Talk:Jaikoz

Fair use rationale for Image:Jaikoz osx screenshot.jpg
Image:Jaikoz osx screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Correctness
For example, if there were fifty records with the artist name "The Beatles" and ten with the artist name "The Beetles," the sameness of the two values would indicate they were the same and all values would be modified to the most popular (the correct) value "The Beatles".

Is this really true? I have used Jaikoz and I had to do this manually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.192.41 (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This feature is advertised on their web site, so it's probably true. -- intgr [talk] 12:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It does do this, but because it can sometimes give false positives this option is now disable by default but can be reenabled with the preference 'Local Correct/Manual Match/Mathc Values that appear misspelt' ijabz —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Removed dated prod
This article is at least substantive and accurate if not notable. If this article is to be deleted, its contents should first be merged into the (notable) MusicBrainz article, since it is one of two third-party clients recommended by MusicBrainz. I'm removing the "dated prod" tag. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "since it is one of two third-party clients recommended by MusicBrainz"
 * It got onto that list by paying MusicBrainz. There is nothing wrong with advertising, but it does not make a product notable. Please see the general notability criteria. -- intgr [talk] 23:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing notability. I'm saying that the content is substantive even if it's not notable and should be merged into an existing article before this article is deleted, if it comes to that. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, I misunderstood what you were saying. -- intgr [talk] 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've undone Explodicle's redirect. Please don't replace it. If you want to eliminate this article from Wikipedia, please do it directly and licitly, not surreptitiously with a redirect. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In your edit summary you suggest that I take it to AfD instead, and I'm assuming that's what you mean by "do it directly and licitly". That would be an inappropriate nomination; one should only bring an article to AfD if they actually want to delete it, not redirect it. I think we should try to reach a consensus here before starting a centralized discussion. Since we're in agreement about notabiltiy, we should redirect and merge from the page history. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I don't see how functionally removing an article from Wikipedia with a redirect substantively differs from deleting it. Merge then redirect if you like, but please don't redirect and leave the heavy lifting to pixies who are capable of navigating MediaWiki's back office. Whatever those pixies are up to, they don't seem to have time just now to make these changes. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally don't see anything here worth merging, but I certainly won't stop you. If you don't want to do it either, I'd be willing to post a notice on Talk:MusicBrainz. Ultimately, though, I'm not obligated to merge content if we have no evidence of its importance. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Who are "we"? Is there a mouse in your pants?
 * This is Wikipedia, my friend. You're not obligated to do anything you don't want to do. However, I see e.g. that you've redirected the article Any Bloke to an article that doesn't even include that title, so perhaps that's overly generous. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you saying here? Are you OK with a notice on Talk:MusicBrainz? -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't find redirection listed as an alternative to deletion. Is there another policy that explains the rationale of this approach? Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there isn't. However, I've written an essay about it, if you're interested. If you believe (even with watchlists and Special:RecentChanges) this is too opaque a process, I'd be happy to improve it. For example, I can include a notice on the target article's talk page, or create a redirect template with a category so people can more easily review them. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirection... Can be done boldly with no need for discussion." Fait accompli, n'est pas mon roi? This is what lawyers call a "loophole," a way to legally circumvent the law of the land. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Then let's close that "loophole". I'm under the impression that your chief concern is transparency, how would you like me to improve that? -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Explodicle I think you are unfairly targeting this page with regards to notability, I have added citations from third parties demonstrating the use of Jaikoz, and whilst its nowhere as nearly as popular as some taggers it does have plenty of users (i.e http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/18360/jaikoz-audio-tagger shows 80,000 downloads from one site alone for just the Mac version), its also clear that most of these other applications have had their wiki pages written by people involved in the application and contain no more citations than Jaikoz. When you look at the list of taggers with their own pages listed in Musicbrainz only Jaikoz and Musicbrainz Picard have upto date integrated support for tagging individual files. iEatBrainz and Musicbrainz Tagger use the defunct TRM system, Amarok, Banshee and Mp3tag only have simple plugin scripts and CDex and Max can only look up information if they have the actual CD. Combined with the fact that Jaikoz is written in Java, and is one of quite a limited set of Java based Desktop applications with popular appeal to non-technical users there is a enough here to justify the Jaikoz page on wikipedia, so I'm putting this page back. Ijabz (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm targeting this page with regards to notability because (as of this writing) it's the second oldest of 35,706 articles currently tagged for notability. You can check which articles are in the backlog here. The number of users (or any other statistic) isn't a factor; only sources are. Both secondary sources currently in the article (The Cat Came Back and LostInTechnology) are self-published sources, which shouldn't even be used, let alone to establish notability. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed an inappropriate redirect, again. Probably what is meant by "merged or deleted" in the Notability tag at the top of the article is "merged or deleted". Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've requested a third opinion. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I've gone through the sources, and found no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, which is the requirement for notability. I support Explodicle's suggestion for a redirect. Ray  Talk 15:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So you seem to be saying that for an article to appear on the open source user contributed wikipedia you need to cite references from old school sources such as magazines and newspapers, reviews from independent freelance writers are not enough unless they have published in other journals, there seems to be a conflict here. References are not going to be a problem when creating a page on some historcical figure but in the fast moving worlds of computer software it seems overly restrictive to me. The logical conclusion of what you say is that almost all the software pages linked on Musicbrainz should eventually be deleted because they don't cite references, and then the bMusicbrainz page would be very sparse - is that what you want ? Ijabz (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of magazines, books, and reliable websites dedicated to software. If a "fast moving world" doesn't discuss a topic in such sources for more than two years, it shouldn't have an article. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected the article again, after getting the deletion policy and amended to address Yappy2bhere's concerns. Please do not restore the article without providing sources that establish notability. See Talk:MusicBrainz for discussion about a potential merge. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect not appropriate
I have restored the article for now -- not because I approve of its content -- but because, as explained on Talk:MusicBrainz, MusicBrainz has little relation Jaikoz. Jaikoz is a mass tagger software, MusicBrainz is a database. The only relation between the two is that Jaikoz can load data from the MusicBrainz database, but it's much more than just a MusicBrainz client. Thus, the MusicBrainz article will never exhaustively cover what Jaikoz is and what it can do. Thus a redirect won't serve our purposes. Perhaps a plain old AfD is more appropriate? -- intgr [talk] 15:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't support a redirect, bring it to WP:RfD. Don't recreate the article unless you have new sources to meet WP:N or you are initiating step 1 of the AfD process in the same edit. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But I don't want to have it deleted, so surely I am not the right person to nominate it for AfD. This "don't recreate unless" is a rule you made up on the spot and deviates from every other WP:N process I have seen so far.
 * As for WP:RFD, changing an article to a redirect and then proposing it to redirects for deletion is clearly dishonest. -- intgr [talk] 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting we keep an article that doesn't meet our inclusion guideline? If so, why? If not, then what do you think should happen? -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing this article, Explodicle. If you can't play nice with the other editors, then move on and share your love elsewhere. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources
The author of "Tagging The Untagged" ("i does tech i does") describes himself simply as a user of Jaikoz ("I recently purchased a copy of Jaikoz to help process some of my bulging music collection."). Leslie Poston, the author of "The Ins and Outs of Jaikoz Audio File Meta Data Program", describes herself as "a writer, social media guide and tech junkie." There is no doubt that these are self-published sources, but neither author claims particular expertise; indeed both identify themselves as hobbyists in the very first paragraph. I've undone the "self-published" tags; they were ill-considered and inappropriate. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How does self-identifying as hobbyists exempt these sources from WP:SPS? -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Which claim did either author make that required expertise that the author did not demonstrate? Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)