Talk:En mi Viejo San Juan

Full lyrics

Are the lyrics included in full in this article? Are they copyrighted? I've raised a discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Song_Lyrics. --damiens.rf 16:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read some of the footnote citations. The Hispanic Heritage citation contains the following:

"Written during World War II by Noel Estrada, "En mi Viejo San Juan" is one of the most famous ballads of Puerto Rico. The song captures the longing of Puerto Rican emigrants and soldiers for their distant homeland. For many Puerto Ricans, it remains today a kind of second national anthem, and it was adopted as the official city anthem of San Juan."

If a song is the official city anthem of San Juan, then it is clearly being transcribed and performed in public forums, and public places, hundreds of times a year. This broad public usage supplants your concern about copyright. The song is written, sung, performed, by everyone all over the island of Puerto Rico. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"This broad public usage supplants your concern about copyright" - No, it doesn't. Sorry. Happy Birthday to You is performed way more than En mi Viejo San Juan and it's still copyright protected. --damiens.rf 19:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(Let's keep the discussion on that forum, where it's more visible? --damiens.rf 19:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's an interesting point. The question then becomes...does this copyright protection prohibit Wikipedia from presenting the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You? I just read the article. The matter seems to be in doubt. When I get a chance, I'll read the Brauneis research paper. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Weird wikilnk

Should "hundreds of other voices" wikilink to Singer, as is currently done in the article? Is it just me, or it looks weird? --damiens.rf 13:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I just wikilinked the word Anthem to Anthem. I though it was useful. --damiens.rf 20:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead too long

The lead section became a little bit confusing, with too much information. I believe it should be broken into a small lead followed by a paragraph or section. What do you think? --damiens.rf 13:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree. Damiens, I don't think anyone intended it as a lede, but as the article itself. The article has been asseesed as a stub. Did you check that first? Check the definition of Stub level article, then compare that to your expectation. Unless you have a more convincing rationale, please do everyone a favor and agree to remove the banner. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware the article is a stub. And I'm here exactly to help to improve it. The banner invites readers to improve the article, and to participate in the talk page discussions. Is there some guideline (or something similar) that says we should avoid article-tags in stubs? I would have to read it.

About the content, when you say disagree, you're saying you disagree with the tagging lead too long, and not disagreeing that the lead is not perfect, am I right? --damiens.rf 16:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

p.s.: The item C.3 from the link you provided (first) says

“ If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag... ”

That's what I did. Am I missing something? --damiens.rf 16:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Damiens you are missing WP:AGF, WP:IAR and WP:DISRUPT. I invite you to do some soul-searching. Your overall behavior is disruptive.

A second editor (User:Jmundo) has objected to your banner as well and you reverted his edit. Out of AGF and courtesy, I will not yet undo your banner, but if you have taken the special interest that you have in this article and if "[you] are here exactly to help to improve it" (and I believe you are) then by all means knock yourself out and go ahead and do what it takes to remove your own banner. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes you complain when I touch some article's contents without previously starting a talk page discussion. And now you complain that I should "by all means knock myself out and go ahead" to change it.

You say you assume I'm acting in good faith, but also that I am "missing WP:DISRUPT"

I do have a hard time working with you. But still trying.

(By the way, do you have something to say to JMundo, for reverting my tagging instead of fixing or joining the talk page discussion?)

I'll try to twinkle with the lead text. Let me know what do you think when you see it. --damiens.rf 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this banner is applicable. The article should be marked as a stub until it is expanded. Regardless, we should not be arguing about banners, but improving the article to make any banner unnecessary. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You say that then removes the banner. So, discussing doesn't help much. I'm confused. --damiens.rf 18:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally feel the stubs are more applicable so I made that edit, but I won't edit war over it and I'm willing to discuss it here if you disagree with it. Gamaliel (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, since I believed that the lead could be better written, but still found myself incapable of doing so, I tagged the article with lead-too-long, so that the banner would invited readers to try to help in this matter (better than I could do).

Also, following advice from some nice editors, I immediately started this talk page thread, so that my action would not be interpreted as an dictatorial decision by an article-owner.

Do my reasoning about using the banner makes sense to you, @Gamaliel:? Or the banner is really not applicable? Of course, if someone cleanups the lead, the point is moot. --damiens.rf 19:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from and believe your addition of the banner was well-intentioned and came from a desire to improve this article. The banner just doesn't make sense to me and I feel will just confuse the reader. I don't think that paragraph really qualifies as a lead since it's the entire article. The problem isn't that the lead is too long, it's that the article is too short. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I got your point. You put it very well. Thanks.

There's a different banner, called {{lead missing}}, that I think would better reflect my concerns, in the light of your argument. Do you see any problem with using this one? --damiens.rf 19:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I put it there. Let's see. --damiens.rf 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

External audio

I copied an "external audio" infobox from Noel Estrada's section about this audio. I thought that, if it was good there, it's good here. If someone disagrees, please carefully explain here why, or just revert my edit with some offensive edit summary, assuming bad faith on my part. Thanks, --damiens.rf 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories

I just addded Category:Spanish-language_songs to the article.

The article is in Category:1968 singles. Is this article about the composition or about some recorded version of that? I believe it's about the first, so, shouldn't we replace that for Category:1940s_songs?? --damiens.rf 20:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the same spirit, shouldn't we use {{1940s-song-stub}} instead of {{1960s-song-stub}}? --damiens.rf 20:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

And just added Category:Anthems. Cool. Wasn't? --damiens.rf 20:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I added 1960s song stub because I thought the category 1968 singles was accurate. If the song predates that, then the stubs and categories should be changed to reflect that, and the article text should clearly indicate when the song originated. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)