2,054,077 Pages


aka Ronnie Collinson

  • I live in Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
  • I was born on July 7
  • My occupation is University Administrator
  • I am Male


Hi & thank you for your contributions
In the unlikely event that you might insert yet another page replete with eol punctuation Comma I will have no recourse but to direct your attention to our Help:FS#Lyrics Comma while your account will be held in a one week suspension Full Stop
Consider this your final official warning ¡Cheers --ES (talk) 13:19, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

I am discussing this issue, as you recommended, on this Community page: LyricWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Problems/Feedback_and_Ideas#End_of_Line_Punctuation.
I was told yesterday by 6x9 that page creators would not be forced to clean up pages with respect to end of line punctuation. I do want to insist again, though, that your current policy just doesn't say that there should be no end of line punctuation. The songs I uploaded today were all copy-and-pasted (with some amendments to match the lyrics as-sung) from the official lyrics. It would be a considerable (and in my view, actually damaging and unhelpful) expenditure of time to remove all punctuation. --RWDCollinson (talk) 13:37, October 9, 2015 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Just to be clear, posting lyrics that aren't 100% up to scratch is not a blockable offense. Even if it was, I'd rather go for bad spelling and missing apostrophes. And that's without taking into account whether or not the eol punctuation was justified. — 6×9 (Talk) 13:42, October 9, 2015 (UTC)


ES: you appear to have blocked me.

The information is as follows:

The block was made by EchoSierra.

   "Reason given: punctution, curly quotes, seeyour talk page
   Start of block: 16:39, October 16, 2015
   Expiry of block: 16:39, October 17, 2015
   Intended blockee: RWDCollinson
   Block ID: #2542
   Current IP address:"

This is only a 24-hour block, but I have to point out that 6x9 said clearly above that 'posting lyrics that aren't 100% up to scratch is not a blockable offence'. Despite this, I haven't posted any further end-of-line punctuation (other than question marks and speech marks, which everybody seems to accept are permissable), although I very much want to (and am withholding posting lyrics for some artists until this policy is changed, as the easiest source for those lyrics already included end of line punctuation).

If I have accidentally posted 'curly quotes', that was not intentional. I type the lyrics on Microsoft Word, which automatically makes quotes 'curly'. I will be more careful in the future. But surely that isn't a blockable offence, either? --RWDCollinson (talk) 16:55, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

It is best that you be your own editor. You read your talk page and wrote on my talk page and I gave you sufficient notice, did I not? --ES (talk) 17:02, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
I honestly didn't realise that the curliness of the quotations was copying-over from Word, and so I didn't realise that your point about curly quotations was directed to me. You certainly didn't threaten to ban me for use of the wrong characters. I did not realise that your 'uncurl' comments referred to the quotation marks, because curly and uncurly quotation marks are indistinguishable on the 'see changes' page. I assumed it was another one of the terms of art used by the administrators here (eg, eol = end of line punctuation)
I haven't infringed your interpretation of the policy about end of line punctuation, since you said it. But the clear implication of 6x9's comment was that I would not be blocked for that in any case.
Doesn't the idea of blocking somebody for using excessive (but gramatically correct) punctuation and common high-ASCII characters strike you as being really quite heavy-handed?
In any case, I haven't done anything that you said that you would block me for, since you gave me that warning. --RWDCollinson (talk) 17:09, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
'Curly quotes' and other special characters may cause problems displaying the text on other platforms, so please avoid them. You might want to use a plain text editor. Please be more attentive. I'll unblock you.  · Lichtweber talk service  17:24, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will be more careful. --RWDCollinson (talk) 22:48, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
@RW You are sufficiently advanced with your tools and knowledge of the differnce in digital punctuation that it makes your comments appear rather facetious. Before you attempt to mass correct inside of the lyric tags, (as you have done outsie the tags for others' contribs) let's make sure the correction will not require re-correction. happy editing --ES (talk) 20:26, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
That's not really fair. I do a fair amount of editing on Wikipedia, and like anybody who does lots of word processing I'm familiar with the phenomenon of 'curly' versus non-curly quotation marks, and the way that the former can cause display problems.
I've just gone over to Wikipedia and it turns out that curliness/non-curliness does in fact transfer straight over from Word, but obviously this doesn't occur in all cases. I don't think that one assumes that 'curly' quotation marks will retain their curliness, because they oftne don't. It had really never occurred to me to think about it before, because I've never been on a Wiki which banned high ASCII characters before. But the policy makes sense, as much as I'm attached to the dash. I would have to be very perverse indeed to deliberately litter LW with the wrong kind of quotation marks.
To be fair, content outside of the lyric tags is a lot easier to mass-edit, and the rules aren't as subjective (or, in the case of the punctuation rule, problematic). I will not knowingly make alteration to lyrics which fall outside of the Wiki's style guidelines. --RWDCollinson (talk) 22:48, October 16, 2015 (UTC)


Hello. If you have time and you like some of this types of songs, I invite you to help me complete/fix some lyrics of the list that I created. Thank you. Songsbr (talk) 23:38, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to help with some of these, although I struggle to make out the lyrics in most hard rock songs. Thanks for asking! I started with an easy one: Coro's Missing You. The lyrics were exactly right, except for the first line of the second stanza. You transcribed this as 'Why they're trying to keep us apart?' whereas the sung lyrics are definitely 'Why they try to keep us apart?' (Which isn't proper English grammar, so it's not surprising you thought it might have been something else) --RWDCollinson (talk) 10:26, October 28, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help. You are very nice. My english is very bad and I really apreciate your help. Feel free to fix only the styles that are good to you. God bless you. Songsbr (talk) 16:09, October 28, 2015 (UTC)


When redirecting a page, please leave the edit comment blank. tia. --ES (talk) 17:58, November 2, 2015 (UTC)

Page Merry Clayton:Gimme Shelter renamed: why?

Hello Ronnie! I noticed you renamed Merry Clayton's Gimme Shelter to Gimmie Shelter. But everywhere I look on the internet I see Gimme Shelter, not Gimmie Shelter. So please can you tell me you renamed the page? Thanks! MarjonW (talk) 20:37, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Any page move that does not indicate a reference for the move (per LW:PN), is suspect. All sources indicate Gimme Shelter. Thanks for the note, MW. --ES (talk) 21:02, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
done Fixed. Ttt, not all sources agree with that (see amz or iT f.e.), but you are absolutely right, MW, - RWDC once again failed in his attempt to be a judge. --Senvaikis (talk) 21:41, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
Back Cover --ES (talk) 04:15, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
I hold my hands up to this one. I was copying the track names from iTunes (which does list the extra 'i'). I was very sleep-deprived yesterday, and convinced myself that the extra 'i' was also on the album cover (Gimme Shelter being the title track). As I look at it again today (and more saliently the back cover that ES posted), I see that it's not the case. My apologies. --RWDCollinson (talk) 09:01, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
Nice, thank you all for your efforts! Cheers, MarjonW (talk) 13:59, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

Zinatra - Love Never Dies

Hi. Thank you so much for your help fixing the lyrics of my list. I see you edited Love Never Dies by Zinatra and added "Long" but I have an image with lyrics, the quality is horrible but the word that seems is Drawn or Drown or somethign like that? Do you agree? They have similar sound? Songsbr (talk) 16:13, November 12, 2015 (UTC)

Are they official lyrics? The word is on the YouTube video at 2:06.
'Long in desperate thoughts' makes grammatical sense in English, although it's a pretty old-fashioned way of spekaing. 'Drown in desperate thoughts she carried' on wouldn't make sense.
Now that I hear it again, though, I think 'drawn in desperate thoughts' is probably right (although hard to make sense of). I've altered it. --RWDCollinson (talk) 09:20, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
Is a image I found in the web, is that paper inside the LP that have all the lyrics, i consider official (but sometimes there's a lot os mistakes). The problem is the quality is bad so i can't see the words clearly. Only can see the word starts with D and ends with wn. Only words i know is drawn or drown, that's why i ask you. Again. Thank you so much for help me. Songsbr (talk) 19:25, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Track list format @LW

AV. hth --ES (talk) 12:08, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Thought I'd forgotten something. --RWDCollinson (talk) 12:12, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

Girls Just Want to Have Fun

Hi Collinson. Great catch adding the original "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" page, that was one of those songs that very few people know is a cover (similar to Billy Ray Cyrus's Achy Breaky Heart, originally by The Marcy Brothers - fun fact). However, I was confused at your addition of the cover template on all of the other covers of the song. Not only did you add the TV Series and GameFeature to the Robert Hazard page that was already on the Lauper page (only one of the versions would be featured in the show, and I highly doubt Hazard's would be), but you made all of the covers of the song say they're covers of both Hazard and Lauper, which makes no sense.
I reverted all of your edits and made them all just covers of the Hazard version, which is correct. Wikipedia says the song was "written by and first recorded in 1979 by American musician Robert Hazard." Later in the article, it says Hazard recorded the first demo of the song, and Lauper changed the lyrics in her own version with his approval.
In almost all cases, aside from traditional songs with an unknown artist, there is only one original version of a song, not two. I just thought I'd let you know so you didn't make this mistake again. Otherwise, keep up the great work here. Smile XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:16, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! The thing about the TV Series and GameFeature was a general brain fail; it should've been obvious that this should be attached to (only) the version of the song actually featured.
I had a rationale for listing the songs as being covers of both, though. The lyrics in Cyndi Lauper's version are somewhat different, and that's the version which is actually used by the other artists. (But mostly I didn't want to delete the existing references, in case that was wrong).
Incidentally, if a song was written by two singer-songwriters who both recorded the song, is the 'original' version the one that was recorded first? --RWDCollinson (talk) 01:29, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the lyrics are slightly different in her version, the original version is still the one we use regardless. There's many instances of covers out there I can think of with slightly different lyrics from the more popular version, this doesn't mean both should be called the original version.
Yes, it's always the version that was first recorded that we deem the 'original' version. This can sometimes result in songwriters technically covering their own song (e.g. Sting covering songs that he wrote and first performed with The Police, Paul McCartney covering songs he wrote and first performed with The Beatles, etc.). XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)03:31, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the talk pages!

Hi there, and good work upgrading so many pages! Just letting you know, though - you upgraded Jordan Smith to silver, but missed creating the talk page. Thanks, OneTwoThreeFall talk 16:19, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Done now. --RWDCollinson (talk) 16:25, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

Edit Notes

HI RWD, please remeber to add edit notes, especially when removing content from pages. Thx,  · Lichtweber talk service  17:14, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry! I have been getting very sloppy about this, you're right. On removing content, though, I think the only such removals I've done today have been changing pages to redirect pages; ES told me to leave the comments blank in that case (see Item 4 on my talk page, above). I've also moved some songs from 'Other Songs' into albums, but that shouldn't show up as removal of content. --RWDCollinson (talk) 17:20, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
No need for edit notes for pages when redirecting them, but when removing those mistitled links from artist or album pages, a short note is appreciated. Cheers  · Lichtweber talk service  17:25, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
Sure thing. --RWDCollinson (talk) 17:26, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

Album Genres

Indelible Grace:The Hymn Sing: Live In Nashville (2010) attempting to eneter more than one genre (as you tried) will cause neither genre to be applied to the alb page. If there are more more instances of such creativity... --ES (talk) 02:03, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

Empty listings

Hi. Before saving your edits to an artist/album page, please make sure that no alb track listing is all red and content free. --ES (talk) 18:15, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? I just find it quicker and more efficient to start at the macro-scale and fill in the individual song lyrics later. It's not like I'm littering the Wiki with oodles of local performers who it's impossible to get information about. In any case, I've never left an album red for more than 24 hours.
LW is seriously short of contributors and we'll never be the premiere lyrics website if the admins keep deleting people's work. --RWDCollinson (talk) 09:41, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
I hope ES agree that actually there's no rush in deleting any lyricless album at once after its creating indeed (at least in our policy).
Truth to tell, I'm here for the simple reason - my editing technique is the same as RWDs: first - tracklist for an album, and only then - lyrics... (@ES: Please, try to be more lenient to us :). If you don't agree - let's better talk about that on alt. channel) --Senvaikis (talk) 13:53, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
Can we make this an official policy, that all-red listings have a certain amount of time to be filled in before they are removed? Personally, I don't mind if they stay permanently, because it encourages contributors. I'd rather have complete song listings. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 20:04, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any necessity to create lyricless album pages or track listings. We all have a user namespace where we can prepare the listings. Why not use it?  · Lichtweber talk service  20:59, March 10, 2016 (UTC)


Contrary to the album tracklist, which, as we've mentioned above, may contain redlinks and even be totally red (at least temporarily}, {{Covered}} is supposed to contain only blue links, i.e. links to lw-existing songs by lw-existing artists. Thus it would be desirable to: either make "covered links" in this page blue (create required pages) or just remove them for a while. --Senvaikis (talk) 15:43, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware (as you mentioned before, listing a vast number of covers I may have vaguely heard of, but which we don't have lyrics for, would not be helpful)! I'm making the covered song pages right now (one down, one to go). --RWDCollinson (talk) 15:52, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
Well Done!--Senvaikis (talk) 17:56, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

What is the logic?

Icon - Stop Hand [1]. Is that bot logic or human logic? --ES (talk) 17:57, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

Well, the empty grey box is pretty ugly, and it helps me to keep my place, and I'd have to 'touch' the page to get them to display after upload anyway.
But mostly it's because Wikia doesn't recognise image-uploads as counting towards the 'pictures added to articles' badges, whereas it does count extra code added to pages if the picture has already been uploaded. Which is fairly trivial, but I like to keep track of what I've done. I've now created pages for all of the albums, uploaded the images, and reinstated the coverart tags.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 18:09, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
Removing many pieces of valid data out of a page, and putting them back in multiple edits: [2] is at best padding your edit count (the original removal would be labeled vandalism). The next time you make such rubbish edits, you will be strongly encouraged to rethink your logic away from LW. --ES (talk) 18:18, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
They're empty links! I put them back when they were meaningful. It's not as though I'm removing actual content, which obviously would be vandalism. What's the difference between that and removing a redlink, which seems to happen all the time? --RWDCollinson (talk) 18:28, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
The site currently contains thousands of pages with AlbumArt link without actual art, removing such links is vandalism. --ES (talk) 18:36, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
Whereas removing red albums isn't? What's the difference here? All I want is to be credited for the images I actually upload, and there's no way for that to happen if the albumart link is present on the artist page. I'd point out that within half an hour, the dead album links had been replaced by real pictures. It's not as though I just chucked them and ran. --RWDCollinson (talk) 18:40, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
Can you not tell the difference btwn album with valid songs lacking art, vs album with no songs, with or without art? hint: Lyrics as in Lyrics.Wikia --ES (talk) 19:08, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to tell you that, RWDC, but such "technique" of new albumart adding definitely wasn't the best your invention indeed. And the most funny thing here is the fact that albumart crediting is strictly image-file-uploader-dependant and has nothing to do with {{Album Art}} adding or removing on artist page. So you should better pay more attention to the quality and resolution of your images (to avoid their reuploading, as it has happened to all K.T._Oslin' images...).
And the last note: please recheck your algorithm of image description constructor to avoid such "side-effects" on image source like this one. --Senvaikis (talk) 20:26, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
I'm really sorry and have clearly messed up in some way. What was wrong with the images? Was the resolution too high?
I'm absolutely sure that the adding of {{Album Art}} on to the artist page is what makes the difference, though; every time I've done that, my count goes up by one, whereas it's unaffacted by simply uploading images.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 22:44, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
PS: Why did you change the name of K.T. Oslin:My Roots Are Showing... (1996)? The quotation marks were on the album cover, and my understanding was that we went by the album cover.
  1. No, - resolution was not too high - rather, it was not sufficient.
  2. Images belong to a different namespace (ns=6), while artists/albums/songs pages reside in the main namespace (ns=0). Thus any your image upload increases the counter of your file uploads, but not the counter of edits in the main namespace - that's under design. And please - don't repeat the same pseudo edition (removing/readding) - that's a worst way to increase your edit count. Just keep in mind that your editors reputation will be decreased much more. Actually such kind of contribs increasing may be considered as a spam, if not worse.
  3. That's a common LW practice, mostly based on searchability reasons. Take a look at wp Wikipedia16, Kingnee - Musicbrainz mb, AllMusic i amg or Amazon Icon amz to see the same practice used.
hth, --Senvaikis (talk) 09:37, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I took the images from iTunes and Amazon, so I'm surprised that the resolution was insufficient. How do I check this and what is an acceptable resolution?
On the file uploads, I'm not sure that you're understanding me (or I may not be understanding you). As you know, Wikia awards various 'badges' for doing various activities, which contribute to 'achievement points', which is the most holistic record of a person's activity on a Wikia page. One series of badges is awarded for 'adding pictures to articles'.
Uploading an image on LW does not increase the count towards the 'adding pictures to articles' badges. Conversely, adding {{AlbumArt}} tag does increase that count. The point is that Wikia doesn't count uploading an image as 'adding an article to a page' (it doesn't count image uploads separately to general page edits), even if that directly leads to the {{AlbumArt}} having a new reference, whereas it does count the addition of an already-uploaded image to a page.
As I said earlier, I was not trying to do pseudo-edition; I was trying to be properly credited for adding images to pages, and the only way to do that is to remove the dead album art links prior to uploading the images, and then to re-add them. That increases the count on my 'more badges you can earn' box by '1' per image, and is therefore an accurate reflection of by contribution to images (except when the images are faulty as in this case, to which I have to hold my hands up).
I obviously don't want to break any rules, but the docs don't specify everything and I wasn't getting rid of any real information. I just wanted the 'adding pictures to articles' count to be accurate, viz, reflecting the number of pictures I had actually added to articles. (Obviously, I separately made a mistake regarding the resolution of the pictures). I don't feel it's necessary for people to threaten me with being banned every time I do something stupid, especially when these specific situations are not mentioned in the docs.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 10:04, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
If you consider my quite friendly explanations as "threatening you with being banned", then I better refrain from further comments, just answer your question about image size: according to LW docs the limit for image dimensions is 500x500 px. Contrary to oversized image, lower resolution image uploading is not a mistake, just it's not the best decision to upload 167x170 px thumbnails from iTunes, - such lo-res images almost inevitably will be reuploaded with a better allowable quality sooner or later, especially when they are available on the most of our main external sources (amz, dog, amg, wp etc). --Senvaikis (talk) 11:55, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
Your comments are great, and extremely helpful. I was referring to ES threatening to ban me in the third comment above. Thanks for the advice about images. Do you see what I'm getting with regard to the image counts?
--RWDCollinson (talk) 12:38, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Gold page

Talk:Dottie West:Here Comes My Baby misses watcher & cert… — 6×9 (Talk) 18:07, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry! I'd just done the audio/lyric comparison, but I forgot to actually create the talk page. I've put up the details now. --RWDCollinson (talk) 10:16, March 17, 2016 (UTC)

Editing artist pages

  1. Youtube only songs or tv appearances posted on YT are not singles, they reside in OS. You are not the only editor who confuses this issue. We have thousands of YT only songs...
  2. If you move a page, please pay attention to the text in the move dialog box, all links to the page that is redirected have to be fixed. Like Cher & B&B's song. These links may be on many album and artist pages and what not. It is the responsibility of the mover to fix them, just like the necessary and inconvenient bits about uploading album covers that are the responsibility of the uploader.
  3. SF/SoC/SoS sections below the albums can be ordered in a manner that makes it easier to read at and less verbose. George Strait is an example. Artist pages may seem like a great place to pile up text & links; however they are LW's organization cabinets, we like to show maximum info with minimum text (unlike on talk pages...)
  4. As already noted: Birthday celeberations, applies to all artists. hth --ES (talk) 07:34, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this.
  1. I haven't been (or if I have, it has been careless) listing YouTube-only appearances as singles. The songs which you moved from Mary Sarah and Justin Whisnant have been studio recorded and are available on iTunes. I have been listing Youtube-only appearances as 'Other Live Performances' and possibly the right title would be 'Live Songs'; 'Live and Unreleased Songs' is a category listed in the docs. As I read the docs, appearance in the 'Other Songs' list is always a defect, as artist pages cannot be made gold if any 'other songs' are listed. If I am reading the docs correctly, I think the relevant changes to Mary Sarah, Justin Whisnant, Ricky Skaggs and Jordan Smith should be reversed.
  2. This is duly noted and I do try to do this. Is there any way of finding out which pages link to the page in question? (A 'pages that link to this page' link)
  3. Could you elaborate on what you mean here? The main difference I can see between the George Strait page and what I've been doing is that it doesn't list the album that the featured songs appeared in. I've been copying the format from other pages, but will exclude the album if that's the policy. But I was wondering if you were referring to anything else.
  4. This format doesn't seem to be given in the docs and I still don't see what's pernicious about including the day and month of somebody's birth, as well as the year, given that it still all fits on one line. If you're going to give somebody's date of birth it's surely worth doing properly.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 14:00, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
If a song is available on iTunes, that would have to be indicated in the footer. If the only ref on the song page is YT then it is Live and Unreleased Song (one step up from OS). If iT exists then it is on a release. Single means it was released as a single (per ref). On various pages you had YT only songs indicated as Single & single as well as Other Live Performances & OLP, neither is correct. OS may contain other types of (officially) unreleased: demo, bootleg etc.
Furthermore even in the case of artists who strictly publish songs on their YT channel, such songs are not indicated as singles.
There is a link on every page that says What Links Here (WLH), handy even when no moving is desired, say you want to know what albums may be linked to a song, so you can insert the albums in SongHeader..
SF/SoC/SoS: That format came from observing thousands of artist pages by a couple of admins, It saves on typing, avoids redundant text, and makes the listing more readable, rather than a jumble that may be the result of many past editors adding songs one at a time, strictly by following the docs. Comparing This to previous version of the same page (better example) shows that when the same album title or multiple Featuring text is repeated, the repeated text can be inserted once (as a sub head with one bullet) and double bullets take care of the rest. Or you may view the same section at Randy Newman#Songs on Soundtracks. As for the album for SF, albums are presumable already listed on each song page. Hope that is clear.
Birth dates: The docs say nothing about birth dates at all (or occupation or Instruments). Year of birth is sufficient since exact birth dates will bring about edit warring, and as mentioned before biographic info is best left to wikipedia, already listed in artist header. hth --ES (talk) 15:19, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
PS: BDates analogues to track lengths: We indicate album length not track length, even though each track does have it's own length (relevant to some), which can be fetched from mb, but not relevant to LW. --ES (talk) 15:27, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
  1. I still don't fully understand what you're saying here. If I give the iT links for the songs in Mary Sarah and Justin Whisnant and list them under 'Singles', and change the heading 'Other Live Performances' to 'Live and Unreleased songs', is that okay? (I didn't really want to give the iT links for Mary Sarah yet in case she reaches The Voice final, in which case they will appear on an album and have a new iT link)
  2. I have now found 'What links here' in the 'My Tools' section of the toolbar at the bottom of the screen, which I must say I'd never noticed before.
  3. This is a good format. I'm not sure where I haven't been using it, but I'll be more self-conscious in the future.
  4. Surely birth dates only lead to edit wars if they're disputed, which must be unusual? I see why we don't want lots of biographic information, but I can't see any difference between giving the date of birth, and the year of birth.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 15:59, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
Live & Unreleased: A song with an iT link does not belong under the Live & Unreleased section; it no longer fits that description. L&U is a catch all for songs not appearing on any releases. This is why our footer refs are so important, and editor's research on sources pays off when ranking.
We are discussing current state of affairs with regards to songs. A song that is indicated today under L&U, due to only a tv appearance may next month become an official release and have to be moved under the relevant release section (SoC/SoS/ Alb/EP/Single) Similarly; what may today be a single may become part of an album next fall, so another move....
Surely exact birth dates have to be policed, we leave that to Wikipedia, not relevant to LW. HTH --ES (talk) 18:21, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
I meant change the heading for the relevant songs under Ricky Skaggs and Jordan Smith; their performances are youtube only.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 19:11, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
If they are YT only, then Live & Unreleased applies, indeed (not OLP/Single). --ES (talk) 19:44, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
Okay, next question. Why have you changed (under Ricky Skaggs) the title 'Collaborations' to 'Songs Featuring Ricky Skaggs'? Ray Charles & Ricky Skaggs:Friendship is a duet, with roughly equal contributions by the two artists.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 22:57, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
Collab better applies to {{Collaboration}}/Collaboration Album. SF can mean equal contrib, can mean X on one song on Y's album. Many songs at mb are simultaneously listed as XftY as well as X+Y. --ES (talk) 23:23, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
The song is a collaboration in the first sense, surely? It's even arguably on a collaboration album; all of the songs on the album are duets with Ray Charles.
There's a huge difference between a song in which an artist is singing backing vocals, or just contributes a few lines, and a duet. Surely there should be some way on the artist page of disambiguating these? For the same album, note that MusicBrainz describes the song Ray Charles & George Jones:We Didn't See A Thing as being a 'recording by Ray Charles & George Jones feat. Chet Atkins'; it is a duet between Charles and Jones, and Chet Atkins only contributes the odd line. This is a meaningful distinction. Where MusicBrainz doesn't make this distinction it's probably from lack of information, as you can only really tell the difference by listening to the whole song.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 01:26, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

(Backdenting) RWDC, I am sorry to repeat myself at the risk of boring my audience, but I did indicate the importance of {{SongFooter}} refs (excluding YT refs that is) with regards to songs/lyrics (the primary and most important of editors contributions), but... Kingnee - Musicbrainz RC ft RS. top of the morning to you. --ES (talk) 09:26, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

But MusicBrainz is, in this case, just wrong. Isn't part of the purpose of this Wiki that articles have the input of a real human being who can do things like listen to the song and read the album cover?
I also want to point out, again, that a number of these rules just aren't in the docs, which creates a very difficult editing environment.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 09:37, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
The album is by Ray Charles (<< click please). A collab album or collab artist in the sense at LW, may not match what is considered a collaboration in a scientific effort at an educational establishment, or even at discogs/allmusic. That is why we have human administrators who have better things to do than keep an eye on their badge/edit count, case in point: clarifying ambiguities that don't have a counter attached: Kingnee - Musicbrainz Track3:RC ft GJ&CA vs.Kingnee - Musicbrainz RC & GJ ft CA, as I indicated earlier. If you are representing any of the above mentioned artists with regards to their cut of their royalties, based on how they are indicated at LW, I applaud the effort... HTH --ES (talk) 10:04, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'a counter'?
I care about this because there's a clear terminological distinction between a collaboration and a song on which an artist is featured. If somebody looks up the Ricky Skaggs page, they may be uninterested in a song where he's 'featured', but interested in a full-scale duet.
The definition of a song ought to depend on the intrinsic properties of the song, not on whose album it may happen to appear on. MusicBrainz should not be used as a definitive source (and the docs say nothing about it). It just doesn't pay much attention to these things. For example, the song 'I Know You' from the album Whitey Morgan And The 78's:Grandpa's Guitar (2014) is wholly sung by Whitey Morgan's grandfather, William Henry Morgan. And yet the MB article describes the song as 'Featuring William Morgan'.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 10:25, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
You may be under the impression that this is the first time that this subject has come up, it is not. We have the option of indicating either notation (XftY vs. X+Y) on our artist pages which is for purposes I already mentioned above. Kindly visit the community Portal for further ado. The counter for this subject ran out. --ES (talk) 10:35, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Moving George Strait:House Of Cash

Moving pages, without a proper ref, is considered vandalism. And Specifically moving from one namespace to another. Moving songs from one artist to two or the other way around, on account collab/featuring/duet/with/vs/presenting (and equivalent in other languages & dialects) is best left to those with the necessary experience. This is your only warning. --ES (talk) 10:45, March 30, 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'without a proper ref'? I wrote 'duet' as my reason for renaming the page, which seemed sufficient. This is not in the site's definition of vandalism. What you are saying makes no sense. I changed some green songs on a green album. Green signifies that they have not received substantial human attention. If I had created the page myself, I would have created it with the two artists in the title.
Two days ago, you told me to check which pages link to a page before moving it. That implied that I could move pages, as I have been doing (tidying up 'other songs', and, yes, renaming duets). I have complied with this instruction. What, specifically, have I done wrong here?
You seem to keep imposing rules on me which just don't appear anywhere in the site's help documentation, and then threatening to block me.
RWDCollinson (talk) 10:57, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
There are thousands of songs on site that by your logic may attract the label of duet / collab / feat/ etc. A song performed by more than one artist is indicated as such by containing the links to (all artists); by Fa in header, Fa in creditbox, artist in header etc. A personal declaration by any editor is not sufficient justification to move pages. The academic definition of Duet (if it exists) does not apply at lw. This is a matter of admin & org.
You may wish to take a look at the Ray Charles album above (in the previous thread, the one with some songs performed with other artists) or peek at Randy Bachman:Heavy Blues (2015), where one may very well argue that the song Confessin' To The Devil excuse the blasphemous ref plz., is actually a duet with the late, great Jeff Healey, (+another 6 songs on the same album, where a green editor may declare them duets), there shall be no edit warring on account of such distinctions, by yourself or other editors. --ES (talk) 11:10, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the docs just don't lay these restrictions anywhere. You initially gave me advice about moving pages. You then said that pages should be moved with 'a proper ref', and haven't explained what that means. You now seem to be saying that only administrators can move pages, or at least that only administrators can label pages as duets. The two songs I changed are duets. If you listen to them, you'll hear an exactly equal contribution by both artists.
I have changed a large number of songs to duets, including all of the songs on the aforementioned Ray Charles album (which was a significant amount of work). In no case has the page creator (normally a bot anyway) complained; I have never been involved in an edit war.
When a user creates a page, he or she has to make a judgement about whether or not it is by one or two or more artists. Everybody has to be assumed to be competent to do this, just as every user is assumed to be competent to certify pages. Obviously, there are thousands of songs that may actually be duets; that's because there are tens of thousands of green songs on the website, and the bots don't seem to create duet pagetitles.
Obviously, any such potentially contentious alterations to Silver/Gold pages ought to be discussed with the person who is watching/has certified the page. But if Green pages cannot be changed by anyone, this Wikia is never going to get anywhere. You can't seriously expect the administrators to be able to cover all the duets on their own.
If somebody thinks that a song ought to be listed as a collaboration, what should that person do?
--RWDCollinson (talk) 11:32, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
Administrators are here to deal with what may not be clear in the docs, or totally missing from the docs. You can always put a {{Move}} request on the desired page.. What one editor may consider justification may be contradicted by the next editor, as plenty of your recent page moves indicate, (all of which I did not point out).
Another case in point is ranking artists Bronze by calling their YT only songs singles, I understand editors wanting their fav artist page to not have OS and be above Green. See the earlier thread regarding this matter on this very page plz.
And kindly the references belong on the song page, not by declaration on your talk page. I hope that is clear. --ES (talk) 14:40, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
But my whole point here is that this issue can only be decided by actually listening to the track, rather than references on other sites (however, the references that I listed below are all in the information for the relevant album; I added the asin to one of the pages during this discussion, but they were otherwise already there). Isn't that exactly the reason that we transcribe lyrics as actually sung, rather than using the 'official' lyrics?
Administrators should surely not be threatening people with punishment if they break rules which aren't set out anywhere. But more to the point, surely administrators don't have the power to enforce rules which don't exist, and the official rules are those which are publicly set out in the docs? You can't have an open Wiki-style format if the administrators are constantly saying, "No, actually, there's this secret rule that you've just broken." Like police everywhere, you're surely supposed to be enforcing the law, not your personal preferences.
And as I said previously, I haven't listed any YT-only song as singles, although I had on a couple of occasions omitted to put the iT link in (now rectified). As I understand the docs, YT-only songs can be classified as bronze, and a listing in 'Other Songs' is always a defect on a page.
Am I expected to ask for administrative help to redirect mistitled songs (of which I have done dozens)?
As I said previously, this system (which I am being castigated for violating even though it isn't set out publicly anywhere) is dependent on massive administrative effort, and there just aren't enough of you.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 14:55, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
PS: The documentation for the {{Move}} template actually says that it should be used only for artist pages, and I'm sure I read something about this being because changing artist names normally involving renaming a very large number of pages.
In fact, the text on the Requests for Moves Page (I couldn't work out how to do an internal link for that page, sorry) very clearly states that 'If you are a registered user you can move pages yourself' and that 'This page and the {{Move}} template is for requesting that an entire artist and all of its subpages be moved. This would normally be a herculean task for a user, but administrators have access to special tools and a script that can change the prefix of multiple pages more easily.'
This clearly affirms (i) that any user can move pages and (ii) that the Move template is intended only for renaming whole artists, and only then because it is such an enormous job. In the light of this, and the definition of vandalism that I've already quoted, and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, could you please acknowledge that I have not committed vandalism and remove the ugly warning sign from my talk page? It may or may not be LW's policy that only an administrator can change a page from X: to X & Y:, but if that policy is not published anywhere it can hardly be said to be vandalism to have unknowingly failed to comply with it.
If that is LW's policy (and if it is the docs really should be altered to reflect this immediately), I would like clarification on whether that also applies to changing {{ft}} to {{with}}, and changing {{fa1}} to {{artist2}} more generally.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 21:12, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
From what I can see, the issue is not with a non-admin's ability to move a page, but with the reasoning to move said page. ES took issue with the "lack of refs", meaning SongFooter info which agrees with your move. Moving with the reasoning "duet" was insufficient, but if moved with "duet according to majority of refs (see SF)" for example would have been better reasoning for the move. (Not to mention undoing an admins efforts without discussing it first - it may not of been intentionally malicious, but still not a good thing)
However, this does not mean I agree with the vandalism warning, as you're clearly a good editor willing to learn from mistakes (and this isn't the first time ES has been a bit heavy-handed with newer editors) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 21:33, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that; I very much appreciate it. I didn't initially understand what he'd meant by 'lack of refs' (I'm picking up the LW-lingo as I go along). On the edit you linked to, that happened at 10:37, before any of ES's comments on this page or his page (his first one was at 10:38 at his page and just told me to look at the comments on page, which he hadn't yet posted), and didn't actually undo anything that he'd done (I hadn't previously changed the {{fa1}} to {{artist2}}). It was certainly unwise given that I didn't know why he'd reverted the page name, though, and I'll be more careful if a page falls into contention in the future.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 21:54, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
So, as instructed, I've put three pages (Gary Stewart:Brotherly Love (1982), Tanya Tucker:A Thousand Ways, Tanya Tucker:Is Anybody Going To San Antone?) in the list of {{Move}} requests, although I still think this is actually a misuse of the 'Move' tag. The first of these is to change the album into 'Gary Stewart & Dean Dillon' (backed up by the album cover), and to change the other song titles in the album in line with that. The other two are just title changes backed-up by album back covers. Can I do these, and this kind of thing, on my own as long as I give the proper references? Or will I be banned? I'm still not clear on the official position on this (or for that matter how far administrators have discretion to make pronouncements outside of the docs).
I would still like this big vandalism warning to be removed from my page and was wondering if there's anybody I can appeal to. I edit under my own name (which is my choice, of course) and am worried about potential damage to my reputation.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 08:57, April 1, 2016 (UTC)

@Pat: Tremendous thanks for moving Gary Stewart:Brotherly Love (1982) album, but not all of the songs on the album are collaborations. If you look here, you'll see that there are six songs (three each) which are single-artist. --RWDCollinson (talk) 11:39, April 1, 2016 (UTC)

Are they actual single artist songs, or they just songs where only one artists sings, while the other artist still does instruments? I'm not an expert on the album in question, but the other sources seem to list all songs as straight-up collabs. That allmusic link certainly doesn't make things clear (Gary Stewart & Dean Dillon feat. Dean Dillon & Gary Stewart - what?)
In regards to your ability to move, you are allowed to move pages given you provide refs (EDIT: and update ltrs). If you need a second opinion, you can always message an admin for help (my talk page is always open) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 11:51, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. The allmusic page includes a review that explains what it's talking about. It's using 'feat' to describe who the artist actually is; so you'll see that, in accordance with the review, there are four songs with both artists, and three songs each 'featuring' each artist singly.
My best bet is that those are genuine solo efforts; in any case, some of them (eg, Gary Stewart:Cold Turkey are on compilation albums without the other artist being credited.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 13:14, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:08, April 1, 2016 (UTC)

Is there somewhere that I can appeal to have this vandalism warning removed from my talk page? As noted in the extensive discussion above, I intended no malice, I desisted when my talk page was edited, and my activities don't fall under the definition of vandalism given in the docs. I really don't like the idea that anybody searching for my name on Google could find this page and the serious accusation flagged up by the big yellow vandalism warning. --RWDCollinson (talk) 08:46, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

done6×9 (Talk) 17:25, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

House of Cash

(Moved from my talk page) This is a duet. I just renamed it to 'George Strait & Patty Loveless:House of Cash', and changed all the links to the page. Why did you change it back? --RWDCollinson (talk) 10:36, March 30, 2016 (UTC)

Please see your own talk page, regarding this very matter. cheers --ES (talk) 10:38, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
We haven't discussed this question. We did talk about the titles that should be used on the artist pages (and, as you suggested, I have brought this question up on the community pages). This is a totally different matter. If you listen to George Strait:House Of Cash, you will discern that it is a duet. What's the problem?
--RWDCollinson (talk) 10:41, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
see above --ES (talk) 10:46, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
Restarting the same damaging edits from another namespace and starting a new thread on my talk page is not appreciated at ::::all. Kindly read your own talk page, and keep it all here. --12:27, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Your first post on my page was at 10:45. My first post on your page was at 10:36, and I followed up at 10:41. You hadn't posted anything on my talk page by that point. I haven't made any edits on your talk page since 10:45. However, 6x9 has since edited that discussion.
To address the point that 6x9 makes, surely a duet is by definition a collaboration between two artists? There are two artists who sung the song. If it appeared as a single rather than on an album, they'd both be credited. The LW philosophy is apparently to go primarily on the sung lyrics, so presumably songs should be categorised according to the actual vocal contribution of the artists, rather than what the back cover says. I have no idea what the back cover says; I don't have the CD. However, iTunes lists the artist for 'House of Cash' as 'George Strait & Patty Loveless', and the artist for West Texas Town as 'George Strait & Dean Dillon'. Amazon and Allmusic do the same. MB just lists Dillon and Loveless as featured, but as I say, that's clearly because they haven't listened to the songs. Discogs and WP both acknowledge that these songs are duets.
If not, what is the LW definition of a collaboration?
I am still hoping that you will withdraw your claim that I have vandalised a page. I have completed all edits in good faith, and (as I have said repeatedly) your claim that changing the name of a page is vandalism is not supported by the docs.
It is not unreasonable to expect not to be threatened when my behaviour is entirely in line with the site documentation, and when I've been doing this kind of things for months without complaint.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 13:12, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
PS: I have now found a copy of the album back cover on Amazon. That lists 'House of Cash' as 'Duet with Patty Loveless' and 'West Texas Town' as 'Duet with Dean Dillon'. Surely that is equivalent to listing them as artists, as 6x9 required?
As someone who had no horses in this race, I'm inclined to agree with Ronnie, as the majority of sources (iT, asin, WP, Spot) say it's with, while only AllM and sacred MB say it's a feature credit. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:58, March 30, 2016 (UTC)

Album covers

Hi Ronnie, I saw higher up in your talk page about getting high quality album covers from iTunes. I just wanted to show you this site which I use and find very helpful. Images are 600x600 so will need to be shrank down to 500x500 (which can be done in Paint). Hope this helps you - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 16:29, March 30, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. I'll use this in the future. To be honest, I was initially worried by the text on the uploading page which warns against excessively high-resolution images! --RWDCollinson (talk) 21:03, March 30, 2016 (UTC)

VN for alternating lines

Hey Ronnie, what do you think of my edit? Looks more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:41, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Given the short lines, that works a lot better! Thanks. But are you sure that we should be using just first names, given that (presumably) none of us actually know the singers? (Incidentally, I think this is a really good example of a duet that needs the different parts to labelled in order for it to make sense)
While you're here, do you have guidance on which YouTube video should be used if the only alternatives are (i) audio only and (ii) actually a video, but with poor audio quality?
--RWDCollinson (talk) 14:50, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
I think it's safe to use just first names (full names could make the lines needlessly long). If you really want, you could have the first two notations use full names, and then the rest use just the first.
In regards to your second question, IMO higher quality trumps the video. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:57, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Invalid Youtubes

Hi, Ronnie

You may want to check this list to find 14 Gold and Silver songs, watched by you and containing links to not existing or unembeddable YT videos. --Senvaikis (talk) 05:59, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've fixed all of mine (insofar as they were fixable), plus a few others. Can I delete them from your list?
--RWDCollinson (talk) 10:01, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
Well Done! Sure, you can, - thx! --Senvaikis (talk) 10:39, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

RWDs Duets?

According to which source songs on John Prine:For Better, Or Worse (2016) are duets? None of the page names of the songs may contain &, so the entire album is in violation of LW:PN. --ES(talk) 12:08, December 8, 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds of pages on LW contain &. The page you referred to says only 'Words should not be substituted with their equivalent symbols if the word is an official part of the name (& for And, @ for At, etc.).' These duets are not part of a group, so there is no 'official' name'. (It also says, contrariwise, that 'Symbols should also not be substituted with their word-equivalent if the symbol is an official part of the name'; that clearly envisions that page names may contain symbols) shows them as duets (which I take to be pretty credible, as they're a large commercial company which would want to get the crediting right). The album back cover, visible on discogs, shows that the credit is 'with' rather than 'featuring'. And, of course, you can just listen to the songs.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 12:13, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
While the back cover exists on discogs to verify that all of them are featuring artists, each guest on one song? Not to mention spt/mb/iT listings.
Or maybe you are under the false impression that every featuring artist on every song means that the page name has to be changed and &'d on your preference? The many song page names that contain & are like so for a reason, not to accommodate featuring artists. example: any Duet by Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong. --ES (talk) 12:28, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
The back cover does not use the word 'featuring'. I agree that 'with' can sometimes signify 'featuring' rather than a full duet, but these are, in fact, full duets. They could just as easily appear on albums by the guest artists, and it may be that they do in the future. As I say, gives them both full artist credits, and the back cover does nothing to contradict this. This isn't an arbitrary decision, nor one unsupported by any source. There *is* a conflict amongst the sources, but in that case presumably the best thing to do is to listen to the songs and ascertain whether both artists deserve full vocal credit. In this case, it seems obvious that they do.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 12:42, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
As for violation of LW:PN, which you did not grasp: Changing John Prine:Storms Never Last to John Prine & Lee Ann Womack:Storms Never Last. --ES (talk) 12:47, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not grasping it. Please quote the line from the docs which I am violating. --RWDCollinson (talk) 12:58, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
Song Pages: Song pages should be named in the same way: Artist:Song. Added song notations (such as featured artists, live performances, bonus tracks, hidden tracks, etc.) that are not part of the song's title should be left off of the song's name whenever possible, and added parenthetically after the link.
You do recall why the Collab artist pages you created and edited contain an "&" in every song and albums page....--ES (talk) 13:10, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
It's not a featured artist. It's a duet artist. The song is sung jointly by two people at roughly equal measure, and this is recognised in at least one source. The fact that it's currently only found on a John Prine album shouldn't affect the song name; what should affect the song name is whether there is one primary artist, or two. There are two, and I do not think that (in this case) the second artist should be relegated to 'featured'.
As I said, there is no reason why this song couldn't appear on a Lee Ann Womack album as well, and in that case nobody would dispute the notation. But the song name shouldn't depend on which albums it appears on.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 13:30, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
Where on the album sleeve do we see John Prine &...:Song Title?
If we go by your logic, every song that includes a featuring artist must be moved from Artist:Song to Artist & Feat:Song --ES (talk) 13:38, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
That is absolutely not what I'm saying. I am saying that this should be treated as a one-song collaboration. Both artists must be included, because neither of them should be relegated to 'featured' status. (And it's hardly surprising that the album cover doesn't use LW notation).
To pick another example, illustrating what I was saying earlier: the song Dolly Parton & Ricky Van Shelton:Rockin' Years appeared on albums by both Dolly Parton and Ricky Van Shelton. These were otherwise solo albums. It is a duet. You might consider Van Shelton to be 'featured' on the Parton album, or Parton to be 'featured' on the Van Shelton. But in fact, Rockin' Years is a full duet, and recognised as such in (some) sources. It is therefore appropriate that the page title include both Parton and Van Shelton. And this would be true even if it did not actually appear on albums by both artists. What matters is surely whether the song is credited equally to both artists, or whether one of them is only 'featured'.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 13:47, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
The Ultimate reference is the album sleeve, not an interpretation of it which leads into an undefined duet artist: How is it disambiguated from a feat artist? Which (per abpve link) may not be included in the page name except for disambiguating two versions of one song which differ in lyrics and performed with a feat?
The songs of JP's album have yet to be published by the feat artists...On every specimen purchased from iT the Artist does not appear as JP & feat..., and indeed feat is a notation after the title that is clearly explained in our docs.
As for who relegated the non prime artists on JP's album to feats (or w/feat to be exact, as a notation after the title), I believe that was the choice of the publishers, which is our ultimate ref. Hope that is clear. --ES (talk) 14:06, December 8, 2016 (UTC)
It isn't clear, because I don't believe the publishers did make that choice. Let me give you an even clearer example. There is a Ray Charles country duets album, Ray Charles:Friendship (1984). Like the new John Prine album, the album back cover uses the notation 'with' for each of these songs. But some of the songs, such as Ray Charles & Willie Nelson:Seven Spanish Angels, appear on albums by both artists. For the sake of consistency, all songs on that album therefore take 'with' to mean that it is a full duet (and indeed, when you listen to them, you can see that this is the case), with both artists being given full vocal credits.
In this case, you can see that this was the intention of the publisher. How? Because the album sleeve also uses the term 'feat' for the song Ray Charles & George Jones:We Didn't See A Thing, which is listed as with George Jones but features Chet Atkins, who has a much smaller role in the song. Here, with obviously does not mean 'featuring', but something stronger than featuring. Indeed, I'd argue that with normally connotes a full duet in which both artists are to be given full vocal credit, and neither is to be considered the sole artist.
It's obvious for 'Friendship' that all the songs should have page names with all the artists, except that Chet Atkins should not appear on 'We Didn't See A Thing', because he has a lesser role than Ray Charles or George Jones. There is no reason to treat 'For better, or Worse' differently to 'Friendship' (and I fully expect that am and mb will get up to speed at some point and change the songs to dual-credit, as Amazon already has done).
--RWDCollinson (talk) 06:39, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

Actually your example is very clear: Ray Charles Duets album and We Didn't See a Thing on the sleeve and here @ lw, Chet Atkins is not in the song page name, Jones is. As for what a duet is, it is a song sang by two singers (per OED), but that makes all two singer songs Duets, How do we distinguish Duets from feat artists? per cover...per policy.
When a song is Published (the present tense) in two formats (ArtistA feat B) & (ArtistB feat A), then we file it at "A & B" to avoid duplication and edits going to multiple song pages, and also create redirects from solos to the "A & B", since the same song (be it indicated as a duet or as a feat) even if published under multiple names will be filed @lw only in one place. This issue does not even require multiple artists being involved; This matter is due to our page naming policy (avoiding identical songs under multiple page names), even if all examples of the song on releases by both artists only indicate it as "A feat B" or "B feat A" (contrary to both publishers' lack of "With" on sleeves).
In the case of JP songs on the album in question, non have yet been published by the feat artist on their albums as Artist (feat JP) or Artist (With JP), so the page names stay as "JP:Song" not "JP & feat:Song". The case for Friendship is clear from the album cover, as is the case for JP, Or you may wish to study Memories of My Trip (2011) where both feat and With are used and indicated here per cover. So please take this as your one more warning regarding making up page names. hth

I do not understand your first paragraph. My point is that the album distinguishes between joint and equal vocal credit, and 'featuring'. This is exactly my point. I would not change 'Didn't See A Thing' to 'Ray Charles, George Jones and Chet Atkins', because Chet Atkins is only 'featured', whereas George Jones is 'with'.
The logical conclusion of your argument is that 'Didn't See A Thing' should just be Ray Charles:Didn't See A Thing, with both Jones and Atkins listed as 'featured', despite the distinction made on the album cover, and despite the fact that this would introduce an inconsistency of format with Seven Spanish Angels. You seem to be arguing that Seven Spanish Angels should be listed as 'Ray Charles & Willie Nelson', whereas the & should be dropped from the other songs. That would be absurd.
I agree that we should go with the album cover, but when the word 'with' is used we have to exercise some interpretation. If a song has two artists who both get full vocal credit, with neither being the 'primary' artist in terms of that song, then it shouldn't matter whose album it came from. As I've said, Amazon is clearly adopting this policy. It makes no sense to say that 'Storms Never Last' is more John Prine's song than it is Lee Ann Womack's song. That's why Amazon lists both as artists (and I fully expect, as I say, that the other sources will follow suit when their editors perceive that this is largely a duets album).
And I'm not making things up. I'm following the practice I've seen elsewhere on LW, given that the docs do not set a uniform policy for naming single songs resulting from an equal collaboration between two artists on a single-artist album. (Personally, I think it should always be & rather than With or And where the collaboration has no official name, simply because that's the most common usage on the site. But that's another issue)
Again: how is the album cover for Friendship different to the album cover for the album cover for 'For Better, Or Worse'? In both cases, the only information given about the vocal credits is the word 'with'. What we have to ask is whether Lee Ann Womack is a second artist (like George Jones) or a featured artist (like Chet Atkins).
--RWDCollinson (talk) 11:08, December 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Vocal Credits: LW:PN does not address and is not concerned with vocal credits.
If that was the case
1) Winin' Boy Blues by Chris Barber's Six-Piece (featuring Jools Holland) (per cover) would have to be moved to "Jools Holland:Winin' Boy Blues (featuring Chris Barber's Six Piece)", since it is entirely sung by JH, not CB.
2) Have a Cigar by Pink Floyd by your judgement would have to be moved to "Roy Harper:Have A Cigar", since Harper is the sole vocalist, plz see CB on page. Why Harper was not indicated as "feat" or "with" was the choice of the publishers, not any editor @lw, further it has not yet been published on a release by Harper, at which point we would merge the two pages into A&B:Song, not based on one editors' preference or expectations of future releases with alternate title/performer.
  • The location on a page to make a clear distinction re credits (vocal, aural, visual) is {{CreditBox}}, not the Page Name.
  • Unless new releases are published which may justify changing the page name of JPs songs on the album in question, those page names will be reverted to their original location (per cover) as JP:Song, feat in SH/CB.
Please refrain from including notations in Page Names, per LW:PN. Happy editing. --ES (talk) 00:54, December 10, 2016 (UTC)
You have understood my position. I do think the names of those songs should be changed, at least to include the actual vocalist in the page name. 'Who is the vocalist?' is not a subjective question (I recognise that there is a question of judgement regarding who is the main vocalist, or if there is an equal vocal contribution, although in many cases it will be clear). It does not serve the user. If the user has heard a song sung by Jools Holland, he or she should be able to find that song listed under Jools Holland. It is absurd that Roy Harper is not even listed as 'featured' on the 'Have A Cigar' page. It is a statement of fact that Roy Harper is featured on that song (indeed, that he is the artist who sang the song), and in such a clear case that must surely trump the album cover (although I am not arguing for disregarding the album cover in the John Prine case; I believe the album cover supports my argument. The cases are not, therefore, analogous).
LW:PN says that the page name should follow the name of the artist. It does not specify who the artist is. The policy you are advocating is not in the docs, is profoundly counter-intuitive (especially given your insistence on the fact that we are not a discography site), and makes the page names depend too much on album notation rather than audible reality. Given that what you are saying is not laid out in the docs, but rather concerns who is the 'artist' and who is 'featured', the voice of command does not seem appropriate here.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 01:12, December 11, 2016 (UTC)
wondering if your account has been compromised
(incredulous) Help:FA#Songs_Featuring_This_Artist, SoCS, SoS etc. (or where do feats go on feat artist's page)
The artist may appear as a featured performer on songs that were released by another artist
You provided no further clarification, beyond your opinion as to how lwpn should be modified to back up your opinion. I suggest pursuing this objective @ the Community Portal, specially given that the append vocalist(?) to page name (by anyone's judgement) will have a huge impact on existing song pages that contain feat in SH/CB, and contain (feat notation) per sleeve, or any song whose featured vocalist does not match the "prime artist". All the best. --ES (talk) 02:25, December 11, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.