# Talk:Hoochie Coochie Man

taking place as to whether to include the long list of cover versions of the song.  I believe that such a list should be included, it speaks to the importance of the song, but I do not want to partake in an edit war and we are almost at that point now.  I'll propose a Covers section, with the understanding that anything on the list must be referenced and that in most cases naming an album that it is on is sufficient reference.  Please fell free to join in this discussion, otherwise it is just me talking to myself (again) and I will proceed to do whatever I want. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Hoochie Coochie Man" has gone through an extensive GA review to ensure that it meets the criteria for a Wikipedia Good article. These include: 1b. "complies with the manual of style guideline for ... list incorporation." and 2. "Verifiable with no original research". The MOS:LIST and WP:Source list provide additional guidelines.  Treatment of cover songs is addressed by WP:SONGCOVER, which includes:
When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:
the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.
The 8 May 2015 edit by Frankzappatwin does not meet these requirements and was reverted with an appropriate edit summary.  This hardly constitutes "almost an edit war".  Carptrash's proposal similarly does not meet the requirements.  If there is a problem with established WP policies, that should be taken up on those talk pages, not here. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Carptrash.  But the list should have references/links, etc. With the possible exception of Stairway to Heaven, this is one of the most covered songs in the worlds.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ojorojo that, in an article of this overall quality, we should stick to what would be included under WP:SONGCOVER.  There was an instrumental version by Jimmy Smith that made the US charts in 1966 and I think should be mentioned, but currently isn't.  Otherwise, we should be strict as to only mentioning versions that are regarded as notable by independent reliable sources.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Having glanced through the article I believe that  "the song has been recorded by performers as diverse as Jimi Hendrix, Chuck Berry, and jazz organist Jimmy Smith." is the only mention that anyone other than Muddy Waters, and perhaps Willie Dixon has ever recorded the song.  Had I reverted Ojorojo removal of FrankZ's section on covers I believe that we could easily have been on our way to a war.  Or am I wrong?  Would Ojorojo  then have decided to take it to the talk page? Carptrash (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is being followed here – Frankzappatwin was bold, I reverted, and now we're discussing.  WP:SONGCOVER sets the bar quite high: to meet the first criteria, the source has to discuss the subject of the song and not a particular rendition.  It is difficult to find sources which deal with songs so broadly – the three "song" sources used in the article are weighted heavily towards the original, Muddy Waters'.  However, I  used the Blues Hall of Fame induction write-up to quote "performers as diverse as Jimi Hendrix, Chuck Berry, and jazz organist Jimmy Smith" in the "Influence and recognition" section. AllMusic doesn't mention any other versions, but Grove (in Komara's Encyclopedia) includes "a staple in the sets of many other blues artists to follow including B.B. KIng, Buddy Guy, and John Hammond [as well as] rock artists including Chuck Berry, the Allman Brothers, Eric Clapton, and Jimi Hendrix."  Although it can be argued that Grove is primarily discussing the Waters' version, I propose to add these to the article in the same section as the others.  As far as meeting the second criteria "the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS", I haven't seen that any that "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" and not in the context of an album review (Jimmy Smith's version charted but may not meet this requirement, however, it meets the first). —Ojorojo (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, being somewhat new to the Wikipedia editing process, I fail to understand the reasoning that you mentioned, for reverting the information that was added to Hoochie Coochie Man. Regarding the requirement that noted "the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS."; I quote from that reference: "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." I feel that the information that was added met this requirement. Could you please elaborate? I wish to continue adding information to music related articles, but I also want the information to be compliant and useful to someone. Frankzappatwin (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is important to remember that WP:SONGCOVER (not NSONGS) specifically addresses requirements cover versions should meet to be included in a song article.  It has two alternative criteria:
1 "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition)".  Therefore, to include a particular cover, it must be discussed in a source dealing with the song (and its various renditions) in a comprehensive manner and not one version of it.  If a cover cannot be found in such a source, it may be included if it meets the second criteria,
2 "the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS."  NSONGS establishes requirements that a song must meet to have a separate article.  Therefore, if the cover would otherwise be notable enough for its own article (but can't because separate articles are not allowed), it may be included in the song article.  NSONGS criterion #3 "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" applies to establishing a song's notability for an an article, not one version or cover.  Otherwise, applying the criterion to particular covers would render it "A cover version may be notable because several artists have also recorded cover versions", which is completely contrary to SONGCOVER.
Unless there is an objection, I'll go ahead and add the artists mentioned by Grove above. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for your response. Secondly, I am not intending to be argumentative but I am still not quite understanding the logic. WP:SONGCOVER cross-references the criteria in WP:NSONGS regarding notability. What am I missing here? Is there something I should have added to improve the flow of knowledge? Also, what is meant by "a reliable source on the subject"? Again as before, I am trying to understand what is required to add my extensive background (I have 55,000+ songs from albums, CD's, tapes etc.) to enhance the Wikipedia data base. I want to do it correctly and I feel that I had done so with the recent contribution. Frankzappatwin (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To restate the second SONGCOVER criterion, if a cover version has enough independent notability to qualify for its own article, then it may be included in the article about the song (and not in a separate article).  NSONGS does not specifically address the notability of cover versions, but rather criterion #3 states that they may contribute the the overall notability of the song and not that they should necessarily be a part of the article.  If NSONGS means that any cover versions of a notable song are themselves notable, why would SONGCOVER exist?  Some songs have been recorded by a very large number of people.  SONGCOVER recognizes that song articles do not benefit from large numbers of unimportant cover versions (other policies such as Due and undue weight also apply).  It is an attempt to put some rationale into selecting what should be included and what shouldn't in song articles.  If the reader wants an exhaustive list of covers, sites like AllMusic provide that info.  Wikipedia takes an encyclopedic approach and should not contain indiscriminate collections of information. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources may be of interest. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
So that we aren't just batting this around in the abstract, the edit that was undone including the following:

Sam The Sham and the Pharaohs covered Hoochie Coochie Man on their 1965 album titled Their Second Album.
The Shadows of Knight covered it on their debut 1966 album Gloria.
Also in 1966, Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated did a cover on their album At the Cavern.
Steppenwolf covered it on their debut album from 1968 titled Steppenwolf.
The Allman Brothers Band covered Hoochie Coochie Man on their second album Idlewild South from 1970.
Willie Dixon himself recorded it for his 1970 album I Am the Blues.
Mick Abrahams (of Jethro Tull) covered it on his 2013 album Hoochie Coochie Man.
It has been performed and recorded many times by Eric Clapton.
Other artists that have recorded it include Blue Cheer, The Jeff Healy Band, Jimi Hendrix, Motorhead, and Buddy Guy
To that list, I would add Jimi Hendrix and British Blues musicianLong John Baldry who named his 1964 band Long John Baldry And His Hoochie Coochie Men in honor of this song. HOOCHIE COOCHIE MAN by MUDDY WATERS Song Facts 16:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added six more artists from Grove in addition to the three from the Blues Foundation for a total of nine examples of cover artists.  —Ojorojo (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

that Long John Baldry's backup band was at one time (at least 1965, when the record I have was released)  named the "Hoochie Coochie Men" have a place in the article? Carptrash (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it does.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Well then someone with a better understanding of the RULES should place that fact where it needs to go. Carptrash (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I think "In popular culture" would be a good section heading under which it could easily appear..  7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This short-lived group (1964–1965) produced only one album (which didn't chart in the US or UK) and doesn't appear notable (no WP article).  Included the details in a footnote. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What makes Hoochie Coochie Man any different than Spoonful? Note the section titled "Recordings by other artists". Wow Carptrash, I can't believe I missed Long John Baldry, since I also have that album from 1964. I mentioned Jimi Hendrix but didn't elaborate since I don't have the facts regarding his recording. Yeah, Carptrash, I guess I just don't understand all of the rules yet. I've only been adding information for about two months now.Frankzappatwin (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Be careful about pointing out other article that are more like what we'd like this to be because it is a bit like tiring them to a post and putting on a blindfold.  All it does is make them a target for what we are dealing with here.  PS, my Baldry is an EP, not an album.  Anyway, it seems that bnaming a band after the song is not notable.  Gee, who'd have guessed that one? Carptrash (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hoochie Coochie Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707235113/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockhall.com/exhibithighlights/500-songs
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&page=1&keyid=668840&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)