Talk:Mary Hopkin

Cleanup

I've been working on this article with help from temmaharbour... right now it'd be great to arrange it into categories, perhaps move the single/album release information to a chart, and verify the information overall.--Marysunshine 04:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

really "born [...] to a Welsh-speaking family" ?

According to a documentary clip on YouTube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYSAxOscF78) in which she is the only person talking English (and not Welsh), her teacher's son says about Mary's Welsh when she entered his father's school: "Mary was a borderline case. She had a smattering of Welsh, but she was put in the Welsh stream." Does that mean that she was not "born [...] to a Welsh-speaking family" as indicated in the article? Or was there much more English spoken than Welsh and became she fluent in Welsh only in school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.42.41 (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to "Wikipedia:Citing sources"

[Copied from User talk:Jacklee]

Hi, Sorry what did I write that you do not agree with as I cannot find anything that has been reverted? temmaharbour

You recently left a message on my talk page asking me "Hi, Sorry what did I write that you do not agree with as I cannot find anything that has been reverted? temmaharbour". I had a look, and this relates to a change that you made to the guideline "Wikipedia:Citing sources" about a year ago, on 27 June 2008 [1]. For some unexplained reason, you inserted the sentence "Permitted use from www.maryhopkin.co.uk" in the section "General references versus inline citations". I suspect this was a mistake on your part, so I left a message on your talk page pointing it out. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Temmaharbour"

To JackLee From temmaharbour No this was not a mistake I was providing information which I thought was needed after I had made an alteration

"WHy would you suspect this was a mistake on my part"? this is why I wrote asking you what had been reverted you still have not told me? THis is a long time ago how would I remember THis is why I hate using this site as it is so confusing I check in on Mary's page only as it is the only page I am interested in. So much rubbish is written on her page and it needs to be policed by someone who at least has the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Temmaharbour (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Temmaharbour. As I explained, what I reverted was your insertion of the sentence "Permitted use from www.maryhopkin.co.uk" into the guideline "Wikipedia:Citing sources". There is absolutely no reason why that sentence should be in the guideline, so I'm afraid it was most certainly a mistake on your part, although it was probably done by accident rather than deliberately. If you were trying to add a reference into the article "Mary Hopkin" you should have done it on that page and not at "Wikipedia:Citing sources". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

this is what I think happened back then... someone had taken the picture of Mary Hopkin from the page so I undid the change and put the picture back up, giving the ref of Mary's website as permission to use the picture. this whole wiki site is a complete bureaucratic waste of time. If there were not so many 'idiots' vandalising the page with sick comments I wouldnt bother visiting it to make changes.. I cannot be botherd with all this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Temmaharbour (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what happened a year ago at the "Mary Hopkin" article. It might have been that the photograph of Hopkin was removed because of vandalism. On the other hand, it could also have been removed because the image had not been freely licensed for use on Wikipedia. This is not a "bureaucratic waste of time". Wikipedia respects people's copyright; an editor cannot simply take an image from another website and use it in Wikipedia. Merely saying that the image was taken from Mary's website is not enough. There has to be some evidence that the owner of the image allows it to be freely used on other websites for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Look at it this way – if you had taken photographs and put them on your personal website or on a photo-sharing site such as Flickr, would you be happy if other people downloaded them and used them for their own purposes without your permission? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Look we are going round and round in circles... What you have just said above I know and understand... any stupid vandalism on the Hopkin page I will delete and any new CD releases I will update... if you want to check the spelling and grammar fine... But the rest is ridiculous.. Where did I say that I had TAKEN the picture from her website? I never said that. I asked if it was ok to use the picture and they said yes!

How on Earth can I PROVE something to you even after I have asked permission from the artiste herself ... I am at a loss... a total loss... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Temmaharbour (talk • contribs) 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, please don't vent your anger on me. I wasn't the editor who removed the photograph from the article. In fact, I have never edited the "Mary Hopkins" article. I only reverted your insertion of an irrelevant (probably mistaken) sentence into the "Wikipedia:Citing sources" guideline. In my recent message, I merely suggested that the photograph might have been removed from "Mary Hopkins" by someone else because it didn't comply with Wikipedia's rules. I'm just trying to explain what might have happened – I don't actually know what happened at the time.

In order for an image – especially an image of a living person – that wasn't taken by you (for example, an image scanned from a book or taken from a website) to be used in a Wikipedia article, the copyright owner needs to consent to licensing the image to Wikipedia under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) or Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) licence. What you need to do is to send an e-mail to the copyright owner such as the following:

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

I am one of the many volunteer editors of Wikipedia, and understand that you represent [Name]. I would very much like to use a photograph of him in the Wikipedia article "[Name of article]", which I have been updating recently. In order to do so legally, I need to obtain a photograph that has been licensed by its copyright owner for use on Wikipedia and its sister projects under a free licence such as the GNU Free Documentation License. Other acceptable free licences are the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) and Attribution-Sharealike (CC-BY-SA) licences. (Click on the links for more information about those licences.) Do note that by agreeing to license the image, the copyright owner is agreeing to the conditions set out at the end of this e-mail.

I would therefore be grateful if you are able to provide me with a suitable photograph, and if you can confirm that you (as the copyright owner yourself or on behalf of the copyright owner) are agreeable to licensing the image to Wikipedia on the terms stated in this e-mail. While high-quality images are of course preferred, a smaller low-resolution image is also welcome.

If you are unable to provide a photograph, I would also be grateful if you could refer me to some person or organization that might be able to.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
[Your name]

---

• I hereby assert on behalf of [name of copyright owner], which I am authorized by [name of copyright owner] to do, that [name of copyright owner] is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work.
• The copyright owner agrees to publish that work under the GNU Free Documentation Licence and the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence [please amend if necessary, otherwise both licences will apply].
• The copyright owner acknowledges that it grants anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.
• The copyright owner is aware that it always retains copyright of its work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to the copyright owner.
• The copyright owner is aware that the free licence only concerns copyright, and reserves the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
• The copyright owner acknowledges that it cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

The copyright owner must agree to license the image on a GFDL, a CC licence or both, and to accept the above conditions in full. If he or she does not, for example, by stating that the image can only be used for non-commercial purposes or cannot be modified, then the image cannot be used on Wikipedia.

If the copyright owner is agreeable to the conditions, then he or she should reply to your e-mail stating this clearly. (An e-mail saying something like "Go ahead and use the photo" may not be clear enough.) You should then upload the image on to the Wikimedia Commons, and add an "OTRS pending" tag to the image description page. Then forward your e-mail conversation with the copyright owner to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, notifying the recipient of the name of the file you have uploaded. The e-mail will enter the Wikipedia Open-source Ticket Request System (OTRS). A volunteer will then read the e-mail conversation and verify that the copyright owner has properly licensed the image to Wikipedia, then update the image description page with an "OTRS" tag. You can then use the image freely in Wikipedia articles. For more information, see "Commons:Email templates", "Commons:Licensing" and "Commons:OTRS". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No album articles?

Is there any particular reason why Hopkins' albums apparently have no articles? There are certainly many less notable albums with articles, and in fact Hopkins is one of the only artists listed at Apple Records discography not to have individual articles on each of her albums. At the very least Postcard rates one. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mary Hopkin in the Land of...

An IP editor has recently added extensive material on the TV series Mary Hopkin in the Land of.... I did some tidying-up and removed the transmission times. An IP editor reverted most of my edits. They were restored by an IP editor, removed again by Arjayay, and added for a third time by an IP editor.

However, I think the problems with this content go beyond the inclusion of transmission times. I do not dispute that the material is accurate and well-sourced. The problem is that it does not merit inclusion in this article. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says

• "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."

This article is about Mary Hopkin, who is principally known as a singer. We should mention that she has also been a TV presenter, but listing the details of these programmes gives such undue prominence that it gives a misleading impression of her career, see WP:WEIGHT.

The inclusion of large numbers of names of people without articles is also an issue. These names are of little interest to readers and add nothing useful to the article.

Much of this material might be put in a separate article about this TV series, however I suspect that the series is insufficiently notable for an article. It might be useful to post it to Wikidata.

In my view, we should summarise this TV series in one paragraph. I propose a section, as follows:

Television In 1970 Hopkin hosted and performed in a series of six thirty-minute programs on BBC1 television, titled Mary Hopkin in the Land of.... The programs were devised by Eric Merriman and explored fantasy subjects using music and dancing. References

I think that is all that merits mentioning in this article. I have used these URLs as they show the episodes were 30 minutes long. I am wary of citing the self-published source, but this one looks reasonable and adds useful background.

I will make this edit following the Wikipedia:BOLD editing guideline. Please do not treat this as an aggressive action, I am partly doing this so that there is a single edit that on which other editors can take a view if it becomes necessary to widen the discussion.

Please discuss the issue here, preferably basing your arguments on Wikipedia policies, guidelines and conventions. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have made this change, with a slightly different text, incorporating the last paragraph of the preceding section. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree and certainly view your edits as extremely aggressive and indeed hostile; and thus have restored the edits that you removed as the series is worthy of detail. Check out all the pages relating to the TV series of Kathy Kirby, Sandie Shaw, Cilla Black, Shirley Bassey, Cliff Richard etc etc etc, all of which detail their BBC series. The series is worthy of detail for Hopkin's career, just as it is for the other artists named and many others on wikipedia. 50.247.98.197 (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Of the five articles you mention, three (Sandie Shaw, Cilla Black, and Cliff Richard) do not have a list of TV shows of this sort.

Kathy Kirby and Shirley Bassey have similar lists to that you are seeking to include here. I think these are undesirable for the reasons I have given above. I will not attempt to change them while this discussion is active.

The existence of something similar in other articles is a poor justification. Wikipedia is far from perfect, and we should be guided by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The only articles we should use as examples are the featured articles.

We do not appear to be close to agreement, so I will try to broaden this discussion by posting to related talk pages. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Spin that section off into its own article (there's not presently a redirect for it) and then restore the summary and link to the "main" article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. People who did a lot of TV, like Cilla and Cliff, tend to have their appearances listed in a separate article. Mary Hopkin didn't do much and her series was not a great success. Her career as a major star was relatively short, thus her article is similarly short. There is no hard and fast rule on this, but unless there is substantial coverage of the series, so as to make it independently notable, then I think the detail in the main article should be kept to a minimum. If, on the other hand, lots of sources can be found, then a separate article would be the way to go. I don't think you could really describe her as a "presenter" in the context of this series either; the series was designed to showcase her singing talent without exposing her less-than-outgoing personality too harshly. Deb (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wholly agree. While she was always quite charming, she just didn't have the same kind of charisma that those other TV personality singers did. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

We have now had comments from three highly-experienced editors, each of whom has made over 100,000 edits to Wikipedia. They all indicate that this article should only include a summary on the TV series. Walter Görlitz favours creating a new article on Mary Hopkin in the Land of, but Deb and I are concerned that there may be insufficient reliable sources to establish its notability.

If the anonymous IP editor who introduced the information on this series agrees to stop trying to restore it then I am prepared to create a new article on Mary Hopkin in the Land of. If no such assurance is forthcoming I will delete the table from this article and leave it to others to create an article on the series. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The section has been restored as it is of interest and relevance to Hopkin's career, but not worthy of a separate article in it's own right. Although there are many, many articles on wikipedia dedicated to shortlived TV series that never even managed 6 episodes, it would be pointless to have a separate article. However, it is worthy of inclusion as a section within the article relating to the singing hostess of this series, just as in the articles relating to many, many other artists of the same era and genre. 210.19.117.130 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I waited for five days before acting on what is the clear consensus of this discussion. The IP editor (most recently at 210.19.117.130) then restored the disputed content, added a note about edit warring to my talk page, and added the comments above. The latest comments do not address my concerns about WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

Please justify why the high level of detail you are seeking is appropriate for this article, preferably with reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Saying that similar material is elsewhere in Wikipedia is only relevant when referring to featured articles and good articles. The consensus here is that the appropriate level of detail for the TV series is a brief paragraph along the lines I have proposed above. Why should your opinion override this? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor has inserted the table again. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Mary Hopkin# Mary Hopkin in the Land of.... Verbcatcher (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The DRN declined to take on this issue because of the one-sided discussion on this talk page. It was suggested that I might seek semi-protection of the article to encourage a proper discussion.

@210.19.117.130: I've asked you several times to discuss this matter properly, and to respond to my concerns. I'm going to make the change I have described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at the administrators' noticeboard for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

How very typical. Couldn't get your own way, so shut down the article and limited it to just you and your acolytes. Then removed all traces of the response 210.19.117.130 posted. I note that you got one or two editors to support you and on that basis alone, you took it as a green light that you were correct and your version of the article was to be imposed, even threatening those who disagreed with you. Actual threats. Not only do I fundamentally disagree with that decision, I am disgusted by your bullying edit warring and your quite disturbing tale telling by posting complaints when you began this edit war. This war was created by you and only you. Yet because you are one of the wiki elite, you have won the war by sneaky, bullying behaviour. Hopkin was a fairly minor artist who had a handful of hits over a four year period. Yet she was given a six part BBC1 TV series that aired in prime time and was repeated in prime time. Possibly thus the most significant aspect of her short career. The series is thus worth including in detail, particularly in view of the guest stars, the production team, the choreographer and the dancers/singers, all of whom made their mark in various ways. At first you had NO OBJECTION at all to the inclusion. You simply objected to the broadcast timing being included. When you were disobeyed and the timing was reinstated, only then did you decide you didn't want the details of the series at all. Something you neglected to 'report' when tale telling and attempting to get your own way. Well done. You won. The wiki elites always win the edit wars. Frankly, I don't know why any of us casual editors even bother with this psycho site. We will always, always lose to the bullies. You've been described as a troll. That is accurate. You hide behind a fake name you invented to disguise your IP address and your true identity. That is what a troll is. At least some of your acolytes do edit under real names. Although who knows if they are real or not. I note you removed all that discussion too. Good luck! This article is diminished by your bullying and thus wikipedia is further diminished. I shall also post this on your talk page, which you studiously ignore. And cue the block....210.19.117.130 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You're the editor who came to my Talk page to accuse me of being a bully, yes? And who was then blocked for disruptive editing, yes? "You hide behind a fake name you invented to disguise your IP address and your true identity. That is what a troll is." Why don't you just create an account, using your real name, like me? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

210.19.117.130, I reject your accusations about me and about the other editors you have impugned, and I invite other editors to review the edit histories. However, thank you for your comments about this article. I am referring to this:

• Hopkin was a fairly minor artist who had a handful of hits over a four year period. Yet she was given a six part BBC1 TV series that aired in prime time and was repeated in prime time. Possibly thus the most significant aspect of her short career. The series is thus worth including in detail, particularly in view of the guest stars, the production team, the choreographer and the dancers/singers, all of whom made their mark in various ways.

The TV series, which you do not think merits its own article, is not 'the most significant aspect of her short career'. Presumably your reference to 'aired at prime time' is to support inclusion of the transmission times. The show being in prime time is noteworthy. The Prime time article indicates that prime time is different in different countries, so giving the transmission times does not clearly indicate prime time. Prime time#United Kingdom says In the UK, the term used is peak time, early peak is 17:30 to 20:00 and late peak is 20:00 to 23:00, so I propose to change the paragraph on the series to her own peak time TV series on BBC1. In my view the other performers and the production staff are not sufficiently prominent to be noteworthy here, and listing them does not add to a reader's knowledge about Mary Hopkin. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not here, please. --John (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Give it up mate. You'll never, ever, ever win against these bullies. Never. They win every time. Just move on. The article is now poorer for Verbcatcher & MartinEvans' bullying and they don't care. Getting their own way is the ONLY thing that matters. Give it up. You tried. You lost. You always will.183.182.104.62 (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Regardless of the merits of your argument(s) for content addition (assuming you have some, although you haven't contributed any}, describing other editors as "bullies" constitutes a personal attack. You should strike out those commnents, not edit war to keep them in. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@210.19.117.130: I may be many things, but I can assure you I am nobody's "acolyte", either on or off Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Numbers as figures or words

@JG66: you have replaced several spelt-out numbers with numerals. MOS:NUMERAL specifies that numbers from zero to nine should be given as words. Numbers greater than nine that are expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words. Is there a good reason not to follow this here? For example, I prefer:

• number one hit
• number two on the US Billboard Hot 100
• The six thirty-minute programmes

Verbcatcher (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Verbcatcher: I'll raise it at talk:MOS, but I thought the guidance there also allowed for spelling out numbers up to twenty and then using numerals at 21 (to avoid hyphenation) – i.e. it's a choice: either at 10 or 21.

But anyway, I see chart positions as falling outside of that, because they're essentially scores. In the same way, we'd give an album reviewer's rating as "4/5" (unless they use stars), a score in a test would always be in numerals, and a street address would always be given with numerals. That sort of usage is different from saying something like "Donovan played on six songs on Postcard, where, personally I'd choose to spell out until 21. More than anything, it's also about ease of reading, especially when UK, US and Canadian chart peaks are given. That's my take on it. JG66 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not taking a specific stance here, but in tables and discographies chart positions are always given as a numeral so I guess that's another potential argument. Deb (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I made this edit for consistency. No strong preference either way, although I think numbers are slightly easier to read as digits here. Obviously "#One" is going to look wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Chart positions are rankings rather than scores, but they still might be considered a special case. I think the 'number of words' guideline makes sense – 'thirty' is more concise then 'twenty-seven'. I still prefer 'number one hit' to 'number 1 hit', but I am not planning to have an argument about this. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, "Bully for you!!" as they say in IP land. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Audio samples

@Verbcatcher: The liner notes for the EP on which this appears includes: "'Tammie'[sic] a top Debbie Reynolds hit of decade ago ..."[1] Reynold's 45 "Tammy" lists the writers as "Livingston – Evans"[2] and ASCAP (Work ID: 50009850) lists Jay Livingston and Ray Evans (died in the 2000s). It was included in the 1957 film Tammy and the Bachelor. Since this is rather recent, it is unlikely that the song is in the public domain. The uploader (Jason.nlw) claims that they are the copyright holder to the Hopkin version. Are there any reliable sources that support this? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: this file (c:File:Tami - Mary Hopkin.ogg) has excellent credentials. It was uploaded to Commons by Jason.nlw, who was then Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Wales. It was part of a bulk uploaded of music clips and album artwork released under CC BY-SA 3.0 by the record company Sain, which had released the compilation album from which this clip was taken. The National Library acknowledged the bulk release in a press release. There is no claim that the song is public domain. We should be able to assume that the record company has the rights to assign this licence to the clip. If you think that the license is incorrect then I suggest you raise the issue at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: The audio sample does not have "excellent credentials". On July 4, 2017, you expressed concern regarding this upload:[3]

It would be good to specify the composers of musical items, or specify when they are "traditional". For example,File:Tami - Mary Hopkin.oggis a version of Tammy by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans, made famous by Debbie Reynolds.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew3mtNZFrMY] I hope that Sain have sorted out any necessary permissions.

Jason.nlw responded:[4]

The data for the clips was scraped from the SAIN website (with their permission), but the data you see on Commons is all we could access ... Unfortunately i dont really have any more time to spend on this project.

Additionally, your comment "We should be able to assume that the record has the rights to assign the clip" does not inspire confidence. The Hopkin tract was part of a large group (7,500), many of which were deleted for copyright problems (see Commons:Deletion requests/Sainsoundclips). Since a record company does not own the copyrights to the actual music compositions, they cannot authorize their use (except for the traditional or PD songs). My guess is this is one that slipped through the cracks, because it's listed on the Hopkin release as "Tami" or "Tammie" and not "Tammy" and Livingston and Evans are not identified as the songwriters.

Also problematic is the fact that Jason.nlw is identified as the copyright holder. If the record company assigned the use of the clip to WP, how did he end up with the copyright? There are enough problems with this that the sample should be removed as a possible copyvio until the uploader can resolve the issue.

—Ojorojo (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Yes, I did express a concern about this issue to Jason.nlw, along with several other issues. I am an occasional seeker-out of copyright violations on Commons, but in this case I concluded that we should trust the record company and the National Library. I interpreted Jason.nlw's response as referring to all of the issues I had raised, not specifically to this issue. I was not aware of c:Commons:Deletion requests/Sainsoundclips, but it is evidence of Jason.nlw's and Sain's good faith and their attention to this issue.

In view of your latest comments I agree that there is a real chance that the record company may not have licensed this correctly, and the precautionary principle should apply. I will look for a different clip. Feel free to nominate the Commons file for deletion, but I suggest waiting a few days to give Jason.nlw an opportunity to respond here.

I agree that the {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} tag looks wrong, but I don't think that in itself should prevent the use of these files. If you can establish the correct tag then a Commons admin may be able to make a mass change. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I suspect that all the clips in c:Category:Audio clips of Mary Hopkin are cover versions of copyrighted music. I have removed the clip from this article. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher and Ojorojo: Hello both. This kind of upload by a record company is uncharted territory as far as i know, so we are keen to make sure everything is above board, so thanks for raising these concerns. Sain Records shared this collection on a cc-by-sa-3.0 license as the copyright holders of the clips - they then did an additional risk assessment (granted, this should have been done before the upload) and found a small number of clips with additional, or complicated copyright and these were subsequently removed. I hadn't noticed the 'Self' element of the licence template, which must have been added automatically by the upload tool i used. So i confirm that i am not, and do not claim to be the copyright holder for these clips. Sain Records hold the rights, as per the correspondents in the OTRS archive. So i assume we simply need to remove the 'self' statement from the license templates? If that's the case, i think i know a way of doing this for the whole collection. I shall await advice before proceeding. Thanks! Jason.nlw (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jason.nlw: as well as removing the 'self' from the licence template, you also need to specify how the file should be attributed. I think the code you need is {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Sain (Recordiau) Cyf.}}. However, the OTRS ticket only confirms the license stated when the ticket was added to the file page, and if you modify the licence you may invalidate the OTRS ticket. I suggest you ask about this at c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher and Jason.nlw: It's important to remember that while Sain may own the recordings, it is unlikely that they own the copyrights to the compositions. Traditional or songs in the public domain are not copyright protected. But others, such as "Tami"/"Tammie"/"Tammy", are under copyright and can only be used under a claim of fair use. There needs to be a way to separate the copyrighted songs from those in the PD and change the licenses accordingly. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be no article called Tami. But Tammy is the same song? I see that article has no clip, even with a FUR. Although the clip might be a very good illustration of Hopkin's style, don't WP fair use rules preclude its addition here unless the song is "discussed critically"? I'm guessing that establishing the clip as PD would mean the FUR would be irrelevant. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will ask about the license template on the OTRS notice board. As for the issue with copyright, i am happy to contact SAIN Records and ask about the rights, although i believe the OTRS team spoke with them directly before accepting the proof of copyright. Best Jason.nlw (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: it is not impossible that Sain has obtained permission from the copyright holders of the songs but in this case it is unlikely as these are mainstream American songwriters, and I agree that this licence is dubious. If the song had been written by the performer then the licence would be more credible.

@Martinevans123: Hopkin is singing a translation of Tammy (song). I did not add the clip as 'fair use', but as a Commons clip with a free license. I now accept that the license is dubious. We may be able to justify a 'fair use' clip to illustrate Hopkin's voice and style, but I'd probably use Those were the days. We can't add a fair-use clip if there is a suitable clip on Commons with a valid license.

Thank you for your polite and informative reply. I've been enquiring about this since 9 July and yours is the first reply I've had. Yes I see, Tami is the Welsh translation of Tammy. I understand about the fair use. If anyone is interested, it seems that Hopkin's rendition has been available on YouTube for at least the past 7 years, at least in UK (... not that I want to wish to encourage third party copyright infringement. Or not, as the case may be). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jason.nlw: If you are going to contact Sain, do you want a list of files that may be problematic (I am not going to investigate them all, but in the light of this discussion there are several more than I am aware of), or would it be better to talk to them in general terms? Verbcatcher (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Verbcatcher, if you have a few examples to hand, that would be very usefull, just so that i can highlight files the community have flagged as potential issues. Thanks! Jason.nlw (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jason.nlw: I have replied on you Commons user talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ojorojo, Verbcatcher, and Martinevans123: FIY - a large number of SAIN clips have now been nominated for deletion following a full review of the content by SAIN RECORDS. Jason.nlw (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Welsh

To the dickhead who keeps changing her to a 'british Welsh singer', knock it off. Mary Hopkin, from Wales, is a Welsh singer. 2601:183:4601:3480:EC83:1F7E:A295:5AE2 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I would refer to WP:UKCHANGE and MOS:FIRSTBIO. I would agree that 'British Welsh singer' is unnecessary, yet 'Welsh singer, from Wales' is also a butchering of the lead. How about just 'Welsh singer', which meets stylistic guidelines? You may also want to consider your etiquette, as edit-warring while referring to other editors as 'dickheads', particularly from an IP address with minimal edit history, is liable to be perceived as disruptive editing. · | (t - c)

The lead section as it stands looks fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I had already amended it before writing on this talk page! · | (t - c) 00:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)