Talk:Hellraiser (Ozzy Osbourne and Motörhead song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General[edit]

This needs a better quality picture. Alf 15:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

  • Removed song lyrics as potential copyvio - emailed motorhead official website 'talk to band' and asked the man himself for his permission. Alf 21:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mikkey Dee's first recording mentioned in "White Line Fever" , Lemmy's autobiography (page 243).

Merge[edit]

No it buggers up otherwise complete and fully integrated discographies.--Alf melmac 10:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seconded, completely different release, version; and technically and intellectually different in every way. Bubba hotep 11:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it's the same song! Following precedent set by Knockin' on Heaven's Door, Under Pressure etc.. --Jamdav86 09:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The as per other article is not an argument, there is a fundamental flaw with how singles and songs are now treated - mostly caused by the virtually inactive Project Songs, the individuals of which set the idea some time ago, did not listen to other arguments and have now since stopped editing. There is a problem with singles and songs, which isn't solved by merging two things which have disperate discographies. Where artists are considered to be very notable, their discographies are notable by default. Please take a look from the reader's point of view who would ideally like one article about the song and for those major artists, an article on the singles also.--Alf melmac 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - same song=same article, just have it divided to tell about the different versions.
--Rock Soldier 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same song, different single, same argument as before: WP:NOT (paper), ease of nav - reader usage better, discography then incomplete. I will argue the same until the dumb "guidance" that people sheeplike follow is actually stated or set somewhere...--Alf melmac 05:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article for the Ozzy version is hardly even necessary. It could very easily be merged with this one if we just add the infobox from that one to this page and mention how it was originally by Ozzy and was featured in Grand Theft Auto.
-Rock Soldier 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the editor(s) of the motorhead singles have put more time and effort into their contributions than the Osbourne editor(s), it should be a reason for mixing two different singles? We are not short of space, if an overview article about the song is needed, it will be written, the info in the articles, as yet, is about the singles.--22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The way I see it, there's just no point in having a separate article for the Ozzy version.
--Rock Soldier 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. – B.hotep u/t• 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, because "yawn", it makes sense to have them as separate pages.
--Rock Soldier 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you finally see it that way. :) – B.hotep u/t• 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way: what significance does the Ozzy version bear that makes it worth having a separate article for?

--Rock Soldier 00:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you may be right. There is nothing significant in the Ozzy version. It's just a song. Not a single, just a song off an album. Maybe it should redirect to No More Tears? – B.hotep u/t• 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it can be mentioned on this page. If you can prove it wasn't a single, however, then the single box can be removed. --Jamdav86 20:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to prove anything. So please stop stamping around changing thinhs without consensus. :) – B.hotep u/t• 20:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to prove everything on Wikipedia or it gets removed, as any experienced Wikipedia editor will know. Please tone down your tribal attitude towards this page as you are nearing the 3 revert rule. As for consensus, there is a prior precedent for articles such as this, that exists only to make articles read better. You have contribute little to the discussion, and what you have contributed is an unsubstantiated claim and comments that are designed only to rile up other editors. As I see it, there has not been one argument put forward by the opposing side that trumps prior policy. The discography reasoning has very little ground, as Hellraiser (Ozzy Osbourne song) isn't a much-linked to page (in fact, I only found five that weren't on talk pages or botlogs). It requires no change to the Motorhead pages at all. The only other arguments so far have little to do with the article, but instead complain about the state of song articles in general and an attempt to organise opposing factions of Motorhead and Ozzy Osbourne editors.

This issue was first raised by me in February 2007, and in the four months that followed only four editors have looked at the discussion. In fact, a quick count showed that there are only about 15 editors of this article in total, some of these bots. I hope this will convince you that Hellraiser is a virtually ignored page, so there is no use getting worked up about all that the merging entails: an infobox, which can possibly be merged together with the existing one if it were so wished, and a few link changes, which have all been taken care of. What possible objection could there be left? --Jamdav86 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could just as easily prove it yourself. Things don't get removed from Wikipedia for lacking sources. They get sourced. Any experienced editor knows that, too. – B.hotep u/t• 21:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, have you even looked at what I changed? I kept most of the changes you made, with the exception of using only one infobox. The mention of the Ozzy version was still there. All I am doing now is saying the Ozzy one would be better served redirecting to the album article. Did you read the Ozzy version, it said that it was never released as a single. I would tend to believe that, sourced or not, but if you would like to throw policy at me and insult my supposed lack of knowledge, please be my guest. :) – B.hotep u/t• 21:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Link to original version. The text you are after is "The song is one of the most well known Ozzy Osbourne songs (despite never being issued as a single), and was featured in the popular video game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."
Ozzy never released this song as a single, his version only appears on his album No More Tears Ozzy discography, so that false info had to be removed. Jamdav "as any experienced editor knows" is highly offensive directed either at Bubba or me - go check each accounts edits and compare with your own dude. The Ozzy page should be set up as other song tracks from albums are and not as a single, I'm going to try and fix that now if I don't get too busy on what I expect will be a very busy day.--Alf melmac 06:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shame Motorhead didn't see forsee the problems wiki would have with naming conventions and just name it "The single from Hell" instead, then there would be no issue, pretend they did and see if you can make the same arguments...--Alf melmac08:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jamdav - you mention it's policy - show me.--Alf melmac 08:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I really cannot comprehend why you are all quibbling over this. All the merge would require is the song (I'll concede that it wasn't a single) infobox from the Ozzy Osbourne page put at the top of this one. It doesn't even require an Ozzy Osbourne image on this page - I doubt the No More Tears album cover is covered under WP:FU (a warning on the Ozzy page will back me up on this).

As for policy, I don't think a written one exists (and due to the inactivity of WP:SONGS might never) but I could point you to more song pages - for much more significant songs - set up the way I propose than the current set-up: Mr. Tambourine Man (which probably bears most similarity to this page), Knockin' on Heaven's Door, Under Pressure, Another Girl, Another Planet, and so on. But really I think the crux of the dispute is whether you think date of original recording is much more significant than it existing as a single - I go for the former, you go for the latter. --Jamdav86 16:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd like articles about songs to actually be about the song, what key it is written in, how it is scored (if applicable), how many bars, how many verses, how many choruses and if there's a bridge and coda, when it was written and peripheral details like why it was written, articles about singles I'd like about singles and their production, their place in the music timeline, who was inlvolved and what formats it was available in. At present virtually all song articles are about singles with scant acknoweldgement that somebody sat down and wrote the song. I place no greater value over a song than I do an article about a single and no greater value of one date over another.--Alf melmac 16:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your objection to the merge? --Jamdav86 17:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from what's above? First, really imagine that Motorhead had called this single "The single from Hell" and Ozzy kept the track title as it is, does your argument for a merge stand then? I think it will not, the problem as I have said many many times before is that it's a naming issue, not a merging issue.--Alf melmac 17:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The general consensus, established by various precedents, is to have one article per song. There's certainly no problem here when all of the information can easily and adequately be covered in one article. GassyGuy 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly what I was saying, albeit in a less concise form. --Jamdav86 20:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK so don't imagine it, don't wake up from the filter that you've taken on and see how badly this treats the subjects.--Alf melmac 12:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get what you mean by 'badly tretaing the subjects', and I still cannot understand why you are so vehemently objecting to either this or this? They're more accurate and don't involve having inconsistent disambiguation, so what's the problem?. --Jamdav86 16:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there's no issue with the merge, and your only objection is the naming of the article, that's easy:
  • If there's no other notable song with this name, the article can reside at Hellraiser (song), which seems likely.
  • If there is some other song that needs an article, this article will be named by the original version, so either Hellraiser (Ozzy Osbourne song) or Hellraiser (Motörhead song).
  • If it is impossible to indisputably determine which version is the original, then the article could reside at Hellraiser (1991 song), as is the case with many other songs when several versions were released simultaneously and an original cannot be easily determined.
  • So, naming the article really won't be an issue at all if the merge proceeds, as I still think it should. GassyGuy 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have an issue the naming scheme in that it is prosciptive when it doesn't have to be, that the argument that all singles which have the a recording of the one song on the A-side need to be stuffed into one place, on a foo (song) named article. Songs are not the same as singles as much as novels are not the same as graphic comic versions, films, television adaptions and radio adaptions, all of which would get an article of their own undisputedly, but when it's a single, uh-huh, only allowed one page - that's just nonsense. How many pages of fictional planets, universes, characters and all to support one televsion series, which may well have a main page, a page for the episodes and more, but can famous artists have their own pages for their own production, well not if they've recorded the same some to put a the A-side, gotta be all the same page. It's just nonsense, I don't see why you can't see it.--Alf melmac 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, what's wrong with current situation? - Hellraiser (Ozzy Osbourne song) redirects to No More Tears and this page is at a simple title, until someone else decides to write another song with the same name. It's fine as is.--Alf melmac 07:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this appears to be covered by WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Anyhow, the page was not a redirect at the time I accessed it and this discussion. I have no problem with Hellraiser (Ozzy Osbourne song) as a redirect to the album on which it appeared. It simply shouldn't be its own article. GassyGuy 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me that my view is in fact about keeping crap, notwithstanding the fact the line of that essay states, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." "It simply shouldn't have it's own article" is a nonsense phrase unqualified, you'd feel the same if there was 150kb of data about it? Don't bother to answer, I don't want an answer after being told mine is a non-argument.--Alf melmac 06:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice from your talk page that you've said more than once over the last year that having all singles together on one song page is a policy - show me.--Alf melmac 06:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just one question - if this article is supposed to be only about the Motörhead version, why does the article start by saying "Hellraiser is a song by Ozzy Osbourne and heavy metal band Motörhead"? That suggests that it's about versions. I suggest that the article either lives up to that statement or that it is changed to something like "Hellraiser is a song by heavy metal band Motörhead, previously recorded in 1991 by Ozzy Osbourne for his album No More Tears."
Oh, and shouldn't the Ozzy template be removed, since this article doesn't really relate to him?
--Rock Soldier 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a compromise to a full-scale merge. Do what you like with it, you don't usually bother asking. – B.hotep u/t• 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with things as is for the mo to avoid any further grief, but yes, you can guess, my vote would be for having an article about a Motörhead single at Hellraiser (Motörhead single) or Hellraiser (single). It would then leave Hellraiser (song) available for disambiguation in this case as I figure that it'll be 40/40 as to what they're looking for when typing in Hellraiser (song).--Alf melmac 10:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...But it's the same song... --Jamdav86 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many many of the Dracula films cover exactly the same story - they each have their own article. The current situation is that Hellraiser (Ozzy Osbourne song) redirects to No More Tears album, where the info is, the Motorhead single is covered on this article, so you're suggesting we merge this article into Ozzy's No More Tears?!!--Alf melmac 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting what I suggested before: add an Ozzy infobox and a line or two on his song to the top of the page, and an Ozzy navbox and categories to the bottom. --Jamdav86

Which infobox? There is one for songs (blue) one for singles (yukky) one for albums (blue) - Songs which have a single as the A-side usually use the single box, Ozzy's version appeared on album, I've no problem adding a nav for the track on the album, as you'll see in the next edit. It already opens with Ozzy being mentioned before you take your first breath, if you think there is anything else really pertinent to the song itself rather than the recording the song on Ozzy's album, do by all means add it, I can't see anything to do so. It's already in Categories: Motörhead songs | Ozzy Osbourne songs | 1992 singles | Hellraiser , which other category do you have in mind?

As it is when I left it was all that I wanted. That's why I was so baffled that you resisted the merge taking place - since so little practical work had to be done, you seemed to be objecting to the very concept of mergeing, which is very strange. --Jamdav86 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was not yes ok merge, as you have just done. What's wrong with with how it was, I was just working on mixed box and you merge. FFS.--Alf melmac 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. If you can merge the infoboxes, that's even better. Don't be put off cos of my boneheadedness, I assumed you'd fnished. --Jamdav86 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we delete Hellraiser (song)/Merge 1 and Hellraiser (song)/Merge 2?
--Rock Soldier 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever. --Jamdav86 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ozzy Osbourne - No More Tears.JPG[edit]

The image Image:Ozzy Osbourne - No More Tears.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hellraiser_(Ozzy_Osbourne_and_Motörhead_song)&oldid=1207614854"