A fact from Hoochie Coochie Man appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 January 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
taking place as to whether to include the long list of cover versions of the song. I believe that such a list should be included, it speaks to the importance of the song, but I do not want to partake in an edit war and we are almost at that point now. I'll propose a Covers section, with the understanding that anything on the list must be referenced and that in most cases naming an album that it is on is sufficient reference. Please fell free to join in this discussion, otherwise it is just me talking to myself (again) and I will proceed to do whatever I want. Einar aka
Carptrash (
talk) 17:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)reply
"Hoochie Coochie Man" has gone through an extensive
GA review to ensure that it meets the
criteria for a Wikipedia Good article. These include: 1b. "complies with the manual of style guideline for ... list incorporation." and 2. "Verifiable with no original research". The
MOS:LIST and
WP:Source list provide additional guidelines. Treatment of cover songs is addressed by
WP:SONGCOVER, which includes:
When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:
the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at
WP:NSONGS.
The 8 May 2015 edit by
Frankzappatwin does not meet these requirements and was reverted with an appropriate edit summary. This hardly constitutes "almost an edit war".
Carptrash's proposal similarly does not meet the requirements. If there is a problem with established WP policies, that should be taken up on those talk pages, not here. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm with
Carptrash. But the list should have references/links, etc. With the possible exception of
Stairway to Heaven, this is one of the most covered songs in the worlds. 7&6=thirteen (
☎) 18:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree with
Ojorojo that, in an article of this overall quality, we should stick to what would be included under
WP:SONGCOVER. There was an instrumental version by
Jimmy Smith that made the US charts in 1966 and I think should be mentioned, but currently isn't. Otherwise, we should be strict as to only mentioning versions that are regarded as notable by independent reliable sources.
Ghmyrtle (
talk) 19:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Having glanced through the article I believe that "the song has been recorded by performers as diverse as Jimi Hendrix, Chuck Berry, and jazz organist Jimmy Smith." is the only mention that anyone other than Muddy Waters, and perhaps Willie Dixon has ever recorded the song. Had I reverted
Ojorojo removal of FrankZ's section on covers I believe that we could easily have been on our way to a war. Or am I wrong? Would
Ojorojo then have decided to take it to the talk page?
Carptrash (
talk) 20:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is being followed here – Frankzappatwin was bold, I reverted, and now we're discussing.
WP:SONGCOVER sets the bar quite high: to meet the first criteria, the source has to discuss the subject of the song and not a particular rendition. It is difficult to find sources which deal with songs so broadly – the three "song" sources used in the article are weighted heavily towards the original, Muddy Waters'. However, I used the Blues Hall of Fame induction write-up to quote "performers as diverse as Jimi Hendrix, Chuck Berry, and jazz organist Jimmy Smith" in the "
Influence and recognition" section. AllMusic doesn't mention any other versions, but Grove (in Komara's Encyclopedia) includes "a staple in the sets of many other blues artists to follow including B.B. KIng, Buddy Guy, and John Hammond [as well as] rock artists including Chuck Berry, the Allman Brothers, Eric Clapton, and Jimi Hendrix." Although it can be argued that Grove is primarily discussing the Waters' version, I propose to add these to the article in the same section as the others. As far as meeting the second criteria "the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at
WP:NSONGS", I haven't seen that any that "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" and not in the context of an album review (Jimmy Smith's version charted but may not meet this requirement, however, it meets the first). —
Ojorojo (
talk) 20:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)reply
OK, being somewhat new to the Wikipedia editing process, I fail to understand the reasoning that you mentioned, for reverting the information that was added to Hoochie Coochie Man. Regarding the requirement that noted "the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS."; I quote from that reference: "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." I feel that the information that was added met this requirement. Could you please elaborate? I wish to continue adding information to music related articles, but I also want the information to be compliant and useful to someone.
Frankzappatwin (
talk) 11:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
It is important to remember that
WP:SONGCOVER (not NSONGS) specifically addresses requirements cover versions should meet to be included in a song article. It has two alternative criteria:
1 "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition)". Therefore, to include a particular cover, it must be discussed in a source dealing with the song (and its various renditions) in a comprehensive manner and not one version of it. If a cover cannot be found in such a source, it may be included if it meets the second criteria,
2 "the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at
WP:NSONGS." NSONGS establishes requirements that a song must meet to have a separate article. Therefore, if the cover would otherwise be notable enough for its own article (but can't because separate articles are not allowed), it may be included in the song article. NSONGS criterion #3 "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" applies to establishing a song's notability for an an article, not one version or cover. Otherwise, applying the criterion to particular covers would render it "A cover version may be notable because several artists have also recorded cover versions", which is completely contrary to SONGCOVER.
Unless there is an objection, I'll go ahead and add the artists mentioned by Grove above. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 14:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
First of all, thank you for your response. Secondly, I am not intending to be argumentative but I am still not quite understanding the logic. WP:SONGCOVER cross-references the criteria in WP:NSONGS regarding notability. What am I missing here? Is there something I should have added to improve the flow of knowledge? Also, what is meant by "a reliable source on the subject"? Again as before, I am trying to understand what is required to add my extensive background (I have 55,000+ songs from albums, CD's, tapes etc.) to enhance the Wikipedia data base. I want to do it correctly and I feel that I had done so with the recent contribution.
Frankzappatwin (
talk) 15:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
To restate the second SONGCOVER criterion, if a cover version has enough independent notability to qualify for its own article, then it may be included in the article about the song (and not in a separate article). NSONGS does not specifically address the notability of cover versions, but rather criterion #3 states that they may contribute the the overall notability of the song and not that they should necessarily be a part of the article. If NSONGS means that any cover versions of a notable song are themselves notable, why would SONGCOVER exist? Some songs have been recorded by a very large number of people. SONGCOVER recognizes that song articles do not benefit from large numbers of unimportant cover versions (other policies such as
Due and undue weight also apply). It is an attempt to put some rationale into selecting what should be included and what shouldn't in song articles. If the reader wants an exhaustive list of covers, sites like AllMusic provide that info. Wikipedia takes an encyclopedic approach and should not contain indiscriminate collections of information. Also,
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists and
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources may be of interest. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 16:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
So that we aren't just batting this around in the abstract, the edit that was undone including the following:
I have added six more artists from Grove in addition to the three from the Blues Foundation for a total of nine examples of cover artists. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 21:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
and does the fact
that
Long John Baldry's backup band was at one time (at least 1965, when the record I have was released) named the "Hoochie Coochie Men" have a place in the article?
Carptrash (
talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Well then someone with a better understanding of the RULES should place that fact where it needs to go.
Carptrash (
talk) 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I think "In popular culture" would be a good section heading under which it could easily appear.. 7&6=thirteen (
☎) 17:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
This short-lived group (1964–1965) produced only one album (which didn't chart in the US or UK) and doesn't appear notable (no WP article). Included the details in a footnote. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 21:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
What makes Hoochie Coochie Man any different than
Spoonful? Note the section titled "Recordings by other artists". Wow
Carptrash, I can't believe I missed
Long John Baldry, since I also have that album from 1964. I mentioned
Jimi Hendrix but didn't elaborate since I don't have the facts regarding his recording. Yeah,
Carptrash, I guess I just don't understand all of the rules yet. I've only been adding information for about two months now.
Frankzappatwin (
talk) 20:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Be careful about pointing out other article that are more like what we'd like this to be because it is a bit like tiring them to a post and putting on a blindfold. All it does is make them a target for what we are dealing with here. PS, my Baldry is an EP, not an album. Anyway, it seems that bnaming a band after the song is not notable. Gee, who'd have guessed that one?
Carptrash (
talk) 22:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Hoochie Coochie Man. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.