User talk:Jpcase

1. The song cannot be a 1941 and a 1944 song (see cat for details).
2. The song is corrected listed as lyrics by Ray Gilbert at target, so it remains totally misleading/unnecessary to categorise twice.
3. Listing a redirect as 'songs about friendship' fails WP:CATV and WP:CATDEF
4. Finally, if it is a different song then explain your rationale to redirect to another song.

I look forward to reading your comments/rebuttals to my points, and we can see where to go after that. Cheers, --Richhoncho (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

PS Would you like examples where songs with different lyrics have been covered in the same article, rather than cat'd on redirect? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: Apologies in advance for how long this response has turned out. I'm...quite aware that I can drone on sometimes. But hopefully my answers below are helpful. :)

Thanks for the followup! And as noted in my edit summary, I have no serious objections to reworking how these categories are presented, if that's the route you want to go.

The answers to questions #1 and #4 should be fairly apparent upon reading the ¡Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes! article. "The Three Caballeros" is a 1944 song. "¡Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" is a 1941 song. They're different songs that share a melody. I guess that the technical way of putting this would be to say that "The Three Caballeros" is a contrafactum of "Ay, Jalisco", in the same way that "What Child Is This?" is a contrafactum of "Greensleeves" or in the way that "Hotaru no Hikari" is a contrafactum of "Auld Lang Syne".

When I created the "Ay, Jalisco" article, I decided to add a section there devoted to "The Three Caballeros", rather than creating separate articles for the two songs. There's an argument to be made that the "Three Caballeros" section of the "Ay, Jalisco" article should be spun off into its own standalone article. But the "Ay, Jalisco" article is already pretty close to a stub as it is, which is why, when I created it nine years ago, I decided to simply combine the two songs into a single article. What I did back then made sense at the time, but I'll concede that it may not have been the best approach. If you're interested in splitting the two songs off into their own articles, then there's sure to be some sourcing out there that hasn't been utilized yet, which could help ensure that neither of the standalone articles are super short stubs.

As for the Ray Gilbert category, you're right, I hadn't noticed that. But that's the only category shared by the two pages. My goal when I set up the categories for these pages was to only include categories that actually apply to "Ay, Jalisco" in the "Ay, Jalisco" article and to then include categories that only apply to "The Three Caballeros" in the redirect. So -

If someone were to see "Ay, Jalisco" mentioned in Category:Songs from The Three Caballeros, then that person would get confused, because "Ay, Jalisco" isn't a song from The Three Caballeros. On the other hand, if a movie's title song were to be missing from a category explicitly devoted to songs from that movie, then the category would be weirdly incomplete, don't you agree? That's why I added the "Songs from The Three Caballeros" category to the "Three Caballeros" redirect page, rather than to the "Ay, Jalisco" article. Which seems like the most useful and least confusing way of presenting this information to anyone viewing the category.

Actually, now that you've pointed it out, I have no idea why I included the Ray Gilbert category in the "Ay, Jalisco" article, because Ray Gilbert didn't write the lyrics to "Ay, Jalisco"; he only wrote the lyrics to "The Three Caballeros".

Again, if you feel strongly that moving categories like "1944 songs" or "Songs from the Three Caballeros" out of the redirect and into the target article would be a better way of presenting this information, then I'm open to going that route, although I'm not exactly sure what would be accomplished by doing that.

As for what should or shouldn't be considered a defining category? I guess that's kind of a subjective call. I'll assume that you're at least a little familiar with both of the songs that we're talking about, but in case you're not, the entire focus of "The Three Caballeros" is on friendship. If friendship isn't a defining characteristic of that song, then personally, I'm not sure that friendship would be a defining characteristic of any song - in which case, why bother even having such a category? But I'm going to be honest with you - and I realize that this is kind of an ironic way of ending such a long ramble - I don't have very strong feelings on what categories are used for these pages. I do think we should take care not to make the "Songs from The Three Caballeros" category seem incomplete or confusing. But otherwise, I'm going to give you space to make your own decisions on these categories. --Jpcase (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You’re right, that was wordy, especially when the only message was ‘they are different songs’ which is patently untrue, and I would vehemently oppose any splitting because there are 2 sets of lyrics. The history and connection is part of the development of the song and it does not benefit readers to separate. I give you two examples where different lyrics do not mean a different song/article, Io che non vivo (senza te), another is Baía (Song) (I hope you appreciate the irony of me quoting this one). There are many other examples where they have not been separated. Do you need more?

Your claim for 3Cabs being a 1944 song are incorrect, at best, it is a 1944 lyric, a category that does not exist.

Ray Gilbert should be listed at the target, where there is confirming text confirmation. Anybody looking at Ray Gilbert lyrics will want to be taken straight there, not round the roundabout.

A defining characteristic is, according toWP:CATDEF, ‘A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define^[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, in Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement, Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio’

That pretty much cuts out Songs about friendship, the redirect lacking either text or references! NB I always remove Songs about cats from redirects for this reason.

I won’t bother arguing about the other cat, Songs from The Cabs, but my feelings are the same.

Take your time, but I am interested in your follow up comments. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: This could be a mistaken impression on my part, caused by the limitations of written communication, but I'm sensing a bit of tension here; and if there is in fact tension, then I'm not exactly sure where it's coming from. I've done my best to explain the reasoning behind decisions that I made many years ago. And as I've said, where's there's disagreement, I'm generally going to defer to you. So I hope we can keep things cordial. Apologies if I've misread your sentiments.

My understanding has always been that a "song" is the combination of a specific set of words with a specific melody - and that whenever new lyrics are written to an old melody, a new song is created. This is why, as I've pointed out, "What Child Is This?" is considered to be a separate song from "Greensleeves". If there's a difference between the "Ay, Jalisco/Three Caballeros" relationship and the "What Child Is This/Greensleeves" relationship, then it's unclear to me. In both cases, one song is a contrafactum of the other.

It doesn't appear that there's any one, consistent way of handling contrafactums on Wikipedia. As you've pointed out, in some cases, a contrafactum shares an article with the song that it drew its melody from, but both of the contrafactums that I've given as examples have their own standalone articles. It seems that if two songs with a shared melody are both highly notable, then creating standalone articles for each of them is the best way to go. Whereas if both songs are only somewhat notable, going with a single, combined article might be preferable - which is the approach that I took with the "Ay, Jalisco" article and also the approach that I took when I created the "Na Baixa do Sapateiro / Baía" article. I'm not saying that we have to split anything; I only said that I wouldn't oppose a split approach.

If anyone looking at the Ray Gilbert category were to click on "The Three Caballeros", they wouldn't be taken to the redirect; they would be immediately redirected to the "Three Caballeros" section of the "Ay, Jalisco" article. I'm not sure why that would pose a problem.

I don't know if there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline against using categories in redirect pages; if there is, then yes, we should go ahead and remove all of those categories from the "Caballeros" redirect. If there isn't, then I'm not sure why sourcing used in the target page shouldn't apply to the redirect page. It doesn't seem that text or references should be required in the redirect to support the fact that the redirect is about a song featured in The Three Caballeros. The text and sourcing to support that fact is contained in the target page. With regards to "songs about friendship", there doesn't appear to be anything in the target page discussing that aspect of the song, so I have no problem with removing that category - although I assume that the appropriate sourcing could be found and added.

Apologies for the length of my responses. I don't want to take up your time with lengthy discussion, but you've raised several issues, and I don't want to leave anything unaddressed. --Jpcase (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I just started looking through WP:RCAT, and it does appear that my method of categorizing redirects is in keeping with WP:INCOMPATIBLE --Jpcase (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I note your comment that you feel I might be more aggressive than necessary. I apologise. These discussions get me down! I shall walk away from the discussion for a day or two and will not alter the redirect unless we have spoken further. Happy editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: I appreciate that and respect your willingness to hear out my concern. Thank you :)

I totally understand how online disagreements can be stressful. It's always my goal to engage with everyone on Wikipedia respectfully, but I've made enough missteps in online conversation over the years to know how easy it can be to unintentionally upset someone. I don't think that every disagreement needs to be an argument, so I'm happy to continue discussing all of this with you, if you'd like - so long as we can both make an effort to keep the discussion from turning confrontational. All the best! --Jpcase (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I’ll try again. On reflection I suspect the primary discussion between us is whether we are talking about one or two songs. The connection between the Mexican melody and the English lyrics are an important development and I think readers will like it all being in the same place (some will ignore too, but that is their right). This is pretty much in line with the long and arduous discussions we had to introduce WP:SONGCOVER where each opposer stood on their ground that their favourite band had added something to the cover that needed a title page (but not much else).

Obviously having put both parts together, you fundamentally agree with me and it is only how we deal with individual, not quite simple, cases that there might be divergence. My opinion is, and remains unchanged, is that, where appropriate, any redirect should be where the text is, which means any confusion is also explained.

I am not going to pursue this discussion any further, so what happens next is up to you and not me. The only thing I ask is that Category:Songs with lyrics by Ray Gilbert is only on one article/redirect. Otherwise he has two entries for the same song!

Having said that, in a year or two’s time or longer, if I am purusing T redirects again I might make the same changes again, accidently, and with no malice aforethought.

Happy editing.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You did not get a response to this question and I don't know the answer either, but it's a problem we certainly should solve.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Quick facts Nine years! ...

Precious

Nine years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, and thank you for the reminder! Jpcase (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course, always appreciate your edits to political BLPs! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jpcase

Thank you for creating Governorship of Glenn Youngkin.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

An article on the governorship (separate from the article on the person) is a suitable idea for a separate article, which is the question of the moment and it also meets wp:notability. But the whole idea is to cover it in more depth and so the article should certain evolve from it's current state which is mostly material copied from the other article. Happy editing.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Governorship of Glenn Youngkin is insanely long, but it also just duplicates most of Glenn Youngkin. It's not appropriate to have content that is WP:REDUNDANT to material elsewhere. This confuses readers – They read Glenn_Youngkin#Economy and see "Further information: Governorship of Glenn Youngkin § Economy", but when they follow the link it's the exact same content, not further information! What's the point? This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and it can become even more confusing when there are slight differences between the pages. Yes, there's a lot of information that may warrant having a subarticle, but there should be a WP:PROPERSPLIT completed, which includes "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article." involving WP:Summary style. Please substantially trim details from the main article, which should be more of a biographical summary, perhaps without such elaboration of quotations and responses, which are better suited for the governorship article. Otherwise the governorship article should be redirected back to the main page as an unnecessary WP:DUPLICATE page. But being only 1/4 into his term, even the governorship article is too long and detailed and could use a trim to remain readable as more happens. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 02:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the information currently at Governorship of Glenn Youngkin originated at the Glenn Youngkin article; once the Youngkin article started getting too long, the governorship article was created solely so that some of the information in Youngkin's own article could be trimmed down, while still maintaining that information somewhere else. My original thought was to only include info in the goverorship article if it wasn't already included in the Youngkin article, but going that route would have meant omitting the most notable aspects of Youngkin's governorship from an article that's supposed to be all about his governorship...which wouldn't have made much sense. So I decided to just treat the governorship article as a longer version of the Youngkin article; i.e. if someone wants to do a very deep dive into Youngkin's governorship, then they can read Governorship of Glenn Youngkin, otherwise they can just stick with reading Glenn Youngkin.

While there definitely are a lot of redundancies between the two articles, the "Further information" links in the main article do actually lead to new information - for example, the Economy section in the Governorship section includes an additional subsection, Labor rights and public services, not included in the main Youngkin article.

I recognize that both articles are quite long, but I don't have the time to substantially reorganize either of them right now. The first year of a Virginia governor's term is typically much, much more eventful than the second year though - especially when the legislature is divided between parties, which is currently the case - so I don't foresee either article expanding by more than a paragraph or two at the most in the coming year. The current length of each article should really be viewed more in terms of covering the first half of Youngkin's governorship, not the first 1/4. If by some small chance, the current year winds up being unexpectedly eventful for Youngkin, then yes, at that point, I would definitely see a need to shorten a lot of things. --Jpcase (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:2000s Indian superhero films has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:2000s Indian superhero films has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:2010s Indian superhero films has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

A category or categories you have created have 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 22 § Indian superhero films by decade on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A category or categories you have created have 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 23 § Japanese superhero films‎ by decade on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:2000s Japanese superhero films requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Per C1. All content has been upmerged to Category:2000s superhero films and Category:Japanese superhero films per this discussion.

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. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:2010s Japanese superhero films has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up regarding the old email address. I deleted all the emails between us, emptied the trash, made sure you're not in my contacts, and signed out and back in to my email. Yet your (old) address still pops up when I enter "Jpcase". I'll have to research how to get the system to forget it properly. Maybe it's "AI" trying to be helpful but not being very intelligent.

FYI, two of the sources I sent you came from WP:TWL databases, EBSCO and newspapers.com. That's not a problem, we don't expect editors to look everywhere imaginable before posting on WP:RX, but you might keep it in mind if you want to search for even more sources. Newspapers.com tends to be better for older newspapers; EBSCO has few newspapers but does have some popular magazines. If you would like access to NewsBank, where I found the rest of the articles, you can visit the partner suggestion page, scroll way down, and upvote a proposal for the WMF to lobby NewsBank for a donated subscription (I accessed it off-Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Songs from The Three Caballeros has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jpcase. I've found a few uses of idolchatteryd.com as a ref by you, such as here. It appears unreliable, and I brought it to RSN last month. Do you know anything about it that might allow it's use at times? - Hipal (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hipal. Thanks for getting in touch. I've used Idol Chatter as a source in several articles going back about a decade and can't recall anyone ever raising previous concerns about it, so I'm disappointed that some concerns are being raised now. As you yourself have already noted at RSN, the blog was published by The York Dispatch, which is a reliable source. And while I'm seeing your comment at RSN suggesting that Idol Chatter might not meet WP:NEWSBLOG standards, I'm not clear on how you reached that opinion. I'm very much of the view that the source should be considered acceptable under NEWSBLOG. Same goes for the USA Today blog by Brian Mansfield.

Both Mansfield and Franklin are professional journalists, so I'd say that even if their blogs were not directly affiliated with newspapers / magazines, they should still be considered experts in their field, which would generally make them acceptable self-published sources for noncontroversial claims. --Jpcase (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly why I took it to RSN and looked into the history of the blog. I don't see any problems with the Mansfield blog, but I brought it up since I came across it at the same time that I started having questions about IdolChatterYD.

I wish I had contacted you at the time, since you're familiar with it. I don't see a problem with using the articles with a copyright for The York Dispatch. I'm listing it for my own reference as, "NEWSBLOG when it has copyright of The York Dispatch. Self-published by expert (that) may be ok otherwise, which eliminates BLP use." Does that sound right to you? I'm leaning to starting a new RSN discussion to counteract the previous one.

As far as it's use in Tim Urban and Casey James, I'd lean against using it for Franklin's reviews, but use it for verification of the existence of albums, etc. --Hipal (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hipal - I'm not sure why the website's copyright changed from The York Dispatch to Franklin himself around 2008, but according to ProQuest, Idol Chatter was still published by The York Dispatch through at least 2015. (For example, see - ProQuest 1674796504) So personally, I'm inclined to continue treating Idol Chatter as a NEWSBLOG, at least through 2015 - maybe even longer, considering that the web address for Idol Chatter still includes "YD" in it, which would indicate a continuing association of some kind or another between the blog and the newspaper.

I don't really have a problem myself with briefly citing Franklin's album reviews in BLP articles - ideally, critical reception information like that would be included in a separate article for the album itself instead of in a BLP article about the artist. But when it comes to albums that aren't quite independently notable enough for their own separate articles, a brief summary of what Franklin had to say about the album could be a useful bit of information to include when discussing the album in the artist's own article. Having said that, if you'd rather not have Franklin's reviews quoted in BLPs, I'm not going to push back on that. --Jpcase (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I mostly agree. I think the situation with the website is complicated enough that case-by-case review will be needed. I've made a note and am not going to seek it out anymore. --Hipal (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've restored the source to Andrew Garcia and Haley Reinhart, since those articles were only using it to verify the existence of songs - am I correct in understanding that you're okay with that? --Jpcase (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

No problem. --Hipal (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Categories you have created have 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 8 § Japanese superhero films‎ by decade on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants § Article review. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Swaim, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Swaim until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)