the 50's would be heavily influenced by these early Rickenbacker design elements, Ken Roberts in particular. The model in the heading is a 54 Les Paul. Guitarhistory (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It's important not to remove maintenance templates, such as {{according to whom}} and {{citation needed}}, without addressing the issues. It is seen as disruptive editing. Too many images can give an article a cluttered, amateurish look. Also, the odd use of italics and ( " ) for inches, ( & ) for and are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Edits to musical instrument articles often are original research or an attempt to promote a particular model or artist. The question of the lead image should be taken up on the article talk page; a RfC was needed for Acoustic guitar. A review of MOS:LEADELEMENTS may be helpful. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you find sources for the Sirens article?

ColorTheoryRGB ColorThe 17:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@ColorTheoryRGB: Here are a couple of searches.[17][18] Maybe check WP:MUSIC/SOURCE to see if any are OK (HHH looks to be reliable). WP:WikiProject Hip hop doesn't look very active; you might ping some editors who have had recent GAs in that genre. Part of the problem is that the song and album are so new. Good luck. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Help! My sirens article got nominated for deletion! Can you help save it? I don't want my work permanently erased! I am SURE it is notable. ColorTheoryRGB ColorThe 20:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@ColorTheoryRGB: There's some good material in the HHH article and the Genius.com commentary (but are they a "recognized authority"?) that could add to the article. However, the reviewers may still see this as a case of WP:Too soon. Would it hurt to wait a week or two and try again when there are more sources? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A week is when it will be deleted, mind you. ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 21:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@ColorTheoryRGB: Yes, but being deleted doesn't prevent you from recreating a new article with new material that meets WP:NSONGS. Have you considered using the WP:ATD-I option? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I could just copy-and-paste the code into a note, then recreate the article when it has been deleted. Unless you can save it. ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 21:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You can‘t always get what you want (Rolling Stones song)

Hello, I left a source in ‚References‘. It‘s a link to a video about Rolling Stones songs. Roooooon (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's funny – the video commentator only mentions "soft guitar", not that the song is soft rock or folk. (BTW, there is a way to properly cite a video segment) Your genre edits on WP articles are not helpful and will continue to be reverted. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

But he says the song has gospel influences, but is not gospel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roooooon (talk • contribs) 06:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Added ref (note that the quote is included in the citation). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Blanking

Please stop this. I've told you before that if you think something should be deleted, then propose that. Don't just leave a blank template sitting around. Why would you do this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It's unclear what your comments mean. Maybe you can explain and I can try to help. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't blank content. If you think the content shouldn't be used, propose it for deletion instead. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Unwanted Bot Edit?

Page Music of The Lord of the Rings film series - The bot search is suddenly finding this page (no idea why it did find it before!) and removing the succession box). I assume this is one where the box should stay? There is an "Infobox album" some way down the page. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Found problem - someone added a space between the double braces and "Infobox musical composition" - so bot did not count it. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed code to ignore extra spaces. If it's happened once... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I started watching the weekly updates, but RonBot seemed to be doing its job. Seeing all the succession boxes in Lord of the Rings makes me wonder why other projects don't decide to remove this cruft. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. You'll have to suggest it to them :-) Normally most editors put the template name straight after the double braces. We just had a editor who likes to space it out a bit. No damage done, and it can't happen again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Songs with no infoboxes

RonBot removed a succession box on Sat am - that was because someone added the infobox to the song, and so the bot found it. It got me thinking about how many more there might be. So starting with Category:Singles by year and using "No limits with recursion" on AWB - there are about 65K articles, of which 928 do not have any infobox, and 146 of those have succession boxes. I've got these 2 lists saved on PC, would you like them? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I would think that anyone who adds a record chart succession box would have also added an infobox. I'd be interested to see the 146 with succession boxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy - User:Ojorojo/singles with succession box Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Now I remember – about nine years ago there was a mass addition of three- to four-sentence articles referencing various Joel Whitburn record chart books. The succession boxes should be removed, because may be copied to new articles (I suppose if you could make them disappear, you would have mentioned it!) It not a high priority, but I'll try to work on it. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Not impossible, but quite a change of code (and always the risk of it not performing properly) - however might be easier to add a simple infobox single with AWB, in semi auto mode, then let bot work normally. I'll have a think about it.I'll come back tomorrow. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Easier than I thought - adding a blank "Infobox song", with {{subst:PAGENAME}} as the name parameter works a treat - see Special:Diff/859407377. If you think that's OK to do, then I can do that pretty quickly. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Interesting solution. There are always the anomalies, but with 146 pages, the ones that don't work can be fixed manually. I'd say go for it. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem, will do. Plus the bot run Sat am will remove all the succession boxes. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. 17 pages less than expected - there were duplicates - e.g. Lost Highway (Leon Payne song) is in three single cats 1948, 1949 and 2008, so the first search found it 3 times. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Update - seems to have worked as planned. All succession boxes removed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 10:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Yes, I spot checked about twenty and all were removed. Having the latest infobox song in place may inspire some additional work on the articles. Some editors are still adding {{Infobox single}} instead of infobox song to articles (probably just copying from the 50K still out there). If nothing else, it would be nice to have a notice pop up "Please use infobox song instead". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ojorojo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)