Talk:Dust My Broom/Archive 1

Fight, fight, fight!
Seems to be some disagreement about one of the assertions in the text of the entry. If so that should be here not in the entry itself. MDuchek 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Meaning?
Erm, so! What does "to dust (one's) broom" actually mean? Maikel (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Johnson Song: Separate Entry?
I have started an entry for I Believe I'll Dust My Broom. There was already a link to an entry from the Robert Johnson entry. Some of my information (taken from Elijah Wald) adds to and corrects this entry. Some of the information here could supplement the I Believe I'll Dust My Broom entry.

Can anybody suggest how to resolve this? People reading up Robert Johnson should be able to access the song. But so should people reading up Elmore James. Do we need two entries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCrosbie (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! All this is by meDavidCrosbie (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the above remark on June 4, I have merged the two pages and added considerably. I think it now stands as a single treatment of the song up to the time of copyright. Can anybody contribute to the history of the song after Elmore James's record?DavidCrosbie (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meaning
My impression is that the singer is going through a thorough cleaning of his life. In fact he's so complelety cleaned out his life, that the last step is to clean the cleaning instrument, i.e. the broom. To put that in more explicit terms, his woman was the cleaner of his life and now she has been cleaned out of his life also. It is simply a play on words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeall (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty certain that it is a reference to Jumping the Broom, which is still performed during some black weddings. Jumping the Broom at one time symbolized a marriage when a formal ceremony wasn't otherwise available. Dusting the broom may symbolize a "common-law" divorce. Elmore James' band's name "The Broomdusters" would then be conceptually similar to "The Heartbreakers." Unfortunately, I cannot verify this. Lineanus (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes
It is very unorthodox and non standard to have more than one infobox per song on any one page. I am wondering if this can be resolved. It seems to be a question of going somewhat overboard on the infobox issue. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The absolute minimum would be two: for the Robert Johnson record and the Elmore James record. This would have been 'orthodox' and 'standard' when they were two separate articles. I asked for opinion and advice before merging them, but nobody responded.

The question to ask is not whether this article is orthodox and standard, but whether it's informative and useful to people with different interests in the song. I like the look of the infoboxes, but then I'm biased.

If only some rock fan(s) could to bring things up to date! DavidCrosbie (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually do not know of a single other article where multiple infoboxes have been used in this manner. The article was mean to represent the original version of the song (as nearly as possible). Other versions of the song can be mentioned, but do not need their own infobox in my opinion. Although I wrote the original article, I notice the article no longer follows WP:MOS or WikiProject Songs. I may try to clean it up. Please try to follow the standards of Wikipedia for articles in general and articles on particular subjects. It is sad to see this article deteriorate. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 13:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On most matters of formatting I bow to your greater experience. (Though I'm sure that you're wrong about the separation of footnotes and references and the exceptional formatting of the first sentence). I'm grateful for the laborious changes that you're making to things like song titles. However, I don't see how all the information I've added counts as deterioration. DavidCrosbie (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and References
If somebody wants to separate these as Matisse wishes, they're welcome to do so. (Though having seen this in one other article, I don't find it helpful.) All the available information is there for separating out. One of the books has no ISBN because of its publication date. Meanwhile, the empty 'References' is confusing.DavidCrosbie (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw that invitation. The notes for beginners clearly recommend a different solution to the problem Matisse identified. The official way (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners) removes the possibility of including page numbers when a reference is used twice, but books do have indexes.DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This format is much easier for readers. A single click takes them to the source and its reference details. Presumably that is why Wikipedia recommend it. By contrast, a separation of footnotes from references leaves the reader with no easy navigation to the reference details. The loss of page number reference is a small price to pay for the extra convenience. DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A separate Reference section is needed with some referencing systems, for example, when the Harvard notation system is used. The footnotes go in one section (the page numbers), then the complete reference to the book, journal or whatever goes into another. Also, in some articles, editors put notes (comments or clarifications, for example, that are not page numbers or source references). These go into a Notes section. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the system that Wikipedia demands. DavidCrosbie (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your are mistaken. The information you are using Referencing for beginners is an essay, not Wikipedia policy or guideline, and therefore it is just some editor's opinion. Please consult WP:MOS, WP:Footnotes and other official sources of policy and guidelines. In Citing sources, please note how Wikipedia handles this in its own articles. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Layout. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Support removal of all the extra infoboxes
I looked at the featured articles on songs at WikiProject Songs and none of them had more than one infobox. The infobox is meant for a single; the information about covers can follow but are not mean to have infoboxes. I urge you to consider removing them for the sake of the article. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some grand editor to explain some over-arching policy to explain and ask me to change, then I'll comply. Thanks. DavidCrosbie (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the examples that the examples WikiProject Songs provides as model articles for songs (copied from WikiProject Songs article):

The following is a list of featured articles on songs and singles. These are articles that the community as a whole have judged as being some of the best articles on Wikipedia. They can serve as excellent examples for articles on singles and songs.


 * "1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)"
 * "All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song)"
 * "Angel of Death"
 * "Bam Thwok"
 * "Cool"
 * "Dixie"
 * "Eyes of the Insane"
 * "Fuck the Millennium"
 * "Hey Baby"
 * "Hey Jude"
 * "Hey Ya!"
 * "Hollaback Girl"


 * "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction"
 * "Jihad"
 * "Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)"
 * "Layla"
 * "The Long and Winding Road"
 * "Old Dan Tucker"
 * "Rich Girl"
 * "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
 * "Something"
 * "Today"
 * "What You Waiting For?"
 * "Yesterday"

Please try to made this a good article. You and I both know that neither of us WP:OWN the articles. However, several music articles that I received a DYK award for and were nice little articles that conformed with WP:MOS have now deteriorated, and I do feel bad because of that. I will not stand in your way as you seemed determined to do what you will. But there is no pleasure in seeing an article go down hill because of poor formatting and failure to follow the rules. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course I don't own the article. I simply got more and more interested in the song, because there's a flowering of research into Johnson's true originality, balanced with his more derivative practices. Nobody responded to my question about keeping Dust My Broom and I Believe I'll Dust My broom as separate articles. So I introduced this fascinating and fairly complex material into what had been a simple stub. I'm doing my best to make the structure clear, and I value some of your comments and changes.

Being a relative novice, I copied my formatting from other pages. I accept that many of the decisions I made on the basis of this were non-standard, and I'm happy to see you correct them. However, I see little value in separating notes from references. It goes against the logic of the Insert footnote text here< / r e f > facility. And how would you create a link between the note and the reference? I didn't invent the Notes and reference method; I copied it from other users, then looked it up and found it recommended.

And I feel happier sticking with old conventions for first sentence and album titles.

As for the infoboxes, I feel that they serve a purpose. Surely there's a mechanism for resolving the dispute? DavidCrosbie (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You were right that I incorrectly removed the bolding from the first sentence of the article. As far as References and Footnotes you are not correct. Please see Layout. These are policies and guidelines, not some editor's opinion essay. Many old articles are wrong and just have not been fixed so if you copy them you perpetuate the backlog of mess that Wikipedia has to deal with. It is definitely best to  follow WP:MOS and its associated articles.


 * As far as the infoboxes, can you find a good article that includes more that one? If you can show me an example of a good article that features more than one infobox, then I would consider it. We can go to Dispute Resolution or a Mediation if you want. There are many editors who write song articles (see the list above, for example) and we could involve some of them and their opinions. We could involve the editors who wrote the standards for the song infoboxes. It is always better to settle things informally, but if you are going to insist on a nonstandard procedure, I may be willing to take the steps to formally settle a dispute.


 * Alternatively, we could submit the article for Peer review or for Good articles. The later is a simple way to get some feedback on the article in terms of general formatting errors and such. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good article criteria
Good article criteria are the minimum standards for a Wikipedia article. They are not nearly as high as WP:Featured articles. However, getting an article to GA helps an editor learn the basics of article writing. Why don't we do that? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Demerge?
Matisse: I think our best solution is to demerge. I started my article to fill an empty link to from the Robert Johnson article to [ [I Believe I'll Dust My Broom ]]. I merged it with [ [Dust My Broom]] because it was ostensibly covering the same ground. However, my interest in the song is not in the stable properties that it shares with a multitude of other recorded songs, but in features that are unique to the song -- or else common to blues performances before the commercial pressures on composition fell into line with the rest of the industry. I suggest that I recreate that page as an article about that SINGLE, and the evolution of its music and words. That would leave your original EXAMPLE OF A STANDARD SONG page. DavidCrosbie (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

True lyrics?
It would be worthwhile to enter info about the fact that many artists have sung this as "Dust My Blues." 70.130.207.79 (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Frank Absher

Good example
This is a good example of what ruined Wikipedia. 209.188.70.155 (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Produced by Art Satherley..."
Really? I don't have that Wald book, but all the other sources that I've seen say that the sessions were produced by Don Law (who, unbelievably, didn't have an article until today) - working for Satherley, who was his superior at that time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wald writes "Oerle brought Johnson to the Gunther Hotel in San Antonio, where ARC was conducting its sessions, and introduced him to the producers Art Satherley and Don Law" (Escaping p. 120). Also Richard Kienzle: "Johnson accepted and traveled there with ARC employee Ernie Oerle, who brought him to a hotel room equipped with a portable recording device.  The session was handled by a&r man Art Satherley, the man responsible for sessions by Roy Acuff, Bob Wills and Gene Autry in the country field as well as countless blues recordings" (Great Guitarists 1985, p. 18).  LP liner notes (by Jon Waxman and Pete Welding) for the first reissue with the song only list Frank Driggs (reissue producer); those for the box set (by Stephen C. Lavere) only mention Don Law (in addition to the reissue producers). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - thanks for digging those sources out! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)