Talk:Saint Louis Blues (song)

2004 title discussion

The title in apostrophies 'Saint Louis Blues' is very awkward, I think. See my comment in Talk:St. Louis Blues for my proposed rearrangement/renaming of this and related pages. -- Infrogmation 18:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moved to "Saint Louis Blues (music)". I'm in process of fixing the links, and will make "Saint Louis Blues into a disambiguation. -- Infrogmation 20:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

St. Louis Blues, June 2007 article move discussion

Please see the discussion is taking place at Talk:St. Louis Blues (hockey)#Requested move Bsroiaadn^Talk 03:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move August 2007

As you can see above, I'm requesting a move back to "St. Louis Blues (song)" per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names. For further explanation and discussion see here. InnocuousPseudonym 06:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support move to St. Louis Blues (song), WP:NC seems clear enough on this, although it's not explicit as far as I can see and probably should be. Andrewa 07:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as instrumental versions of the composition have been at least as important as song versions. I'm not adverse to proposals for other ways to disambiguate ("St. Louis Blues (W.C. Handy)" or "St. Louis Blues (composition)" perhaps?) but don't care for calling a tune a "song" when non-song versions are common and famous. -- Infrogmation 13:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it has been recorded in instrumental versions does not make it any less of a song. It was written and published with lyrics (quite famous ones, actually). "(composition)" is generally reserved for works without lyrics. Have a look at Category:Jazz standards and its subcategories for a sense of the lay of the land and see the naming conventions page linked above. InnocuousPseudonym 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support move to St. Louis Blues (song), although the tune is notable, is the alternative creating separate articles for the composition, and for the lyrics? I feel the form is that other popular songs by say, Porter or the Gershwins are 'songs' despite the tune being in many cases as recognisable, and in several cases, the song being introduced as an instrumental. I also feel that St Louis Blues, which currently directs to the Hockey team, should redirect people to the disambig page. Gareth E Kegg 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that the move has been made, can those who voted for it please help fix links so they go directly to the new title? (I've already fixed several myself.) Thanks, -- Infrogmation 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on it. InnocuousPseudonym 19:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed it for everything except Talk and User pages. InnocuousPseudonym 20:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The St. Louis Blues?

According to the original record picture in the article, the full name of the song should be "The St. Louis Blues". I want to move it there but want a consensus before doing so. Tavix (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the song was probably originally pubslished with a "The" in its title, my impression is that this was soon often dropped. In my collection of 78 rpm records I have 18 various issues of the song made between 1918 and 1943, and of those only one (from 1918) is labeled "The St. Louis Blues"; the rest of them all being issued issued as "St. Louis Blues". Also see the 1930s sheet music here. /FredrikT (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Saint Louis (The) blues; words and music by

W. C. Handy. Memphis, Tenn., Pace & Handy music co. 20165

© Sept. 11, 1914; 2 c. Sept. 16, 1914;

E 348241; William C. Handy, Memphis, Tenn.

"The Saint Louis Blues" is what the legal copyright says Tillywilly17 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Handy's place of birth

W.C. Handy was not from Memphis. He was from from Florence, Alabama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.109.205.117 (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that Handy was born in Memphis, only that it was his "home town", and he definitely lived and worked there from 1909 onwards. /FredrikT (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saint Louis Blues (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040408160812/http://bluesnet.hub.org:80/readings/st.louis.blues.html to http://bluesnet.hub.org/readings/st.louis.blues.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Major edits

@Vmavanti: I see that you made extensive edits to this article. Even though I could have reverted your edits, citing certain WP protocol, I wanted to bring the issues here so that you had a chance to revert and start over correctly. First: you removed pertinent information to the list by previous editors (re: performers, instruments, etc). Second, you did not relist in keeping with the correct order: i.e. date first / performer second / information third. Last, lists do not need citations as critical as inline content within sections. I do not wish to revert your efforts; but you have removed too much information that was already consensus approved. Please update and return to its former style and content; or I (or another editor) must revert your edits. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I deleted unsourced content. I added sourced content. I would like to see evidence in WP documentation that says what I did was wrong. I saw no evidence of consensus approved content. The fact that many lists have maintenance templates suggests that they require citations. Otherwise you encourage the propagation of junk and such articles as I improved will continue to stagnate or worsen. Do you have a special interest in the St. Louis Blues article?
Vmavanti (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There are many improvements that could be made to this article, but reverting to an unsourced list of minor cover versions is not one of them. If any versions are particularly notable, they should be covered in written prose. But, in relation to the latest changes, there should be consistency in the way versions are listed - either date first or artist first, but not a mixture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

—"If any versions are particularly notable, they should be covered in written prose."

Is this documented somewhere? If so, I would like to see it. There are many articles with lists and trivia sections. There's a long list of jazz standards articles. Most of them have Cover Versions sections. Some of them have Trivia sections. There's a lot of junk in those sections. If you are saying there is a rule either in WP documentation or Wikiproject Jazz that these sections can be deleted, I'm all for it. But IF that is a RULE, let's follow it across the board, not just in one article where one timid person has a fear of change. I can't square crap with substantive content. And if the crap is unsourced, then no one should any problem with it being deleted. Wikipedia editors are supposed to come down on the side of sourced content, correct citations, and reliable sources.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A special interest in this article? No - I have a special interest in writing a good article at Wikipedia: plain and simple. You removed several titles that were "unsourced", yet could easily be found online and cited rather than removed; and kept others that were completely without sourcing. For the extensive time it took you to remove, edit, format, etc; you could have researched nearly all of these inclusions and found reliable sources that met your expectations. Side note: WP has templates to cover sections such as this from preventing editors from coming in and doing just this thing. You write: "I deleted unsourced content. I added sourced content. I would like to see evidence in WP documentation that says what I did was wrong. " You removed: Brenda Lee, Johnny Cash, Doc Watson, Odetta ... these are notable major performers on major labels; which I easily found online for inline citations. You kept content (it would seem) simply on a single source: "Gioia, Ted". To me, this is not a reason to delete numerous significant edits. Yet, you kept: 1959-1962, 1968-1976, and even Hugh Laurie (2013) without citations? Was this just to your own liking? Either cite the entire section, or place a tag; but don't cherry pick those you want to keep yet remove what is easily found online by what other editors have included, and up until now has remained by consensus (meaning, no one has disputed the inclusion). I disagree with this entire way of editing at WP. Maineartists (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. So you have an opinion. You haven't demonstrated that I violated WP documentation.

I deleted unsourced content. Could I have found sources for that content instead of deleting it? Perhaps. I did find a source for some of it, but that's not good enough for you. I added good content from a good, reliable source, Ted Gioia, but that's not good enough for you. I generously left some unsourced content, but that's not good enough for you. Before you point the finger, you might want to take a look at how much I have contributed to Wikipedia. Don't volunteer me for more volunteer work than I already do. I'm on this site every day seven days a week. I can show you articles like this going back ten years. Why was that content unsourced to begin with? Why hasn't anyone sourced it after all these years? I looked at the history. Years ago by. Editors pop in and change a comma. Then when someone like me comes by and makes significant progress, someone else suddenly appears from beneath the woodwork to cry umbrage. Either they dislike the changes for their own arbitrary personal reasons or they accuse me of not doing enough.

If you continue to allow people to add unsourced content to articles like this, the article stagnates or gets worse. If you allow people to create lists and trivia sections with unsourced content, you no longer have an article. You have graffiti.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Have you got this wrong. "I did find a source for some of it ..." Fine, good for you. What's your point? "I added good content from a good, reliable source, Ted Gioia, but that's not good enough for you." Never said that. I had issue in your removing content that you did not have reliable sources for. "I generously left some unsourced content..."" Ah, there's your Catch-22. You can't have it both ways: i.e. "Graffiti". Who says you get to pick and choose? If someone lists something (i.e. Filmography for a BLP, they don't cite every single film, tv series, etc). Ridiculous. That's not how it works; and you should know that. It has nothing to do with "not good enough for me". If you have a problem with a certain listing, you look it up; if it's not found; you dispute it with a "citation needed". You went in and completely removed entire lines of inclusions and left others up to your liking. There is not one listing in this section that was "unfactual" and because you didn't want to create more work for yourself by simply removing those that did not have sources, is not my problem. You have now created your own standard by saying: "If content is not sourced, it should either be removed; or provided with a reliable source." One would expect that you adhere to your own standards from now on. Has nothing to do with me. You can't have it both ways. Side note: I don't need to look at your history to know what happened here. Maineartists (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"Generous"? My goodness you have an inflated sense of self. To answer your question: "How do I know?" I did what you should have done: I entered the song title and listed performer in a simple search engine and discovered sources. Assumption that I must have entered in all the information myself is "nonsense" at its best; and a quick look at the history would reveal otherwise. Deleting unsourced listed content in this fashion regarding covers for albums when an editor has an across the board problem at WP rather than doing the work to find the sources is lazy editing; especially when WP gives you tools to help other editors that are willing to do the work in your stead at a future date: i.e. "citation needed" or templates. Your deleting content makes more work for future editors to search histories, revert edits, etc. You're talking in circles here regarding providing sources for content; and yet saying I made the "request (demand)". You demanded this; per your deleting unsourced content. I was just holding you to your own standards. It's good you're dropping the subject. Maineartists (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"There are many improvements that could be made to this article, but reverting to an unsourced list of minor cover versions is not one of them."
Vmavanti (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Has anyone considered WP:SONGCOVER? A spot check of the current refs doesn't show that many of these versions are noteworthy, only that they exist. Gioia lists 14 under "Recommended versions"; some of those that he discusses may be better as prose (I don't have access to the full book section), otherwise the reader doesn't know which are important or why. Music sites, such as AllMusic, provide long lists of "Also performed by";[1] WP should be providing encyclopedic content. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Ojorojo! Great suggestion and comment! Thanks for bringing it to this discussion. Best, Maineartists (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Did Handy steal this song?

"Handy said he had been inspired by a chance meeting with a woman on the streets of St. Louis, Missouri, distraught over her husband's absence, who lamented, 'Ma man's got a heart like a rock cast in de sea,' a key line of the song. Handy's autobiography recounts his hearing the tune in St. Louis in 1892: 'It had numerous one-line verses and they would sing it all night.'"

If the foregoing is true, then W.C. Handy deserves no credit for this song. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:B0FB:DCC2:6287:ED20 (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)