Talk:Black Dog (Led Zeppelin song)

Single releases

George Ho: Your recent edits here[1] and at Misty Mountain Hop[2] add too much unnecessary detail to the lead. According to MOS:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. [It] should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." MOS:LEADREL adds "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources ... Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text."

Judging from reliable sources, where and when it was released as a single is not given so much emphasis – the Guesdon ref includes only one sentence in seven plus pages (my access is limited). In the lead, this takes up roughly a third of the space. Isn't it obvious from the chart performance section that it was released there as a single? The lead can simply state "Black Dog was released as a single and reached the charts in several countries; however, as was their practice, it was not issued in the UK." Also, the flip sides do not need to be mentioned in the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: Before I made changes, the lead already mentioned the B-side and had the second paragraph citing refs (another diff). Same with Misty Mountain Hop. Regardless, I made more changes seen in this diff, including adding your suggested sentence. I also made more changes to the B-side track article. BTW, the Guesdon ref is searchable when you click the ISBN number. Nonetheless, here are page results of the eBook version via Google. You can also go to Amazon, where you can preview the book. George Ho (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. There was an earlier push to remove tons of quotations, OR, and uncited material from Zeppelin articles. As you pointed out, some lesser concerns were overlooked. While I'd like to actually improve all aspects of their articles, just removing the BS seems to take up a lot of time. BTW, I pulled out some old 45 American picture sleeves. Often, they don't have a copyright notice (symbol, date, registration, etc.). If published without one between 1924 and 1977, they should be in the public domain.[3] This argument has been used successfully for album covers.[4] —Ojorojo (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Black Dog (song) → Black Dog (Led Zeppelin song) – we now have Covid era depression song Black Dog (Arlo Parks song) "Critics at NME ranked "Black Dog" as the 4th best song of 2020." In ictu oculi (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. "Black Dog (song)" is incomplete disambiguation and should redirect to Black dog#Music. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the Led Zeppelin song gets 4,407 views compared to 1,115[[5]] for the Arlo Parks song probably not enough for a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"According to.." qualifier

User:ProlificVinyl wanted to make sure you saw this Special:Diff/1190716658/1190752836 the reason for removing the qualifier. Basically, not everything needs to say what the source is, if the information is uncontroversial, otherwise it can create the appearance of controversy. See WP:ACCORDINGTO. -- GreenC 20:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)