User talk:Richhoncho

Hello, Richhoncho. AfC submissions Random submission ~6 weeks 1,033 pending submissions Purge to update v t e I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imperfection_(Evanescence_song)&redirect=no There are two redirects both with categories for this song. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorted. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yep but shouldn't (song) be the one with no cats and redirecting to dab page? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the direction at WP is for the shortest possible title, and however I feel about it, that's the guideline. FWIW. Your edit at Imaginary (song) is hardly helpful. Perhaps you'd like to review again. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, You're a sensible editor so I must be missing something, or I'm not getting it. Neither of these songs have articles, neither is the only song. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have edited the target to put the redirect correct. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Saw you were changing the 'Poppy (singer)' categories to go along with the main category, 'Poppy (singer)'. Can we just change the main category to 'Poppy' (which is not being used) and reroute the rest to that one? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard for the titles of articles and relevant categories to match. If the article was at Poppy I would support Poppy songs. You can oppose at the listing, but you would not be supported. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not opposing, just asking for that clarification. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How did you even find the Britney Spears redirects I created if I never added anything to them? Did you go back through my contributions history to August 2016 to see what I made then? Now you've been going through and creating talk pages and adding categories to a slew of other pages I never tagged with R from song or anything that you would have been able to identify them with (from August 2017, IU's songs from Palette). Then editing This Is Me (Keala Settle song) minutes after I did, indicating you are currently checking up on what I'm doing. By all means, do try and explain how else you found these redirects I created if I never added anything to them other than you seeking out what I've made. But please, find somebody else's contributions to trawl through. I'm getting tired of being the target of your unnecessary "maintenance". This is starting to seem like WP:Wikihounding. Ss112 19:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have had this discussion before and NO, I am not persecuting, following or otherwise interested in you or your actions. A simple search of my edit history would prove that. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Why are you creating redirects for non-existent songs? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then how else did you find redirects I created a year apart (for Britney Spears' and IU's albums, and several other redirects I see I made) when I never tagged them with anything else? If you didn't look up what I did in August 2016, how else did you see I created redirects for Britney Spears songs that apparently "don't exist"? LOL. Ss112 19:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you need to answer my question too. I came across a song from the BS album, and as a matter of course I now check the redirects to that album. OK? Soon WP will decide to delete all these redirects and the sooner the better. Now, why create non-existent songs? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea that Wikipedia as a whole is going to come together at some unspecified point in the future to delete redirects when the current consensus is redirects are mostly useful and all the users creating a bunch of them has done little to change that general opinion is a completely unfounded scenario. But if that did happen, you know what would happen then, right? About half your entire edits would be erased, because you tag "all these redirects" and create talk pages for them. In fact, I'd wager you'd have little else to do on WP these days if you didn't feel the need to categorise and create talk pages for other users' redirects. But whatever, you find things to do, so do others. To answer your question, you do realise artists write and record more songs than end up on the final album, right? That album configurations change? Some songs stay, some get switched for others that are stronger. That's what happened in this scenario. The songs "Accelerate" and "Glory" exist, they were just left off the album's final configuration. The article did say they were included at one point, hence why I created them. I didn't invent song titles because I felt like it. By all means, they can be deleted because they're not on any current edition of the album and the article as it stands does not support their existence. I don't really care. I forgot they even existed. Ss112 19:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Glory or Accelerate on the BS album. I checked carefully. As for what is here and what is not, nobody should contribute to WP if they think their work is sacrosanct (there's an essay or something on the matter), which is exactly the opposite of your opinion of your edits, otherwise you wouldn't keep banging on about them!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've established that there is no mention of the songs on the article at present. I just said as much. I said "they were included at one point". As for what else you've just said, there's a difference between thinking one's edits are sacrosanct or unquestionable and somebody stalking them, which nobody would enjoy. The latter is what I take issue with, because how you jumped from my Britney redirects to my IU ones still escapes me. Ss112 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, I am not, have never and have no intention of stalking or following you. I will, if I chance on up, something of yours that I feel needs improvement, I will. Now, please, the information is there, please do your own checks to ascertain I am not following you. I am not responding to you nasty accusations again. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What information is there? I asked how you found I created redirects for IU's songs so soon after you edited the ones I created for Britney Spears' songs. There is no story being told through your edits, i.e. something that explains how you found these redirects by chance. I really don't think saying "I think you were stalking me" is the nastiest accusation one could make, but okay, sure. Ss112 20:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you added {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} to a number of pages, but that is generally used only in cases where a longer disambiguating term/phrase redirects to the base term or to a title with the same base name and shorter disambiguating term/phrase. For songs redirecting to albums, use {{R to album}} or {{R from song}} older ≠ wiser 11:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I note what you say, but in most of these instances they are duplicate and triplicate versions of the same title, i.e Title, Title (song) and Title (XXX song) and really aren't songs, because the correct entry (according to WP guidelines) has been marked as the song. In truth the kindest thing to do to them is delete, but as the mantra is "redirects are cheap" seems little point in going there. Any better suggestions? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's a bad redirect, I'm generally in the "redirects are cheap" camp, although I might make a suggestion to the responsible editor. I don't think there is any concern with multiple variants of a redirect being in same redirect category. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you have added to {{R from song}} where they don't belong either because they are not songs. I am happy not to add to r from unnec disambiguation, if that suits you, but I cannot see any value in adding the same song over and over again in R from songs. Any other solutions? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. But the redirect titles are meant to refer to songs. On the one hand, if a redirect is a plausible possible title for an article about a song, it arguably belongs in that category. On the other hand, I think if I follow what you're saying, the "extra" redirects are unnecessary. Let's consider an actual example. So you put Paradisia (Björk song) into Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation and I moved it into Category:Redirects from songs. You had also added Paradisia (song) to Category:Redirects from songs. So now, in the event that an article is written about the song, the title would be Paradisia (song) and in that case Paradisia (Björk song) would indeed be unnecessary disambiguation (nb I just created the disambiguation page at Paradisia). With this approach, Paradisia (Björk song) would only be valid in Category:Redirects from songs if there were an article about another song named "Paradisia". But I think having entries in Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation where the target is something completely different from the base name is a significant departure from what the category was meant for. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we agree to remove all templates from the Bjork redirects? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkonrad:. I was expecting an answer to my question above, but I find that would not be best practice either as editors will add the song to the various categories, thereby creating more confusion. What solution is there to noting that a redirect is a duplicate? Any suggestions? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I'm inclined to punt and just put them in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. older ≠ wiser 21:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a plan. I'll try and see who will object! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...do this again and I'll take you there, personally. Cassianto^Talk 10:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: Perhaps you'd like to warn the instigator first, see their edit. comment by Eric Corbett in edit summary which being an comment on an edit has far more visibility and to which I was responding. If you get no response from Eric Corbett, then maybe you should take it to ANI. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the instigator as you are warring over the silly "article needs an infobox" tag. It doesn't. No article needs an infobox, as Eric has pointed out. Your reluctance to accept it is what is causing the problem. Cassianto^Talk 10:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind support for Eric. Take me to ANI or leave it be. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who's this guy above? this was a toilet break how did you catch it? :o In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guy above is a an editor who threatened me with ANI for repeating something offensive that his friend wrote in an edit summary! I let it ride because you can't win arguing with idiots. In respect of your second question I watch the songwriter cats and their members. Feel free to make the dab page if you want, but we both need to be more careful at times... --Richhoncho (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Takeoff (rapper), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richhoncho, sorry but what kind of idea is that to revert my whole edit by simply stating "not true"? I put in the link for Chekhov, and I mentioned the names Verlaine and Rimbaud which are in the song. Plus, if you look at the lyrics on [1], it says the author's relationships have been "like Verlaine's and Rimbaud" which should be "like Verlaine's and Rimbaud's". --Bernardoni (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when redirecting a title for a song to article for the album or artist, please use {{R from song}} instead of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Unnecessary disambiguation only applies in cases where the parenthetical term (or a portion of it) is unnecessary and the target for the redirect is the title without the parenthetical (or with the shortened form of the parenthetical). Regards, older ≠ wiser 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we've been through this discussion before (see above) and had it sorted, save that now I have another editor on my tail that doesn't like your suggestion. If it's an error/duplicate it can't be a r from song. I am fairly solid behind that, but would welcome another suggestion that everybody can get behind.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, it appears you are disagreeing with what you told me to do! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last suggestion I made there was to put them in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. But IMO, I still think {{R from song}} is less erroneous than {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I still say R from song is incorrect. As we agreed above, R from song, does not belong on duplicate redirects, now do you want to make another suggestion? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate what I said, I think {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is unacceptably incorrect. While I think {{R from song}} is less inaccurate, I can accept placing them in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. older ≠ wiser 16:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps, if you hadn't gone back on yourself and made this [2] we wouldn't be wasting our time having this discussion, as I said, I took on board precisely what you said and have acted accordingly. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Richhoncho. I saw you removed a category I put on the redirect page for "That Girl" by Maxi Priest. That's fine since I'm not obsessed with categories, but I'm wondering what you meant by "removed year of song, unlikely!" I'm positive the song was released in 1996, but I just don't understand why you removed it since I've seen the category on other pages alongside "YYYY Singles". Furthermore, I see you didn't remove the "1999 songs" category on another one of my redirects you edited, "Where I'm Headed". I'd appreciate it if you cleared this up for me. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that the recording was released in 1996 - but noting the songwriters assumed it had been written and FIRST released earlier (and bearing in mind we would expect to see confirm at the target article). If 1996 is was the first release of the song, please feel free to revert me. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you're getting at. I think the category should stay, as most articles about songs containing samples of earlier songs contain the category of the later song's release year. For example, "I Think I'm in Love with You" by Jessica Simpson, "Hung Up" by Madonna, and "Sunchyme" by Dario G credit John Mellencamp, the two male ABBA members, and The Dream Academy, respectively, as songwriters, yet the songs appear under the year they were released, not under the year the original samples were released. As such, I think "That Girl" should be in the "1996 songs" category despite its samples. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it was sampled and this song was first released in 1996, then you are right and I am wrong. Please revert me. My apologies, didn't think it through. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lavender (BadBadNotGood song). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ^Falling_Gravity 20:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Report me then, don't threaten me and don't be mistaken that you have given reason not to merge the article. BTW We are now on the 3 reversal rule. OK? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tempt me. The 3 revert rule is over 3 reversals. Right now we're both straddling the line. Sorry, but you're not the ultimate consensus-decider on your own proposals. ^Falling_Gravity 22:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so this is how it's going to be. Alright. Feel free to contribute to the discussion on ANI. ^Falling_Gravity 22:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Brian Kelley (recording artist), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Richard, nice to meet you.

Concerning Dylan's discography and the use of the terms "compilation" or "studio" or "live" albums to designate them, there is always going to be some grey areas (e.g. Self Portrait is all three at the same time). Yet, when people expect a new "Dylan album" (or an album by any artist for that matter), there is a perceived difference if it is a coherent work of contemporary work assembled by the artist or a compilation of older work by others. Further, in the case of the "studio" designation, there is a presumption that the artist went into a recording studio to record the work for a coherent presentation.

Wikipedia's entry for "compilation album" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compilation_album) is that "A compilation album comprises tracks, either previously released or unreleased, usually from several separate recordings by either one or several performers. If by one artist, then generally the tracks were not originally intended for release together as a single work, but may be collected together as a greatest hits album or box set."

In the case of Dylan (1973), it has been often-remarked that the album was a compilation of outtakes from New Morning and Self Portrait session that Dylan had no intention of releasing; instead, CBS (Columbia) released the album as a sort of retaliation to Dylan signing with David Geffen's Asylum Records in 1973. Dylan (1973) was released three years after the studio recordings were made, they were compiled by someone other than Bob Dylan, and the tracks (using the definition above) were "previously...unreleased" and "from several separate recordings" and "were not originally intended for release together as a single work." Really, Dylan (1973) is a kind of anti- version of Another Self Portrait, with ASP intending to recast the period and Dylan intending to be a money-making scheme for CBS that kept Dylan from collecting songwriter's royalties given that all the tracks were written by others.

The Basement Tapes is really a proto-Bootleg Series album. It was released eight years after the Bob Dylan demos were recorded in 1967, with some more recent studio recordings by The Band. It also fits the definition of a compilation album, being a compilation of tracks recorded at different times "not originally intended for release together as a single work." Further, the tracks are by "several performers" that feature "a theme, topic, or genre which links the tracks" (that theme being the songs written and recorded in 1967 at Big Pink). They were intended to be demos and nothing more...acetates that other musicians could listen to and record. As Robbie Robertson says in the 1985 insert liner notes for Biograph, "The idea was to record some demos for other people. They were never intended to be a record, never meant to be presented" (insert liner notes for "Million Dollar Bash"). Whereas some subsequent work was done to present the 1975 album for release (the downgrading of the Garth Hudson stereo recordings to mono to give it a "low tech/home brew" feel, the addition of eight later recordings by The Band), this work is not unlike the addition of five new recordings ("Watching the River Flow," "When I Paint My Masterpiece," "I Shall Be Released," "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere," and "Down in the Flood") to Greatest Hits Vol. II, which is still clearly a compilation album, or the additional editing and adding of a keyboard part to "Series of Dreams" for the 1991 Bootleg Series, or even the reworking of "Dignity" (addition of drums, guitar, banjo, etc.) for 1994's Greatest Hits Volume 3, which is also still clearly a compilation album. In each of these instances, there is either subsequent work done on tracks or new tracks recorded for an album that is not regarded as a studio album.

Of course, the clearest argument that each of these be regarded as a compilation album, rather than a studio album, is that for every other studio album, Bob Dylan went into a studio to record and release a coherent work. Whether the studio session was short and sweet like that for Another Side of Bob Dylan or "Love & Theft," or protracted like Knocked Out Loaded and Down in the Groove. That was not the intent of Dylan (1973) and The Basement Tapes.

This is why Expecting Rain, one of the oldest and most complete Bob Dylan websites, regards Dylan and The Basement Tapes as compilation albums (https://www.expectingrain.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82082) and it is why all of the press with regard to both of these albums as the time of release, as well as the work of biographers and other critics subsequently, have treated these albums differently.

Thank you for your diligence and consideration.

I have taken your point to Bob Dylan project where you might like to propound your views with others on the project. If consensus is with you, then all will be reverted, but until then, I do point out not only do I think you are wrong, but that the accepted position for a number of years has also been on my side. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richard,

I will gladly discuss it there. I would point out that the "consensus" you mention is an unexamined intertia here that is the result of Wikipedia's studio/compilation/live categories (of course, I know these classifications have been around for decades and even used by Dylan scholars, but most Dylan publications throughout the years simply list all Dylan albums in their discographies and do not classify them). No published Dylan critic discusses the Dylan album or The Basement Tapes as if it was a studio album like Desire or Knocked Out Loaded.

By the way, since we are corresponding, you mention that you disagree with me. Can you tell me your reason? There is no Wikipedia entry for studio album, but the Wikipedia definition for its entry of "Compilation" album is pretty clear...why do you disagree? Further, when ever anyone discusses The Basement Tapes, the commentator (whether participant or critic) foreground that it is an assembly of acetates cut to be demos...which is antithetical to what a studio album would be. So, why do you disagree?

Because an album hasn't been recorded as a single recording in over 50 years. If you use your criteria for 'compilation' albums, then Down in the Grove, Infidels, Time out Mind must be compilations too, recorded over a period of time, selecting most suitable tracks for release and sometimes different recording studios. Or to put in more bluntly all albums are compilation albums, or none. You can't pick and choose which is which without definite references. BTW The Dylan pages are relatively well-curated and I am sure some other editor would have brought this up if it had been an issue, but we will see. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, thank you for responding. Let us put that aside. This is what you mentioned in your reversion of my Wikipedia edit and I tried to respond to it...I do not recall using that reason and, if I was, I would entirely agree with you. I don't recall anyone requiring that a studio album be recorded in one session...only Another Side of Bob Dylan would qualify. Note how Knocked Out Loaded was recorded over years. Down in the Grove even used a five-year old outtake among more recent recordings. Let us set aside that reason, which I would agree with you on, and discuss the points I have articulated here. I will summarize them:

1) It is hard to discuss a "studio album" without a definition. Clearly a studio can be anything from Columbia's A&R Studios to Dylan's Garage (for Good as I Been to You and World Gone Wrong). But, I think what the intent of the "studio album" designation is meant to capture is a album that is meant to represent a musician's most recent work, released with intent by the musician himself as current reflection of his sound and thought. On the other hand, a compilation album is compiled work from earlier that does not represent the musician's most recent work. Further, compilation are often assembled by someone other than the principal creator.

2) Dylan, is released at a time when the tracks were three years old. Further, it is compiled and released without Dylan's consent by CBS. It is released at a time Bob Dylan is recording Planet Waves with The Band, which represents his recent work. In this regard, it is very much like a release like Another Self Portrait...it assembles, or compiles, work from an earlier period, not to reflect his most recent work, but to achieve some other aim.

3) The Basement Tapes were never intended as an album. We all know this. They are really a kind of proto-Bootleg Series before that series existed. In fact, there are parallels between the work that Robbie Robertson did on the tracks in 1975 in terms of mixing and adding parts and the work done on "Series of Dreams" in 1991 for the first Bootleg Series release, where an organ and guitar part were added in 1991, even though the song was representing a 1989 recording session. Or, for example, how banjo, organ, and other parts were added in 1994 to "Dignity," for the 1994 compilation Greatest Hits vol. 4. Eight years after the basement recordings, Robbie Robertson, largely (or some say entirely) without Dylan's involvement, compiles some of these demos, adds some subsequently recorded Band tracks, and the label releases it in between Blood on the Tracks and Desire. Both Blood on the Tracks and Desire represented Dylan's contemporary work (songwriting, arranging, playing, production, recording, etc.), The Basement Tapes did not. They were already legend when they were released, a curiosity. The double LP from 1975 was a compilation that was meant to satisfy curiosity, but it didn't even include some of the most sought after tracks from eight years earlier ("I Shall Be Released," "Quinn the Eskimo," among others).

4) Finally, if you observe how Dylan writers discuss these two albums, and I am thinking of Robert Shelton, Paul Williams, John Bauldie, Clinton Heylin, Michael Gray, none of them include these albums in the narrative of what is going on with Dylan or what Dylan is doing at the time the albums are released. They exclusively refer to an earlier period. Dylan is relevant when discussing 1970 recordings not 1973. The Basement Tapes are relevant when discussing 1967, not 1975.

I think these would be the relevant points to consider. Thank you, Richard!

Take this discussion to the project, there is no value in us discussing the matter. I am particularly interested in what Mick Gold says on the matter. BTW remember to sign your posts. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that redirects are not cheap. Perhaps you would care to nominate some of these redirects for deletion. Or these. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I am not familiar with those subjects would have to study the reasons and effects of these particular redirects. There are editors more experienced to comment. However, the search engines at WP are no longer case sensitive and will preload suggestions, so for one of the redirects I didn't get around to nominating had 3 different varieties:-

1. Neon Gravestones
2. Neon Gravestones (song)
3. Neon Gravestones (Twenty One Pilots song)

According to present guidelines, an article (if an article) would be at Neon Gravestones. Now try typing those titles into the search engine. You will note there is no benefit to the searcher whatsoever in having 3 options (2 didn't even show up for me) i.e. you have found what you are looking for long before all letters have been typed.

Unfortunately we have one or two editors creating redirects like this all the time going through their favourite albums, including at times, alternative and quite useless misspellings and other variants. If this continues then redirects start to take up some serious searching time AND space on the servers. Speedy deletion is a way of keeping this is check.

I was leaving the principal redirect and notifying for deletion the others (if any). As there was only redirect for Levitate, Levitate (Twenty One Pilots song) it would have been improper to try and speedy a delete. Not that I think we need a redirect for every album track.

Another editor told me about getting duplicate redirects deleted by speedy and I have had a number deleted as I assume they had too, I'd like to see a little consistency over and above any decision here. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC) edited. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth:. Having replied to your question, are you going to reply? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to say? Sorry, Wikipedia is full of inconsistency - that is part of the fun of it. You and I have different ideas about redirects - let's leave it at that. If I notice any redirects tagged by you for deletion, I shall not touch them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth:. I see your promises are not kept. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: Confidante (Paul McCartney song). You reverted my DB edit in spite of your comment above. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I do a speedy deletion, I do not usually look to see who has applied the tag. And even if I am removing a speedy tag it is possible to do so without seeing who applied it. But I have now noted your name and style and will be more careful in future.

Please approve this clutch of deletions. But I will leave you to decide whether we need all 54 of these redirects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: Again, I do not hold myself out to be a specialist in all subjects at WP. I do note that the following (for example) Curse Word, Curse word, Curse Words, Curse words, Curse-word because of the way the search engine works are superfluous to *ALL* requirements, over and above Curse word, although I admit I didn't check to see if that redirect needed to exist, just an assumption of good faith, as suggested by WP itself. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to remove the speedy tag from Opening Station (Paul McCartney song) but I restrained myself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: Much appreciated, but I'd prefer to see some consistency amongst admins --Richhoncho (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion ended in a result. Please don't implement the result you were seeking but failed to gain consensus for, as it looks like you did here. Thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your creation of this talk page show up in the new pages list and had to do a double take to see that it wasn't vandalism. That's a weird one. Home Lander (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weird page title, thought it was a vandal at first glance. Home Lander (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Somebody is creating redirects for that reference aliens and Martians, I am merely tagging them as songs. Both actions are a waste of time. I see your point. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Good Years (Zayn Malik song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Read what I wrote when I removed your talk page message. That doesn't mean continue reverting as you see fit. You seem to think you can get away with reverting editors as many times as you like. I'll report you to an admin if you keep it up. This isn't the first time I've seen you engage in this type of behaviour. I suppose you don't care about WP:BRD or WP:3RR. Ss112 00:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I took the edit to your talkpage to discuss, which you decided wasn't worth discussing and deleted my post. If you think this needs to be brought to an admin then please do, but don't bother with this self-serving threat above. Thankyou. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't know what the actual F WP:BRD says, so let remind you: it doesn't say "go to the talk page of the user who reverted you". That's not visible to those interested in the article. Go to the article talk page. I already suggested you tag it with R from unnecessary disambiguation (and I tagged you in the summary when I removed your pointless little discussion so you'd see), but I guess you're incapable of reading when it suits you to not do so. And you're being a bit hypocritical there—I've seen you exceed three reverts and get off scot-free. Ss112 00:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already. I asked you for your considered opinion and you deleted my qestion. FWIW, I've already had the discussion above, maybe you should read here. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do the right thing?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I, and others, will be happy with what you have done, Others may say differently --Richhoncho (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll see.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Was it your annonymous edit and do you wanted to say "Walk on Water" is the same song as "I Can Walk on Water I Can Fly"? Techically it's different instrumental and has different titles. Eurohunter (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't me. No idea what you are talking about. Nor do I do anonymous edits. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder because you said "No! it's still a 2007 song" in the edit description. Eurohunter (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Year of song is the year song was created/first known of, not date recorded. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to take care of this? Category:Songs by musical instrument. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to remember a similar scheme which has already deleted, my recollection was Mellotron, but I can't find it. Not that practiced at multiple entries, but the category is an insult to readers, do you want to do it, my support is guaranteed per previous discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, I found it here --Richhoncho (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richhoncho, I see that you re-added some categories to some redirects that I restored, per WP:RCAT "Redirects are not usually sorted to article categories". So I am just wondering if the song article categories are an exception to this guideline? Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quote above says, "Redirects are not usually sorted to article categories" Actually most redirects are catted, for instance, R from misspelling, R from alternative title, but not further because the target is the article and duplicate entries are not encouraged. However a song remains as a self standing item, if not a WP article. So when redirecting the facts of year of song, main artist(s) and songwriters do not change and help readers who may wish to see who wrote what etc.

I have tried to find some examples for you in non-music fields, Louise Ellis was an EastEnders character not worthy of an article so exists only as a redirect, but the redirect is categorised as 'EastEnders Character' You will find similar redirects for real events where the individuals do not rise to WP notability.

You will also note that redirects appear in italics in the target category, which wouldn't be necessary if we weren't supposed to catting redirects!

Many people have been catting songs for a number of years, if there is to be a change, then a wider discussion is necessary.

Hope my explanation helped - if not please ask again. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks Richhoncho for the explanation, I will bear this in mind when partolling redirects in the future. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich, do you think Gold (John Stewart song) should be categorized under Category:Stevie Nicks songs because of her significant part as backing vocalist, probably more than many songs from today that have a "featuring" credit? Thanks. 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No. It was marketed as a John Stewart song. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cameo Records singles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Category was incorrectly used as a duplicate to Category:Cameo-Parkway Records singles. Cameo Records does not have any known WP articles to link.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. LongLiveMusic (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cameo Records singles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. LongLiveMusic (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I can't thank you enough for your contributions to Wikipedia. If I haven't given you a barnstar before, then this one is long overdue. Thanks again, and happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Basshunter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so since you look for redirects with titles not mentioned at their targets, you might want to have a look at the amount of redirects to Azealia Banks-related articles, particularly Fantasea II: The Second Wave. There are plenty of instances of her songs not being mentioned at the targets because she's never confirmed a track list for some of her upcoming projects, fans love to insert fake ones into the articles, and she has several projects that have been delayed for years. Just a heads up. Ss112 13:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: I do not look for pointless redirects created for whatever reason I cannot fathom. I do find some, and when I do, I propose for deletion. I wish somebody would explain why they have created some of them, such a waste of time for all concerned - especially when the search function at WP is so good. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just pointed you to quite a few examples of redirects whose titles are not mentioned at the target. I don't think that's a reason one "can't fathom". But no, instead of nominating those for deletion, when they're not mentioned at the target, you find Fuck Apologies., when that's a legitimate redirect because of the way it's stylized right there on the cover art, to nominate for deletion. I think you need to sort out your priorities. Ss112 12:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112:. If it is such a priority to clear out the rubbish from Azealia Banks and you have found them... --Richhoncho (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the one out of the two people in this conversation who regularly nominates redirects for deletion for not being mentioned at their targets, and someone has pointed you to plenty of examples of where to find titles not mentioned at the targets... Ss112 13:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112:. Sit back and think about what you are saying. Look for patterns. Think about those patterns. I couldn't give a flying F for incomings to Banks, but you do, fix them yourself instead of trying to outguess other editors and making yourself look a fool in the process. BTW I note the 'polite notice' on your talkpage, doesn't it apply to you? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you couldn't give a "flying F" if another points out examples of something to you, but if you had come across it yourself, they'd probably already be up for deletion? Your actions make no sense. Who's the one trying to outguess or outwit who here and ending up looking like a fool? Out of every "discussion" we've had, I think it's you. Because in every discussion that I've seen you have with editors on Wikipedia, you speak as if you're inherently the more experienced, as as if you've got everything figured out, that you can't do any wrong because Richhoncho makes no mistakes in his crusade to tag redirects, and create superfluous talk pages for redirects he already thinks are superfluous, which I've already previously told you makes no sense, and thus you speak down to other editors. Take the superiority down a notch. Why don't you sit back and think about your double standards? One thing you haven't figured out in all this attitude you've got going on is that the notice on my talk page primarily applies to people I have had conflicts with coming to my talk page; it's literally all right there in the wording. Besides, this isn't my talk page, and regardless, I believe I'm being as polite as I possibly can with someone who is not being very congenial upon being confronted about the way they act and speak. I suppose from this, we can assume you've never changed the way you edit or do things, or taken any recommendations? (Also, must you keep pinging me? Do you not think if I'm having a conversation with you that I'd not be following your talk page? In case you need it spelled out for you, since you love to go off on nonsensical tangents with fanciful language here that make sense to only you, I already am.) Or, we can leave it right there, unless you need to get the last word in with some more unnecessarily verbose condescending claptrap. Either way, I am. You have fun. Ss112 13:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So glad you are done. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my article on Lookin' At Tomorrow (A Welfare Song) for notability reasons. The sources used to create that page were the credible sources used on the Surf's Up album page. It is the only song on the album without a discrete page, so the deletion doesn't make much sense to me. Could you please reinstate it?

I did not delete, I reinstated it as a redirect as other editors have done. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would you please clarify why you thought this was unnecessary? I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Assessment but saw nothing to answer my question. I'm just curious, mind you – I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your enquiry. Firstly the 2 categories are the same subject, and if it had been an article pointing from one version of a name to another version of a name, i.e. I Got You (I Feel Good) (Jessie J song) and I Got You (I Feel Good) I would have repointed the talkpage - just not so confident of doing the same with cats. Effectively I am doing what would happen if an automated page move page had been completed. The reasoning behind this is there should be no conversations or need for conversations on the redirect.

If you're not happy, revert me, it's not a biggie. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about this conversation. :) The talk page of a category redirect can be redirected following the same principles that apply to the talk pages of article redirects. However, I disagree that "there should be no conversations or need for conversations on the redirect". A redirect's talk page can and should, like any talk page, be used for conversations about that page—for example, where the redirect should point, if it should be converted to a disambiguation page, how it should be tagged or categorized (see, e.g., Category:Redirect templates), and so on. So I guess I am ambivalent, but I think either option is preferable to a blank page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree with you that there should be discussions on the talk page of a redirect, and these tags appear to support me that there is a consensus supporting me, Template:Talk_page_of_redirect which says 'Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions and edit requests should take place at: {talkpage of target). Generally speaking any talk on a redirect will affect the target in some way or another. Perhaps, I should be adding this template (I did it once and another editor removed it immediately... but less of that story, the better). Again, as I said before, we are not going to get into an edit war, but my preferred change, if you feel a change is necessary, would be a redirect to the actual category talkpage, not a re-adding of the project tag. By the way, if you move an article, you generally leave a 'r from move' on the talkpage (example at Talk:7-Rooms of Gloom as well. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, and I know we don't need to have an extended conversation over what is, admittedly, a minor question. In my view, however, there needs distinction between conversations about the topic and about the redirect page itself. I agree with you that conversations affecting the target should be on the target's talk page, but I think conversations about the technical aspects of the redirect page itself (e.g., use of {{R from misspelling}} versus {{R from alternative spelling}}, explanation for why the redirect exists [see, e.g., Talk:Battle of Southern Kwangsi]) are more suited to the redirect's talk page. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Falcon:. The question is how many redirects are on your watchlist? There are none on mine (save for a couple relating to edit warring). If I made a comment on a redirect talkpage how many editors would see that comment? Probably none. Whereas if the comment is on the target it would probably have some effect on the target (however marginal) and will probably be a watched page. I am also trying hard to think of an instance where a comment or question would be placed on the talkpage of a redirect anyway. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment or question that pertains to the redirect itself could (and should, I think) be placed on the redirect's talk page. For example: What redirect tag(s) should be used? Should the redirect be placed manually into any categories? Why does the redirect exist (see, e.g., Talk:APJAK)? Should the redirect be converted to a disambiguation page? For any given redirect, these questions typically do not rise to the level of conversation. However, if such conversation were to occur, the redirect's talk page seems like the most natural place for it to take place and be recorded (a note on the target's talk page would be a good idea, though). That way, the conversation about the redirect is kept in one place even if redirect is retargeted. And I know your first question was probably rhetorical, but about one-fifth of my watchlist consists of redirects. :) They rarely get any activity, so I don't mind them. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Falcon:.I don't think we are going to agree fully, no matter, no harm is done and certainly not worth taking to a wider audience. FWIW, I was reported for edit warring project tags on a couple of talkpages (see below), the matter was closed, before I even had time to comment, with the words, 'This is dumb. How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects? In any case, No violation.' --Richhoncho (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without intending to reopen this conversation since we likely won't (and don't need to) agree, I wanted to share that the last month or so I've spent at RfD has further convinced me of the need to treat redirect talk pages as actual talk pages for redirects—containing everything from discussion, article history (e.g., if a redirect was kept at RfD), and context (here's another example). Whoever told you "This is dumb. How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects?" was, in my view, simply shortsighted or wrong. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Falcon:, Instead of telling me you must be right therefore I must be wrong, perhaps you'd like to show me how you came to your decision, rather than telling me? Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be fair, my comment was hardly as primitive as that—I did, after all, point to several examples of content, other than WikiProject tags, that belongs on redirect talk pages. If it came across as "I'm right, you're wrong", then please believe that was not my intention. I merely wanted to offer some context before I undid the edit that started this thread.

Of course, I am happy to share additional examples:

• Article history template recording RfD discussion(s) ending in "keep", "no consensus", or "retarget" (many with WikiProject templates): Talk:African Sorghum Beer, Talk:Alfred Hitchcock’s, Talk:Battle of south guangxi, Talk:Blu Hydrangea, Talk:Case Farms, Talk:Dark Father, Talk:Echoes of Love (Jesse & Joy song), Talk:Get It (Britney Spears song), Talk:Innisfail Evening Advocate, Talk:Jonathan Byrne, Talk:Lefki Komi, Talk:Nickelodeon Productions, Talk:Parque de María Luisa (park), Talk:Qwert, Talk:Sonic Racing, Talk:Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XLIII, Talk:Steven Universe: Future, Talk:Thạch Phúc, Talk:The Godfather: Part II (1974 film), Talk:Vanzolinius, Talk:Vicipedius, Talk:Why'd You Have to Go?
• Article history template recording a merge: Talk:Alfa Romeo 169, Talk:Andrea Sachs, Talk:Supercharger (comics)
• Articles for Creation template: Talk:Back Roto, Talk:Military career of Napoleon the Great
• Background information on the redirect: Talk:APJAK, Talk:Battle of Southern Kwangsi, Talk:Kamuishu Island, Talk:Napoleon the Great
• General discussion related to the redirect or the topic: Talk:Afsheen (on deletion), Talk:Alfa Romeo 169 (on the topic), Talk:Biggest bee (general comment), Talk:Third industrial revolution (on disambiguation)

Finally, I would point to the ~1,300 subcategories of Category:Redirect-Class articles, which collectively contain at least hundreds of thousands of pages, as proof that whoever made the statement about "redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects" was plainly mistaken—and I mean that as a statement of fact, not a criticism. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Falcon:. To be honest I am not seeing what you are getting at. You have linked me to a number of discussions regarding the article namespace of a bunch of redirect discussions. I checked the talkpage of a few of them and not all were project tagged (Talk:Dark Father, Talk:Innisfail Evening Advocate, Talk:Lefki Komi and Talk:Parque de María Luisa (park) for example. Yet you are arguing that ALL redirects should be project tagged. That is patently nonsense. It would need 100s of editors to keep up with that remit and would serve no purpose whatsoever.

So let's investigate further, how many category redirects do you think there are in WPSongs, I would guess 2,000 plus, for most there will be a redirect to the 'live' version of the category. Are you sure you want to project tag all those redirects, especially when category moves could be done by editors an automatic redirect on the talkpage appeared which again confirms the talkpage of a redirect should not have anything on it.

Then we have the template, {{Talk page of redirect}} which also seems to intimate that many redirects do not need tagging. Say in a move for a misspelling (as an example only) should both article and redirect be project tagged? I think not, and no argument yet has been shown to support both be tagged.

FWIW, I am ONLY interested in WPSongs and the 2 examples of songs you gave the talkpage had, imo, correctly tagged with WPSongs (i.e. an actual song redirected to artist, album or elsewhere). If other projects have different ideas, then I would not argue with their POV. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright, I think we are just approaching the question from different perspectives and you were right that we won't fully agree. I do want to clarify, however, that I am not arguing for all redirects to be project-tagged. I am arguing for redirect talk pages to be used as talk pages for redirects, which includes project tagging when appropriate (i.e., when the WikiProject finds it useful to track redirects).

Given Category:Redirect-Class song articles has 28,000+ pages, I assumed WikiProject Songs fell into that category. If it's a distinction of tracking article redirects (e.g., your example of a song redirected to an artist or album) versus category redirects, then I must admit I did not think of that distinction—as I mentioned at the outset, I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Assessment and saw nothing to suggest category redirects should be treated differently from article redirects. If that's the crux of the issue, I will gladly just delete the category talk page in question, and it would be helpful to add a clarifying statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Assessment. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Falcon:, up to last month, there were NO categories in WPSongs redirect. There is, as far as I am aware, only one as of today, Category talk:78violet songs. And 95-99% of the other 28,000 are redirects from actual song titles, not misspellings, not unnecessary disambiguations, not other capitalisation or other items that cannot be of any further benefit to the Song project. I am feeling your fervour, but not understanding your purpose. My feeling is that the talkpage should reflect the article namespace, and if the namespace is not tagged as a song, then nor should the talkpage. Other projects may do things differently. FWIW, I'd be happy to put a redirect to the actual talkpage of the actual category, there is no history or other impediment.

I take it you do not agree with the wording of wording of {{Talk page of redirect}}. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{Talk page of redirect}} has its uses, but I don't think it applies to all or even most redirect talk pages. I appreciate your clarification regarding the redirects tracked by WPSongs, as I had not noticed before that they are nearly all actual song titles (i.e. tracked selectively). You've given me food for thought, and I thank you for that (and for indulging this conversation)...

As for Category talk:78violet songs, I went ahead and deleted it (I wanted to pipe to Wikipedia:When in doubt, delete but, sadly, it is a red link). Please feel free to make it a redirect to Category talk:Aly & AJ songs if that is preferable/common practice for WPSongs category redirects. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Falcon:I am happy with your solution for the cat, anything without the project tag was just dandy. I am also happy I made my point, finally, and thank you for your patience in the matter, --Richhoncho (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Halsey (singer), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, WP:C2D does not appear to apply to things like "Category:XXX songs" relative to articles "XXX", right? Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon:. Disagree. Perhaps you'd like to read Wikipedia:Topic category and see if what you think? --Richhoncho (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that was a short read. "Named after a topic" doesn't imply blindly copying disambiguators, does it? Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:@Dicklyon:, But there are other guidelines that suggest cats should follow article names. I mean what does 'The Damned songs' mean? Songs sung by the damned while they toil in Hell? Why shouldn't cats and articles be fairly consistent, better than being inconsistent surely? I note after 10 hours nobody's picked up on your question at music. You might also like to take a look at a recent nomination concerning Halsey. As far as I am concerned the system was in place before I arrived and I have seen no reason to waste time fighting it. I will be away from WP from tonight for a week. Have fun!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Named after the topic's main article doesn't mean inheriting a disambiguator if it's not needed. And "The Damned" with cap D obviously refers to a proper-named entity, not the damned. Have a good break. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that you added the expand section template to The Sacrament of Sin and my question is, what if these songs are written by the entire band? Should I list all the band members? --Szegewar (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Szegewar:. Many editors do actually think if the whole band is credited with writing the song then that is sufficient, I think that is wrong because band members change, but the writing credits remain the same. Not sure? Go with what is referenced... --Richhoncho (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho: I just included them in the "All writing" parameter in the Track listing template. Is this good? --Szegewar (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Szegewar:, It's what I preferred. Thankyou. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not looking for consensus for your actions with the talk page tagging? I thought that that is what you wanted and I solicited that feedback--you have neither engaged the RfC nor waited until it is closed, so I am confused. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the consensus is that there won't be a consensus anywhere you have taken the issue. The most telling advice you received was This is dumb which you don't appear to have accepted. This is beginning to look like there a severe example of 'ownership' on your part. I shall respond more fully on your talkpage. FWIW, I've done literally 100s of edits like this and only one person is complaining, you. Even if I let it pass this time next time I do the sweep I shall make the same edits again, unless you manage to find a consensus that makes it wrong.

BTW I note you are always bold, but everybody else are troublesome editors. You do realise that can't be right, don't you?

I shall respond more fully on your talkpage in due course.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho, I have also done literally 100s of edits like this and only one person is complaining, you. This is why WP:BRD and WP:RFC exist. If consensus can't be reached, then the status quo should remain. "BTW I note you are always bold, but everybody else are troublesome editors. You do realise that can't be right, don't you?" ? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, you've reverted again after this note. This is obviously edit-warring and you refuse to seek consensus. Why is this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you reverting me when there is a dead RfC is not edit warring? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Heaven on he 7th Floor. Since you had some involvement with the Heaven on he 7th Floor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richhoncho,

You have tagged this empty category as being the subject of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 5 but you never started the discussion there. Did you mean to simply tag this category for speedy deletion (CSD C1) as an empty category? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It was meant to be speedy at request of author. I messed up, didn't I? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How should I be able to make character pages? And if skilled enough how should I compose the pages?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Max_Don%27t_Have_Sex_With_Your_Ex Personisgaming (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Brompton Hospital.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Carey Elmore Morgan, Jr., which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Songs written by Clyde McKnight requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slip (deadmau5 song) ¿Redirect?. Since you had some involvement with the Slip (deadmau5 song) ¿Redirect? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 03:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Songs written by Lukas Hilbert requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Oak Felder has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 00:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Fred again has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Arko Pravo Mukherjee has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Empire AS (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Empire AS (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Songs written by JID requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my screw-up on this article – it keep getting reverted from the redirect with no obvious additional notability, and sometimes when I edit from my phone just before going to bed, it doesn't always do what I want it to... Richard3120 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

richard3120 No problem, thanks for your thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you edit-warring there? What policy or guideline recommends blanking talk pages? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's you edit warring. I am merely removing wpsongs from misspellings, alternative titles and other errata. I told you last year I would be doing it again automatically as I sorted out the song redirects (nothing to do with edit warring, but and all to do with consistency) in the future and your sole reason to revert me has been nothing other than 'I like it that way and I am right' So as for edit warring, look closer to home. Come up with a valid reason to revert me or stop. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One person can't edit war. You have now performed two reverts on that page without a consensus. Your sole reason to revert me has been nothing other than 'I like it that way and I am right'. As I said already, if you think a page should be deleted, nominate it for deletion: don't blank pages. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

El_C 21:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C So let me understand this block, I can continue to edit as I see fit, which nobody objects to, but not on pages one user curates and 'takes ownership of?' I should really thank you for my first and only block and in 14+ years of editing. Remember I brought the matter to 3RR to get a decision on the matter and you weren't interested, but you were when I said you weren't capable of being impartial. Thanks too for the proof. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to that. The proof is that after I had concluded the report, you went on to violate WP:3RR by reverting a 4th time in 24 hours. El_C 23:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_CI see you have now blocked Koafv, which levels the playing field. However, the underlying problem still remains which means this will all flare up again, and quite frankly, it is tiresome that no clear resolution can be found. The cause of the dispute needs to be addressed, not the 3RR. Thankyou. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mandated to resolve content disputes as an admin. That is the domain of WP:DR. El_C 23:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Songs with music by Rajesh Roshan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Songs written by David Ball (musician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Hello Richhoncho. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User:Ainzboogie/Street Beat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion." See WP:G13. Of course, this is eligible for deletion on the user's request (WP:U1). Thank you. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mdaniels5757. Thanks for the notification, and it's no real problem, if you want to keep it, then you should, but I am curious as to why? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it didn't meet the criteria. I don't really care if that redirect is kept or not, but it's the user's choice, not yours or mine (for example, they could find it helpful to keep track of their creations). Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I won't list any more. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm User456541. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Build a bridge have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Redirect loop –User456541 13:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User456541. Before suggseting that another editor is wrong regarding capitalisation of titles, one should be familiar with MOS:TITLECAPS. Would you be so kind as to revert your edit? Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]