User talk:Ojorojo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hendrix pages question[edit]

Hey there. Did I tidy something incorrectly on the pages for The Essential Jimi Hendrix and The Essential Jimi Hendrix Volume Two, especially with regards to the track listings? I spend about 99% of my time here editing music pages and I try to stick closely to the MOS, so if I did something wrong, please let me know. Thanks! —The Keymaster (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello: Sometimes, the use of track listing templates causes layout/readability problems, especially in shorter articles (see one discussion). In the case of the Hendrix albums, the infobox and ratings templates cause the track listings to be jumbled together. Adding another column just to move a couple of entries from the notes does not improve the articles and actually makes the existing problems worse. Some editors seem to add a template feature just because it is available, such as adding Template:Hlist to infobox parameters that already use class=hlist (see Template:Infobox song#Notes #2 & 4). However, in many cases it makes no difference or makes things worse.
If you're interested in tidying up music articles, there are reports that list template errors, such as in Template:Infobox album#TemplateData and Template:Infobox album#Tracking categories. Also, WP:NOTRSMUSIC lists a number of generally unreliable sources: one, "Prog Archives", appears in 200 articles[1] and probably could be removed and there are others. Good luck. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. I've actually been removing a lot of those track listing templates and making them simple bulleted lists if the template isn't warranted. I only reserve them for complicated cases, like when there are a multitude of writers and/or different sources for the tracks. Is the use of the "headline" parameter also discouraged?
That "hlist" thing drives me nuts. In fact there was an editor recently who was pretty much solely going onto music pages and changing lists in the infobox to that format for no real reason. He ended up getting blocked for a week.
I know about some of the unreliable sources but not all of them. I'll definitely take a look at those links. Sounds like a fun project.
I might consult you from time to time in the future, if you don't mind! Thanks! The Keymaster (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In cases like these, the headline parameter is usually preferred (overlooked earlier, now fixed). Glad to help. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to reach consensus[edit]

Would love your thoughts on this thread concerning track numbering for LPs! —The Keymaster (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thanks for the notice. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the first time I've made this kind of proposal, so how does it work? Do I have to get a majority of "support" votes to add the text? I've noticed a few of the editors who've replied have kind of wandered away from the thread. Should I ping them? The Keymaster (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Starting an RfC seems to be the way to go (WP:RFC has the details). RfCs are automatically publicized and some editors reading them may be unfamiliar with the existing guidance and practices, so it's best to keep it short and simple. For example, one of the last WT:ALBUMS commenters appears to be unaware that the current guidance already advises that LP sides should be listed as "Side one" and "Side two" and that this practice is followed in numerous FA and GA rated articles (click on the "total" numbers in WP:ALBUMS#Review and assessment table; in fact, many of those articles start at 1 for each side, so your proposed change just reflects existing practices). I'll review a proposed RfC if you want to create one in your sandbox. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thank you! That's very helpful. I think I understand how this works. So I basically insert the RFC tags at the bottom of the Wikiproject:ALBUMS talk page and come up with some neutral, simply worded proposal, like, "Should MOS:ALBUM be amended to clarify the policy on formatting and track numbering for LP era releases"? Do I have that right so far? The Keymaster (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's basically it, but there has been some objection to the use of "MOS:ALBUM", since it is not actually an official WP MOS, like MOS:MUSIC. Also, it's not an official policy or guideline. MOS:ALBUM is an "essay on style" and the page includes: "This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Something closer to the title "Album article style advice" would be better, maybe: "Should WP:ALBUMSTYLE be clarified regarding track numbering for LP albums?".
Also, something like this may be helpful: "The current wording includes "Albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should similarly list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named 'Side one' and 'Side two'." However, it does not indicate whether both side 1 and side 2 should start with track 1 or if side 2 should continue with the next higher track number. For example, if side one ends with track 4, should side 2 begin again with track 1 or use track 5?
Ojorojo (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I noticed it only stipulates starting at track 1 again if it's multiple discs. I almost wonder if whomever drafted that was considering sides to be discs unto themselves. (It's a weird argument, but I can see someone making it.) How long should my proposal be? I get the sense they're looking for brevity in RFCs, but maybe I read that wrong.
I'm kind of baffled that some would object to MOS:ALBUM, since it seems to be invoked regularly by many longtime editors, myself included. Kind of wondering what has stopped it from being thoroughly vetted at this point. It's clear a lot of thought has gone into it, and I think the vast majority of it makes sense, although there are a few minor contradictions and omissions that are confusing. The Keymaster (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1st point: That was my first thought back when, but nobody else seemed to pick up on it. 2nd: Yes, brevity is important. I was trying to think of a lead-in to the vote on the proposed wording (which is the point of the RfC), but it may just complicate it. Go with your reading. 3rd: There hasn't been the consensus to make it official, perhaps because of the minor problems. Some proposals seem straightforward, but you never know. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Happenings Ten Years Time Ago[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg

On 10 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Happenings Ten Years Time Ago, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the feedback sounds in The Yardbirds' "Happenings Ten Years Time Ago" were later "swiped" by Jimi Hendrix? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Happenings Ten Years Time Ago. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Happenings Ten Years Time Ago), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

R.I.P. Jeff Beck, 24 June 1944 – 10 January 2023
Ojorojo (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another good DYK, which I missed at the time (and which in fact I did not know). Yes, Jeff Beck is playing in rock and roll heaven now. Mudwater (Talk) 16:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still trying to process it. Hell of a coincidence. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The timing is a bit striking, yes, but that's what it is, a coincidence. Or a synchronicity, if you like that better. Mudwater (Talk) 23:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to add an audio sample to highlight Beck's solo, but don't have the setup for it. Do you have any experience or interest in WP:SAMPLE? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]