User talk:Ojorojo/Archive 8

R to 3/2/2019 comment

@Ritchie333: Just another one of my periodic Wikibreaks. Initially at least, I will be trimming my watchlist, so I may not be adding comments, etc., as I did previously. However, I will try to respond to pings and comments here. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre

Do you have any sense of where I might take this conversation next? I still feel strongly that a change needs to be made, but I'm not sure WikiProject Songs is the right space for getting anything done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I imagine you've considered WT:Categorization and WT:WikiProject Categories, but they might not be any better. Certain editor(s) are determined to main the status quo at all costs and the rest of us would rather expend our efforts elsewhere. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo, I'll keep this in mind, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Zeppelin

Just wanted to thank you for your song pages cleanup :) - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I started on many of these last July–August, when Ritchie was making a push for GAs and reviving WP:WikiProject Led Zeppelin. Any opinions on which songs may be close to GAN? —Ojorojo (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry no, I've never looked at articles in a GA/FA context, however I did help We hope on the Red Skelton FA, a few years back. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Jimi Hendrix

Hi Ojorojo. Long time no speak. I see you've nominated List of songs recorded by Jimi Hendrix for FL. Since I've contributed the most edits to that page, am its second biggest contributor (other than its original creator), added almost every reference in the table (bringing it mostly to where it is today), and even in this edit said it had the potential to be featured, you think I deserve a co-nomination? Plus, we both know the list would have never become featured in its old state. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem giving others credit. When I suggested a joint nomination to the original creator, there was no answer[1] (also no responses on the talk page). I hadn't seen any comments from you in the last months, so I assumed you lost interest. Anyway, the refs of course are important. I think that it would have been far easier to cite a page number for each entry from a comprehensive discography (such as Shapiro) that shows all the info (title, writer, album, and date). But I left most of the individual album liner notes/label refs. Some did not show a release or copyright date, so I supplied additional refs. Question: are the copyright dates for the rest sufficient? —Ojorojo (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No I didn't lose interest I just moved on to other things for the time being. When citing all the albums/singles I made sure all the years were correct and all the ids as well. I also made sure different versions were correct (i.e. the US & UK versions of Are You Experienced) so yeah they should all be reliable and good to go. I'd really appreciate a co-nom. :-) – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. I added your name as a nominator (fix it if I didn't do it right). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome thanks very much! – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Achilles Last Stand

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Achilles Last Stand 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 Markworthen -- Markworthen (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Achilles Last Stand

The article Achilles Last Stand you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Achilles Last Stand for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Markworthen -- Markworthen (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hi, Ojorojo - just wanted to note that I moved your vote to the end of the page: you had actually placed it in the middle of my comment. I placed a hidden note in that location, but wanted to let you know that it wasn't directed at you; am guessing that the formatting of my comment wasn't as clear as I'd have liked it to be, and wanted to give others a heads-up. In any case, thanks for your input at the discussion. Cheers, Big universe (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I do hear you gently knocking

Hi Ojorojo. With regard to your tagging those, I was wondering if that was because it's Wikipedia policy that all YouTube links must be tagged in that way. As I'm sure you will appreciate, I added those two links in perfectly good faith, after checking the general question of YT copyright statements, at the appropriate noticeboard, on three separate occasions, and after trying to make the relevant statements clear in my respective edit summaries for these particular additions. Are you disputing the statements presented at YT, or are you perhaps questioning what they mean, or are you just inviting a third party editor to check them? Alternatively, do these tags have to remain for the life of the link? In which case it might be easier if I simply added them myself each time. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have specific disagreements with the points I gave in the reasons or just a general objection? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary mentioned the reasons given in the template. I was wondering which of those reason applied here. I'm not objecting to anything, I'm just asking for your clarification. I also saw your comments embedded in the templates themselves and I think they warrant some discussion. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me add the concerns here so you may address them:

• Smiley Lewis - I Hear You Knockin' Copyvio link|reason=Uploaded by "xhenryxspencerx" (not a record or publishing company) who may have just have copied the disclaimers from another site
• Dave Edmunds - I Hear You Knocking Copyvio link|reason=Uploaded by "SCCASTOR" with the note "Fan Video" (a collection of album covers & photos that looks home made)

WP:SONGS#Lyrics and music videos includes:

• When linking to a music video on YouTube use only the videos that have been uploaded by the musician(s), the record companies, or Vevo. The official Billboard.com YouTube channel can also be used. Links can be incorporated into the infobox (via the Misc field) or the external links of the article using {{YouTube}}. Though the list of musician channels varies, a list of the acceptable record labels and distributors is presented below: [most are record companies, see WP:SONGS for list]

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The requirements at WP:SONGS#Lyrics and music videos are quite clear there, so I have reverted. It seems the copyright statements are not mentioned anywhere and so I guess are seen as irrelevant. But I am very surprised that that is a comprehensive lost of acceptable music labels - just seven? I guess "a list of the acceptable record labels and distributors is presented below" just means there might be very many others. This is quite contrary to the advice I was given (on three separate occasions) about the copyright statements. It's not clear to me that those statements are ever added by those who upload the video. Another question is how those statements relate to the visual content. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

p.s. would it be useful to link directly to WP:COPYLINK, either via the template of the accompanying edit summary? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I see you've started a discussion at WT:SONGS. That would be a better way to get your questions answered. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I have, at least concerning one aspect of the advice there. My bigger concern is over the copyright statements that YouTube now adds to music videos. But I will also raise that issue at that venue. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

As someone who is obviously very keen to maintain and implement clear policy in this area, I would very much appreciate your input in that discussion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Hey Ojorojo. This is long overdue but I wanted to say I'm sorry for the way I acted a while ago regarding List of songs recorded by Jimi Hendrix. I was being a huge bitch and basically was trying to claim ownership, something this site does not allow. It was wrong of me to basically force you to co-nom me and then, even worse, basically insult you for nominating it. That was incredibly rude of me, I should've given my thoughts and opinions when the peer review was active, but I wasn't aware of it until it was too late. Again, I'm truly sorry for the way I acted, I hope things can be good between us (if they aren't already). I really hope we could work together to bring the song list up to FL as like you, I'd really like to see it reach that status, especially after seeing your hard work on Hendrix's discographies: original and posthumous, and his videography. I really hope we could work together but after what I did, if you don't want my help, I totally understand. Just know, I truly am sorry for the way I acted. – zmbro _(talk) 19:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I should have reached out to you at the time of the PR, but let's move beyond the could/should/would of. I'm going to give it some time to get a fresh perspective, then take it from there. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem, sounds like a plan. – zmbro _(talk) 14:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"Let's Stick Together" single info.

The image showing the 7" single is not reading correctly. The A & B sides are from two different singles. The main song title is missing. 1063 Single info should be... A - Let's Stick Together B - My Heart Is Yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.138.169 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to Template:Infobox song#Parameters: the subject song that is identified in the infobox is not repeated as an A- or B-side. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Achilles Last Stand copyedit

@Miniapolis: Thank you very much for your improvements. I notice that two points by Markworthen were not covered ("'travels' needs explication' and "'different interwoven sections' could be improved by describing two sections that are interwoven"). For a rather short article, I felt that this was too much detail for the lead (and for the music, maybe too technical). Any suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. FWIW, I agree that a lot of detail isn't required in the lead. I believe that you mentioned their travel destinations, and I think I removed "different" from "different interwoven sections" as redundant. Unlike FAs (which are promoted by committee), GAs are assessed by one editor. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(i) I also appreciate your work on the article Miniapolis. :-) (ii) I changed "travels" to "exposure to diverse cultures and musical traditions during their travels" (diff). (iii) I personally do not understand what "interwoven sections" means, but I don't think it's a big deal, particularly since both of you believe the current text suffices. (iv) I experimented with a couple of edits to improve the layout (blank space after the long quote). It looks good to me on my PC and iPhone 6S. My PC is a Windows 10 desktop using Chrome (Version 75.0.3770.100 (Official Build) (64-bit)). I also used a free online tool to see how it looks on other browsers. Best I can tell, it renders well on Firefox, Safari, Opera, and older versions of Chrome. But free online tools can only do so much, thus the results are limited. (v) I support submitting the article for a GA Review as I personally believe it passes muster. But, as y'all know, another editor will make the call. (Not that a "fail" cannot be "appealed".)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements, Mark, and I agree (FWIW) that it's a GA. "Interwoven sections" is slightly vague, but as a longtime copyeditor I've developed pretty good filters for puffery and woo and it didn't trip either one . All the best, Miniapolis 18:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Also thanks and for checking it out on different devices (maybe this should be standard for reviews). I'm going to copy this discussion to the talk page and hopefully it will help move things along. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Achilles Last Stand

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Achilles Last Stand 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) 06:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Achilles Last Stand

The article Achilles Last Stand 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:Achilles Last Stand for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we choose our battles with regard to the GA2 recommendations. ;O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Words to live by. I must admit I was a bit miffed by the GA1 quick fail (in less than two hours!) and my lost place in the queue, but the wait for GA2 was short. Thanks for your willingness to compromise.—Ojorojo (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not know about the "Hold" option, which I would have used for the GA1 review if I had known about it then. ... Zeppelin has been my fav group since 1973, and Achilles Last Stand one of my favorite songs, so I was very motivated to see the article become GA. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Before starting a review, I find it helpful to look over WP:Reviewing good articles and WP:What the Good article criteria are not. If you're really interested, there are a whole lotta Zeppelin articles[2] to bring up to GA standards. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have read those two articles about five times each and I reviewed them beforehand.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Achilles Last Stand

The article Achilles Last Stand you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Achilles Last Stand 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) 20:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hendrix

Hey Ojorojo. First off, congrats on bringing "Achilles Last Stand" to GA, love that song. Anyways, I was wondering if you'd wanna start working on Hendrix's song list again? It's been a couple of months and I have some ideas on what we could do to expand it (and to settle some differences we've had, particularly regarding "Third Stone" and "If 6 Was 9") but if you're not ready I totally understand. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 23:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting on it again after I finish up a couple of things. An earlier version had separate entries for very different names, which I thought was helpful for readers who are not that familiar with his work:

"Instrumental Solo"

• see "Villanova Junction"

"Jam Back at the House"

• see "Beginning"

etc., etc. It would remove the confusion for some who expected to find "Third Stone" under "3rd Stone" or vice versa. BTW, italics for AllMusic has some discussion and a RfC. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, especially for titles that aren't similar (like "Instrumental Solo" and "Villanova Junction" like you mentioned). Here are some of my thoughts on what we could do:

• I think for the different song titles, we should use its best-known title. I checked back to the last edit before I started editing the page and with "Third Stone", it seems that every album and release that was mentioned in the last col use "Third" and not "3rd" as the title (same for "If 6 Was 9" vs. "If Six Was Nine")
• Going along with that, I think we should use notes rather than "aka". I know that seems like that will make it too cluttered with notes but I think saying something like (for "Third Stone"): "The song was titled "3rd Stone from the Sun" on the original UK release of Are You Experienced" or something like that. Make sense?

I have more thoughts but I'd rather hear your thoughts on that first rather than bombard you with too many things. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 19:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Proving what is the original title is much easier than what is the most popular. The WP article is titled "Foxy Lady", although it seems "Foxey Lady" is more popular (the American Reprise Are You Experienced song titles seem to have won out). [Actually, several UK reissues still use "Foxy", but also use "Third Stone";[3] these 2010–2014 US reissues use "3rd Stone"[4][5][6][7][8] I suppose if one looks hard enough, either spelling seems popular] Others are frequently changed in song and album articles to what the editor happens to feel is the "correct" title, probably based on the source where they first saw it: "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" vs "Voodoo Chile (Slight Return)", "Voodoo Child", "Voodoo Chile"; "Power to Love" vs "Power of Soul" vs "With the Power"; "Message of Love" vs "Message to Love"; "Come On" vs "Come On (Let the Good Times Roll)". It is much easier to point to the original release than argue "it was more popular in the UK because it reached No.1". Also Hendrix sometimes recorded slightly different versions of the same songs. Is "Look Over Yonder" more popular than "Mr. Bad Luck" or should they both have entries linked to the albums that they appear on? With two entries, there would be no reason for someone to change one to something they like better.

As a compromise, I suggest 1) adding a second entry for significantly different titles (following the above examples); 2) moving more similar variations to footnotes instead of a.k.a.; 3) removing the space between the title and the hash tags and daggers and use superscript so they line up better with the increased use of footnotes and look less cluttered. That's it for now. I sure I'll come up with more. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo I'm good with that. It's shocking to me how complicated his song titles are, pretty much the only artist I've heard of with really complicated titles. Based on what you're saying, I think it makes sense to use the original, especially with "Third Stone"; both the Apple Music and Spotify versions of Are You Experienced use "Third Stone" as the title, but since you've found other 2010s reissues that use "3rd", it really goes either way. I'd still prefer to use "Third", mainly since that's how its WP article is titled, but I'm good with using "3rd", since it's really 50/50 between the two, and since "3rd" was the original UK title. With "Foxy Lady", Apple Music and Spotify use "Foxey Lady" as the title, which makes things more complicated. Due to this, I'd honestly say the original title is the best way to go about it.

• "Third Stone" can be given an entry with "see '3rd Stone'" (with an explanatory footnote and ref) because they're so far apart. Someone looking for "Foxey" will see "Foxy" in the same place, with a footnote: "Foxy Lady" was retitled "Foxey Lady" and included on the US edition of Are You Experienced [ref]

Now that we've settled the title dispute, here are some of my other thoughts I had regarding the table alone:

• We should have both liner notes sourced for the US and UK versions of Are You Experienced (mainly where they apply), since they were both drastically different. You already know that "Purple Haze", "Hey Joe", and "The Wind Cries Mary" were on the US version and not the UK while others like "Red House" and "Remember" were on the UK and not the US (so we would ref the US for "Purple Haze" etc. and the UK for "Red House", etc. and both for "Foxy Lady"). Make sense?

• OK. They can be added as footnotes: "Non-album single (UK)^[a] → ^[a] "Purple Haze" is included on the US edition of Are You Experienced [ref]". For refs we can use Shapiro, who shows the UK vs US albums, as well as the release dates that now one must infer from the tiny copyright date on the UK releases (the first few US releases have no dates).

• For singles, I think we could save a little space. For example, for B-sides such as "51st Anniversary", we could just say ""B-side of "Purple Haze" (UK)" (I did the same thing for Coldplay's song list). For A-sides or non-album singles, we could just say "Non-album single" (so only one line is used instead of two)

• OK, see the above. However, instead of all grouped under "single" in a sort, they would appear in two different places, which is why I set it up that way.

• We should mention the fact that "Purple Haze" and "Hey Joe" were released on the US versions of Are You Experienced, and the fact that "All Along the Watchtower" was on Electric Ladyland (only a month after the US single). Basically, singles that were also on albums I think should be noted.

• OK, also see the above.

• Very minor and not that big of a deal but we should probably say "Jimi Hendrix" in the writer col every time as after nominating so many song lists for FL, I bet a reviewer will say it should be full name anyways.

• I followed WP:ALBUMSTYLE#Track listing "Note the standard method of attributing songwriters—write (and link) the full name the first time it appears, and then just give the last name", which is intended to prevent needless repetition. Looks more professional, IMO. Alternatively, we could use rowspan (see test on first few[9]).

These are just some more of my thoughts for the table alone. I'd love to know what you think :-) – zmbro _(talk) 19:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Making progress! —Ojorojo (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo Definitely! I think we should start work on the table before we start giving thoughts on the lead so we can do things one at a time. I can work on the footnoting and the single stuff in the release col and perhaps you could do the sourcing? (I, unfortunately, don't have access to many Hendrix books so I can't do much there). That ok? – zmbro _(talk) 00:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I've made the first round of changes (1966–1969). Moving the a.k.a.s to efns does give the title column a cleaner look; I hope readers will actually look at them, before deciding that a title is wrong. Similarly, the "Non-album single" designation may confuse some people if they don't bother to read the efns. The way it is used in the Coldplay list appears to be for singles that never appeared on an album (except maybe for anthologies). So far for Hendrix though, they were added to "studio albums" not too long after their release. Maybe just "Single (UK)" or "Single (UK)" would be sufficient. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You have a point. We could do that instead, or maybe "UK single" and "US single"? – zmbro _(talk) 01:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The table has been updated following the discussion for far. I'm wondering about the Douglas-produced hatchet jobs on Crash Landing and Midnight Lightning. Most of the songs have been restored close to the originals and maybe identifying these as the "original releases" would in fact be truer (with efns mentioning the earlier Douglas releases).

I went ahead and changed these as well as those on Nine to the Universe. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts for the lead:

• Hendrix's songs introduced a new style of guitar-dominated hard and psychedelic rock, typified by "Purple Haze", "Voodoo Child", and "Machine Gun". He explored several new combinations of guitar- and sound processing-effects and achieving a particular sound was an important part of his creation of a song.
• He never abandoned his R&B roots, as heard in the slower, more melodic "Little Wing", "Have You Ever Been (To Electric Ladyland)", and "Drifting". With the Band of Gypsys, he incorporated early funk elements, with hard rock and jamming, which later became known as funk rock (e.g. "Who Knows").
• His post-Band of Gypsys recordings show a more developed style, with a more integrated mix of hard rock with R&B elements and multiple guitar parts on "Freedom", "Ezy Ryder", "Dolly Dagger", and "Hey Baby". His lyrical themes also reflected "a Jimi Hendrix who felt an increasing need to impart his compassionate vision of human potentiality [and a] move away from cynicism and bitterness".[Shapiro p. 140]
• Two of his best known songs were written by others; his interpretations of "Hey Joe" and "All Along the Watchtower" gave them a much different character than the originals. He chose Dylan more than any other songwriter. For live performances, he adapted several older blues songs by Muddy Waters, Elmore James, Howlin' Wolf, and B.B. King and early rock and roll numbers by Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, and Elvis Presley. He also performed some more contemporary rock songs, such as "Wild Thing", "Gloria", "Day Tripper", "Sgt.Pepper's", "Dear Mr. Fantasy", and "Sunshine of Your Love". His radical interpretation of the "Star Spangled Banner" was a highlight of the Woodstock film.
• Although he toured and mostly recorded as a three piece, several songs on Electric Ladyland and Cry of Love featured additional musicians. He was fond of jamming and several of the post-1980 albums contain songs that are largely jams with various players (Nine to the Universe, and the Dagger Records releases Morning Symphony Ideas, Hear My Music, Burning Desire). Jamming was integral to his songwriting process.

—Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I think those would work well, they'll obviously need more refs but the main idea is there. Since many publications rank Hendrix as the greatest guitarist of all time, I think it'd be important to note that. How long did you want to make it? We could easily make it as long as his main article's lead but I'd be good with matching the length of his discography leads. Right now I'm blanking on what else I think could be added but the overall gist is definitely there. I add more ideas when I think of some. – zmbro _(talk) 00:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no hurry. I think a list should be able to largely stand on its own and that a long, overly detailed lead and picture gallery is distracting. According to WP:SALLEAD "A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, [etc.]" The leads for the Hendrix article and discographies are appropriate for those articles, but I think a shorter lead would work better here (now that the organization/structure commentary is left out). The ideas included above are heavy on examples to give some background on specific points, but most should not be included.

The Beatles list (which you are involved with) takes an interesting approach in using separate tables for the "Main songs" and "Other songs", which may be appropriate for Hendrix. The songs he is best known for were released during his lifetime, plus maybe some from his proposed fourth studio album (compiled on First Rays of the New Rising Sun, but first released in 1971). The rest of his posthumous catalogue does not rise to this level (note that there are practically no song articles for after Rainbow Bridge, except covers). Rather than get too detailed, I'd like to hear your ideas. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that Beatles list will eventually be FL but I'm struggling with the lead for the time being. Seeing it in its original state was completely unacceptable to me. Eventually I decided that their main songs should be separate from everything else as their primary 200-ish songs are what people remember most. Plus, no one is gonna think of "12-Bar Original" or "If You've Got Trouble" when you hear "the Beatles". For Hendrix, we could possibly do two separate tables, one for pre-death and one post-death. I also personally think we should note what songs were the Experience (I think I did that when I added all the refs back in December), but if we make two separate tables, we probably won't need that, since basically every song he released before his death were with the Experience (except Band of Gypsys).

You make a good point regarding the length. We should definitely write about his guitar prowess and the primary genres he worked with; we could also mention the Experience and the Band of Gypsys. I personally liked the examples you put above; would need some copy-editing and refs but I think the overall gist is good. To me it's most important to discuss his guitar sound that really elevated most of his songs to the legendary status they are known for, esp. "Purple Haze", "Little Wing" (my personal favs), and "Machine Gun", as well as his elevation of "All Along the Watchtower", which only came a mere six months after Dylan's original. I'm getting off on a tangent but I think you got the main idea. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 00:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, similarly with "Untitled Basic Track". Separating the two at pre-/post-death is the most obvious. Although they were issued under "Jimi Hendrix Experience", a significant number of songs on Axis and Electric Ladyland did not include Redding, so technically they were not "songs recorded by the Experience". Additionally, trying to identify which posthumous releases are "Experience" is tricky (all the songs on disc 4 and several others on the JHE box are not by the Experience, and there are several Experience songs spread out across many other releases). Also, the group that played Woodstock was informally "Gypsy, Sun and Rainbows", rather than the Experience.

I started on separating the tables. I've also made a couple of changes: "Original album release", with singles highlighted in blue (with refs & efns). I was thinking of naming the sections "Main songs" and "Posthumously released songs"; "Songs released during Hendrix's lifetime" or "... before he died" look awkward and "Other songs" is more ambiguous. Or "Songs released 1966–1970" and "...1971–present". Suggestions?

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The original Beatles song list used "album debut" rather than "original release" and I went off of that when developing that list for over a year until I decided that really only the primary albums and Past Masters are the only ones that are actually relevant. I think doing "original album release" here would be good, as that also makes the conflict we had about how singles should be styled a while ago obsolete. The only problem I see is in the second table; some songs are still marked as singles and I personally don't know if they were released on any albums so that might be an issue. Other things I see is that some notes are still missing refs but other than that the tables are almost done. I think "Songs released during his lifetime (1966–1970)" and "Songs released posthumously (1971–present)" should do fine. I do wonder how FLC reviewers will react to the tables being separated but between us I think it makes sense. – zmbro _(talk) 19:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

So far, "12 Bar with Horns" is a non-album single and "Peace" is on a box set reissue. I'll make the changes, add refs, and move it to the article space. BTW, there can only be on ToC per article and it links to the first anchor (see Help talk:Section#Multiple Template:Compact ToC on the same page). I'll leave it in for now. Some explanatory text preceding each table should make it clear for readers and reviewers. That can be done with the new lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the tables are completed and added a 2nd ToC by not using {{Compact ToC}}. I'm going to take a break before tackling the lead and section intros. If you want to start on a draft, I can get a better idea of where you want to head with this. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright sounds like a plan, like you said earlier, there's no rush. I'll try to get some ideas down in my sandbox in the meantime. Getting some great progress, should be an FL in no time. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 20:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Any more thoughts on the lead and section intros? I'm about ready to work on this. We can use your or my sandbox or create a new one. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I started here (I'll add the refs later after it's revised). Thoughts? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo Looks really good so far. Would you care if I did some copy-editing on your sandbox or would you rather me move it to mine and make some edits there? Whichever you prefer. I won't be able to make any edits until tonight. – zmbro _(talk) 18:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit my sandbox if it's easier. I moved the album mentions to the sections, which may be unorthodox. However, it does free up the lead to focus on songs and styles (maybe too many blues names/numbers?). Again, no hurry – Rome wasn't burned down in a day. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It's getting better. Some points to consider:

• Since Hendrix often recorded several takes, alternate versions, and live performances, the total number of songs is far greater than 170. I used "different" to exclude these and hope it's still understood.
• When Hendrix finally played on Monday morning, there were only about 20–30K people left by some estimates. Since the vast majority of festival goers didn't see him, saying that "SSB" was a highlight of the festival is a stretch.
• The unfinished fourth album article has a lot of problems (OR, SYNTH, MOS, lack of inline citations), which is why I didn't link it.
• The revised "three-piece" sentence changes the point. The Experience, Band of Gypsys, and the "Cry of Love Tour" configurations were all three-piece combos. Hendrix often had additional musicians (other than Redding, Mitchell, Cox, Miles) record: members of Traffic show up on several tracks, background vocalists, percussionists, keyboardists, etc. This was the lead-in to jamming. If you want keep the focus on songs, but mention JHE and BoG, maybe note that Redding wrote two pop-ish songs, Miles two soul/R&B-style songs which they both sang and Mitchell wrote an instrumental.

As suggested, I'll add to the live recordings. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I switched the second and third paragraphs and made some tweaks to hopefully provide a conclusion of sorts. I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but the majority of his recorded songs are now posthumous releases. It might serve as a lead-in to the split lists. Edit away. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Anything to add or remove? I have refs for everything, except the "part of the sixties Zeitgeist" quote. I'll add them after the final revisions. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo I think everything looks good. Although do you think we should add a paragraph about all the different titles? Thinking about it, I think it would be nice considering there are over 40 notes just about different titles alone. But I would be fine with it as is, it's up to you. – zmbro _(talk) 16:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: I added a paragraph, but it looks like an afterthought. I'll start adding the refs and move the lead and intros to the list. There will probably be more fine tuning when we see how it looks all put together. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Blues

Thanks for your recent slew of edits on List of blues musicians et al. Much appreciated, and sorry for the lateness of this message, but I have been away from home for much of the last few weeks.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion at Talk:List of blues musicians. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section

Hi Ojorojo. I appreciated all your help on Slide guitar a while back. If you have any time, please look at my rewrite of The Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section and give me your opinion. I am not finished with it by any means, but have bogged down a bit and need a new set of eyes to see how to improve it. I have also recently done the Jerry Carrigan article as a related subject–check it out as well because there is overlap. Best regards, Eagledj (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I've had my share of difficulties "fine tuning" articles lately. The article seems to be comprehenive, well-referenced, etc. I noticed some small things: sometimes songs don't use "quote marks", {{poemquote}} shouldn't also use quote marks (a block is sufficient), and the selected recordings table could be simplified (add "Recording date" to the column heading so "recorded" doesn't have to be repeated; "Charting on US Pop chart"→"US Pop chart peak" & # sign doesn't need to be used). I wouldn't want to give any bad advice, so maybe put in a request for copy editing by the Guild of Copy Editors. I was happy with their review, but when it comes to GANs, the final decision is made by the reviewer. Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Axis; Bold As Love, Lemmy Kilmister

Kilmister went on to become a Rock icon. Therefore the fact that he was involved with the Experience as a Roadie is historically noteworthy. Moreso the fact that he attended the Axis sessions.

Had he just been some average Joe that nobody ever knew of outisde of the band's immediate circle, it's perfectly reasonable to question the validity of the inclusion of the fact. But he wasn't an average Joe, hence the relevance.

If in fact this is noteworthy, why is it not mentioned in any of the numerous Hendrix biographies? It is classic trivia. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible GA review?

Hi there!

I've noticed your work on a lot of blues related articles. May I interest you in Live in Cook County Jail, an album by the king of the blues himself B.B. King? It's not his most famous album, but I personally love it. I'll happily repay the favor with any GA nom you have. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking of reviewing it – It's a great album. Give me a couple of days to put something together. One thing I did notice is that some sentences in the lead are worded nearly the same in the main body. Maybe try altering the wording or order, so they don't seem to repeat the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Final Hendrix note

Hey Ojorojo good to see the lead has made it into the article. I'm really happy we were able to collaborate and get it to where it is now. I think it's ready to be nominated, would you like me to do initiate it or you wanna take care of it? – zmbro _(talk) 22:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's truly a collaborative effort. Go ahead and submit it. I hope splitting the table won't put some reviewers off, but it is consistent with his discographies. There is an attempt by some to shoehorn discographies and similar lists into a one-size-fits-all format. What's good for ABBA might not be good for Frank Zappa. I guess we'll find out. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Ojorojo. Could you help resolve ChrisTheDude's comment: "Might be worth clarifying that this section contains (I presume) only songs from the Douglas and Experience Hendrix releases and not the nine million other albums of dubious provenance released since his death. Or if it does include tracks from other releases, clarify which." over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Jimi Hendrix/archive2? I've already taken care of the rest of his concerns. Thanks. – zmbro _(talk) 19:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: I suppose it would be "breaking the fourth wall" just to say "Songs that appear only on bootleg, gray market, and other unofficial albums are not included". Maybe add something at the ending of the second paragraph of the posthumous section:

Over the years, unauthorized jam and other recordings involving or purporting to involve Hendrix have appeared. Bootleg and gray market albums, such as abc and xyz, often misrepresent the participants, recording dates, and other details. These are generally ignored by Hendrix biographers, except to note that they are unofficial and add little to his recording legacy.

I hate to link these albums (they're not in his discographies), but the articles help explain. I'll add the refs when we've decided. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be best to not list bootleg stuff, especially seeing how on xyz, Hendrix is actually not a part of the recording in any manner. As long as every song listed on the page are from official releases both during and after his lifetime, both by Douglas and Experience Hendrix, I think we can just say that. – zmbro _(talk) 16:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Zmbro: That makes it a whole lot simpler. The main songs prose section notes all of the albums and the single the sixty songs listed come from, so maybe that's enough. For the posthumous section, change the last sentence to "Experience Hendrix continues to issue additional unfinished songs, alternate takes, demos, and jams (including restored recordings from the Douglas era). All songs listed are from official releases." Besides Kramer and Mitchell, there are a few one-off authorized albums (Loose Ends, Isle of Wight, Woodstock Two) not produced by Douglas or under Experience Hendrix, but I think this is too much detail. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Kashmir

This is the one article that doesn't seem to list the cover versions. If all the others should be doing it that way, then you've got a lot of work to do. But it's not in either place, so it needs to go somewhere.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

All Led Zeppelin-authored song articles follow this. "Kashmir" covers are included in the List of cover versions of Led Zeppelin songs – scroll down to "K". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I see. The edit summary should have been specific about this. Still, a section should have some content.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

But since Puff Daddy's version has a different title, how should that be handled? And I don't know how to measure the significance to argue that this cover belongs in the main article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

A recent GA review suggested that these should be included in a "See also" section rather than in a "Cover versions" section. Makes sense. As for Puff, add an explanation and link under "Note(s)". —Ojorojo (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I happened to see "samples" in the list and it was there. I wish I had known before I tried to edit the long list.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The "Come with Me" article doesn't discuss a sample. If Page added guitar on Puff's song, it isn't a sample (of the original song). This should be clarified. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. So maybe I should put my edit back.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Either way, it should be included on the list, rather than the song article. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I've done it right, and my assumption that it was more significant than any other cover may have been wrong, which would have been the only way to justify it being in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Bass

Nice work on the bass article. I'm a great believer in the slash-and-burn approach when it comes to articles overrun with OR and poor writing.

Let me know if you ever feel like working on the synthesizer page... I routinely open it, think about trying to make a start, and close it again. Popcornduff (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

There really is no other choice, since the earlier contributors have not stepped up to address the referencing and OR issues, which have been tagged for years in some cases. Unfortunately, this is fairly typical for instrument and related articles. I'd like to do more, but my interest in gear is more artist based. I'll keep my eye on synthesizer for reverts, if needed. Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Congrats

Hey Ojorojo. I just wanted to say congrats and thank you! Glad we were able to work together and bring it up to FL. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 02:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Likewise & for your McCartney FL (two in one day, that doesn't happen very often). Do you have much experience with concert tour articles? Many have tables that lack scope=row and have column headers in the middle,[10] not in keeping with MOS:DTAB and MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. I hope this does not affect The Cry of Love Tour GAN. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I actually don't have much experience with those but I'm always willing to learn. I'd be happy to do the GAR for The Cry of Love Tour, especially since you've been waiting since May. – zmbro _(talk) 14:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: That would be great – you're already familiar with the material and will recognize the refs. The table uses an updated format.[11] There was an attempt to make it conform to the other tour articles, which the editor self-reverted (at admin request?),[12] so it should be OK. I'm open to suggestions. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Cry of Love Tour

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Cry of Love Tour 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 Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

FLC

Hi there! You very kindly reviewed my country number ones of 1980 list, I wonder whether you might be able to look at the 1987 list, which was started earlier but is still active? If you are able to find the time it would be much appreciated and I think you in advance :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought I did! It should have passed by now; anyway, added support. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Cry of Love Tour

The article The Cry of Love Tour you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Cry of Love Tour 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 Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Thanks for the thorough review. I see you have a couple of older GANs. I know nothing about West, but can provide a pro forma review if needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If you'd like to I'd greatly appreciate it; I know "Send It Up" is probably the shortest one of all of them. And don't worry about it, I'm actually in your same boat – aside from greatest hits and just a little about his life, I know almost nothing about Hendrix (esp compared to you). I just knew you'd been waiting since May for TCoLT so I figured might as well. I could also do "Hey Baby (New Rising Sun)" if you'd like :-) – zmbro _(talk) 18:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll start with the easy one. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Zmbro: I think the Beatles list is very well done, but am waiting until some of the experts review it. I don't know enough about the finer points or have easy access to the sources to comment on the tables "Notes" sections, which may be important for this list. If something more general (like for the McCartney list) would help move it along, I'll comment now. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Go right ahead, I'd greatly appreciate it! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 20:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Riders on the Storm

Hi Ojorojo. Thanks for the useful link to Wikipedia:Citing sources, which I have actually seen before. It seems you are familiar with the album cover. Don't you think it would be a useful addition to have a list of personnel for that article? Here's an image of the cover. How does that list ".. misrepresent what the album cover credits actually list", exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:The Doors and the various links for the background on this. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The word "Personnel" doesn't appear on that page? Perhaps you could point out to me the thread, or part of the thread, that is relevant to this? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you regard this as an acceptable source? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, just ignore my questions altogether. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The Doors

Here we go again. Robvanvee 18:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup – I tried my hand at ANI and alerting everyone on the talk page, now it's somebody's else's turn. Meanwhile, my mop and bucket will get some good use ... —Ojorojo (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You using Twinkle? Robvanvee 19:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I'll check it out. I see your RfPP was acted on very quickly. Good one! —Ojorojo (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I asked. Very easy to do with it. I was able to request on the basis that they keep adding unsourced info but other pages may not be as straightforward. I'm away from home for the weekend so editing is limited on my phone but may start trying this as each article is disrupted going forward. Robvanvee 19:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee: I am reminded of WP:COMPETENCE "the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." However, "'tis the season" and all. Happy holidays. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Texas Blues

HI, anyway we could work something out to use the authoritative secondary and primary sources I found to make this an scholarly article? Geisinsj7254 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's scholarly about "If you're a guitar player, chances are, at some point, you tried to learn some SRV licks" and "Texas blues, at its purest form, is nothing more than an individual's expressiveness of communication through voice"? Also, in infoboxes, only the first genre, instrument, etc. in a series is capitalized – the rest should be lower case. Why were all of the existing reliable sources were removed and replaced with others, without explanation or need? Much of the additions were long lists of names (without refs). It's hard enough keeping unsourced cruft out of genre articles without adding more. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

First Winter

Greetings, Ojorojo. Do you know much about the album First Winter? I somehow got the impression that it was a compilation of earlier recordings by Johnny Winter, as opposed to a regular studio album. I'm also not sure if it was released with his cooperation or not. I've taken a cursory look, and references for this do not seem particularly easy to find. The reason I'm asking about this is that there has been some recent activity associated with the album article, for example here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mudwater: Hello again, I just prepared a response at Talk:Johnny Winter discography – First Winter should be deleted. It's better to continue there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hey Baby (New Rising Sun)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hey Baby (New Rising Sun) 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) 06:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hey Baby (New Rising Sun)

The article Hey Baby (New Rising Sun) 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:Hey Baby (New Rising Sun) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hey Baby (New Rising Sun)

The article Hey Baby (New Rising Sun) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hey Baby (New Rising Sun) 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) 08:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Very impressive work! Happy New Year! The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)