Talk:Ballad of Easy Rider

Untitled

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses a sub-category of [[Category:Song stubs]] on the article page.

• If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
• If you disagree with this assessment, please:

1. Change the above "class=start" to "class=start" or another applicable class per Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs;
2. Remove the stub template from the article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ballad of Easy Rider. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103024806/http://www.sundazed.com/product_info.php?products_id=886 to http://www.sundazed.com/product_info.php?products_id=886

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

songcover

can anyone provide a third party discussing these cover versions to show they meet requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.94 (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, since you are the editor who wants to remove these cover versions, I would say that the onus is on you to check to see if you can find sources mentioning them--why not put some work into improving Wikipedia, rather than simply detelting stuff? Secondly, all of these cover versions are already supported by a reliable third-party citation, and thirdly, given that the artists in question are all fairly famous in their own right, their covers almost certainly are "important enough to have gained attention in their own right" (as per WP:SONGCOVER) in magazine articles or in artist biographies. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As an experienced editor you should know the onus is on the editor seeking to include the information. I am improving Wikipedia by deleting things that are not notable.

Secondly, songcover says "Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy; cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list."

Perhaps you thought you could just revert my editing as I'm a newbie even though they were correct? Perhaps not. Either provide the correct documentation or lrave the changes be. 203.13.3.94 (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We will need other editors to weigh in on this in order to gain consensus. Otherwise, there is no compelling case for removal at this time. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, the onus is on the one seeking inclsuion. It clearly does not meet songcover as it is. Either provide the documentation or leave it be.

But onus is now irrelevant here; we're seeking editor concensus. The examples do, I believe, meet the criteria at WP:SONGCOVER, but again, I have already stated that view. We are waiting for editor concensus. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

No consensus, I just removed. Happy to leave alone if a source is fouind. 203.13.3.94 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think perhaps you don't quite understand what "editor consensus" means. We were waiting for other editors to give their opinions on this matter. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know what is happening here, but I want to resolve the conflict, so could both of you state exactly what you want, and why? Thanks. MasterMatt12(Talk to me :D) 23:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Also make sure to follow WP:CIVIL. MasterMatt12(Talk to me :D) 23:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And make sure to end your message with four tildes ~ so I know who is talking.MasterMatt12(Talk to me :D) 23:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing this, I don't think we should add the new version by Odetta. Although it was made by a notable person, that doesn't mean the song itself is notable enough to be included as a song variation in an article, since I can't find any independent sources that actually talk about the song and not just it being listed as a part of a collection of songs, therefore failing WP:SONGCOVER. MasterMatt12(Talk to me :D) 00:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Another quick thing, another way for the song to be included is if it "has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups", however, this song was not independently releasd since it is a variation of another song. MasterMatt12(Talk to me :D) 00:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm attempting to deleye a non-notable cover version, per wp:songcover. I think both our viewpoints are surmised by the disussion just above. as it says songcover says "Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy; cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list.". I feel like Kohoutek1138 feels like he has ownership of the article will revert any cover versions deleted even when he knows that they fail wp"songcover. 203.13.3.89 (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That is assuming bad faith of Kohoutek1138 and will get you a warning against that. You are accusing Kohoutek1138 of feeling like he has ownership and doing whatever he wants, despite when he knows it isn't true, which is against Wikipedia's policies on assuming good faith. You are going against, "It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith – that is, the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." by accusing him of intentionally trying to hurt Wikipedia with no proof. If you believe that you are not assuming bad faith, please read assuming good faith and explain why I am accusing others of bad faith. Thank you. MasterMatt12(Talk to me :D) 01:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I take it back and apologise. 203.13.3.94 (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

My main problem here is the lack of accountability of this anonymous editor and concern that there may be an agenda here. Regarding the notability of the cover versions listed in this article -- including the currently contested Odetta one -- they are all supported by a reliable third-party citation, which at the very least suggests some notability by dint of the artist covering the song (i.e. these aren't covers by non-notable artists). Also, it should be noted that the guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER are exactly that: guidelines, not rules or general Wikipedia policy. As such, they should not, I feel, necessarily be followed 100% to the letter in every single instance.

Myself, I generally tend to be against deletionism, as I think that more often than not it results in a diminishing of Wikipedia's completeness of information, but at the same time I do absolutely recognise that some things are just not notable enough to be retained. Far from feeling as if I have "ownership of the article", I am simply concerned that an anonymous "IP address editor" with a history of disruptive editing -- as evidenced by their talk page (and from encounters that I have had with them concerning the mass deletion of cover versions in other song articles in the past) -- is going around deleting cover versions from hundreds of Wikipedia articles as part of some personal agenda and without any accountability. I do not necessarily disagree with the guidelines at WP:SONGCOVER, but I do strongly feel that implementation of those guidelines should be more nuanced than the deletionist tendencies exhibited by this editor. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how being twice accused of having a "personal agenda" is assuming good faith.

As for "disruptive editing", this is a shared IP. I have not been disruptive. We have interacted before, but only when I have been following the same wp;songcover guidelines which I am following now. I really struggle to imagine what agend I could have other than enjoying making music articles less cluttered with non-notable covers. I've seen many of the biggest. most respected WP contributors do exactly the same things on a much, much bigger scale. 203.13.3.93 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kohoutek1138@203.13.3.93 You two need to stop this argument. At this point, a decision has been made and you two should simply move on from this, or more harm will be done. I thank you both for trying to help and your contributions, but this needs to end and will only waste more time from you guys, me, and possibly another person if this gets reported. MasterMatt12(talk) 02:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Songcover again

Same as the previous looong discussion I have removed a cover that does not meet wp:songcover. There is a citation proving that it exists but none that would meet songcover. If one can be provided that would be great. Otherwise I'm just following policy.203.13.3.89 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)