User talk:CycloneGU/Archive03

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:11 Deluxe.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:11 Deluxe.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi CycloneGU, I can undelete this if you want but looking at the image (and the other one in the 11 (Bryan Adams album) article) this image is not going to survive. Based on many deletion discussions I've started, and quite a few from others, where images are this similar (basically only some colour changes) one or the other is deleted as it is deemed that text alone that describes the difference is an adequate replacement. If you want I can undelete it and send to files for deletion for this discussion to take place, but I see almost no chance of the image surviving - Peripitus (Talk) 05:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why the image would not be allowed. All it does is take up an extra frame in the infobox. What is wrong with including an extra image there when it does not impede the article itself? I've seen other deletion discussions also referencing this rule, but I know personally I'd rather have the image myself.

For instance, regardless of how obtained, I could have those few songs from the deluxe edition of "11" (I do in fact, but that is beside the point) but in my iTunes I want to reference the album art for the correct edition in place of the wrong art, that for the standard edition. Providing the image here serves the double purpose of showing the deluxe cover for encyclopedic purposes and giving the ability for users to make use of the image themselves. Ignoring these reasons for a moment, personally, I prefer to see an alternate image, not a description. I sometimes don't read all of the text, but the image is right there, smack dab on the right, easy to see. So why is removing these images recommended only because of similarities in cover style? CycloneGU (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File:18tilidie.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:18tilidie.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Christmas Kenny (Alternate).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christmas Kenny (Alternate).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 00:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Christmas Greetings.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christmas Greetings.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Telephone

Hey sorry, I didnot log in over the weekend hence had no clue what's going on, especially from my talk page I cannot factor anything out. I'll check the article though. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lucille and Other Classics.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lucille and Other Classics.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.

If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Lucille and Other Classics

I have nominated Lucille and Other Classics, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucille and Other Classics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a recent edit comment that you made

Unless you're a judge pronouncing a verdict at the end of a trial, it is best and most civil if you don't pass judgment on others when you edit (see your edit comment for this diff). A redirect is appropriate under the circumstances presented to me at the time I saw the so-called "article," and I resent the implication of being called a lazy editor when I was cleaning up after a mess of a one sentence non-article under time pressure. Please note that WP:CIVIL is a Wikipedia policy that must be followed by all editors at all times. Thank you. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wished I could remove that right after I submitted it - that was random frustration at not following normal policy and leaving a track listing in the main artist page, where it does not belong. While my comment may have been inappropriate (I will even say that), you should instead of redirecting an album name at an artist page actually move material to the page. Your edit did nothing to improve the situation and left things cluttered in one place, which in my opinion DOES show laziness whether that is the case or not. Next time, if you see information missing from a page, make an effort to copy the information to the new page where possible; if the new page really is useless and unnecessary, it will be picked up later.

I apologize again for the comment, and even now wish it wasn't there. No offense was intended. Just do more than redirecting a link next time; actually try to complete the page. That benefits Wikipedia more than redirecting something. I always hate when an album title just leads back to the artist page, and that's my biggest pet peeve on here. =)

Out of curiosity, do you not have an account? CycloneGU (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lucille and Other Classics.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lucille and Other Classics.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Music of Glee (Self-Created Talk Page Section)

Earlier today, I supported research by another user that the version of "One" being covered in the Glee episode Laryngitis is the U2 version. This was subsequently edited out as an unreliable source. I tried again and learned that the FOX Glee Wiki at fox.com is also an unreliable source (little did I know it's editable). I have since contacted FOX directly through their Ask FOX feature on the main Web site. After a couple of e-mails, these details emerged (quoting):

"Since U2 wrote the song and performed it first - those sites were referring to the originator of the song."

When I specifically inquired whether the version covered is the Fat Joe version (which has an identical track time)...

"Who cares what the length of a song is. The U2-written song was covered."

I do not know how best to reference this in the article, but this is a direct confirmation from FOX that it's the U2 version. Please discuss if you have any issues, as this is direct research with FOX itself that also matches everything in the Wikis and other non-verifiable sources. You can also e-mail them asking them the very same question I did if you'd like to verify this information further. CycloneGU (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an incredibly unprofessional response they sent to your second query. Did the email have an employee name attached? Frickative 23:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree on the unprofessional thing. the full e-mail text was...(BTW, please help me with BlockQuote)

Who cares what the length of a song is. The U2-written song was covered. Whether or not the show sounded more like the other version is a moot point - as I tried to explain with the "Hallelujah" reference.

ASKFOX

That's it. So their helpdesk is a lot like their news...fair and balanced on one side. LMAO Also, the Hallelujiah thing was a comment related to the first response where it was used as an example. CycloneGU (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Edit to Glee Page

I just fixed it. Thanks for letting me know should have previewed it first, I make stupid mistakes sometimes. HeHe and I have been editing on Wikipedia since 2006. QuasyBoy (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I just noted on your talk page that I figured out the date and went back to edit it myself, but you beat me to it. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

HeHe, No Problem. QuasyBoy (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Glee music

Hey - I just wanted to say, regardless of my edit summary at Music of Glee, at least the first two Glee albums and the Madonna EP probably are notable enough for individual articles, if that's something you'd be interested in working on. They all badly need background/production information and could do with more critical reception, but having hit #1 in multiple countries, I can't see how they wouldn't satisfy WP:NM. Just let me know if you want to work on them/would like a hand digging up sources. Frickative 01:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be all for that. I have to concentrate on job searching ATM, but might be able to set aside some time and also suggest a good source: AllMusic. That is where I get all of the musical credits for any album article I've ever added them on.

With that said, however, since three albums are notable enough, I would further recommend that we simply give all five their own pages. Why? Simply because the moment a new album is released for any regular artist, it has its own page with the discography and such. Even if the album fails to chart. I mean, it would be ridiculous to include it on the main discography page (I've had to fix a HORRIBLE one once that did that for two albums) while separating the rest. So I say the page is too long and cluttered NEway with information mashing with each other (see the album for the Finale, singles cuts in next to the infobox), and it's appropriate to just separate everything and create a singles list identical to that of any other artist discography. Besides, the Finale is going to reach #1, I'm sure, as will the Showstoppers album just out today (and available for Warez within 15 minutes).

Opinion? I'd be for working on this project, however. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't too sure about the other albums because WP:NM seems quite strict on ones that haven't been released yet, but I think with Glee there are almost always sufficient sources, so that should be fine. And like you say, without going all WP:CRYSTAL, it's pretty much a no-brainer that the others will be chart-toppers too. I think Music of Glee would be best as a sort of summary article, with the production info and a link to the songs list, and then just brief summary style information on each album/EP, sort of similar to the singles paragraph with the link to the discography page. The article is definitely too cluttered at the moment, to the point that I've started to avoid checking it for routine vandalism etc, because it's so hard to keep track of all the different sections.

Just about to hit reply and I got your message on my talkpage - sorry if the message wasn't meant that way, it was just the 'what person in their right mind' bit that got me (I like to think I am in my right mind most of the time, lol!) I think it's just with the page being so long and there being so many tracklists, its recommended to autocollapse for simplicity/ease of page loading. But yeah, not something that will be an issue with separated articles. Frickative 02:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll be happy to start the work of breaking things up in the morning. It's going to be tricky finding references that are reused in different sections (I think there are a few, I'll have to research the references section itself to find out each occurrence), but I think I might put together a quick sandbox this evening of how the album listing would look sans all of the other information (with redlinks set up temporarily, where I'll start copying over everything 2morrow). Keep in mind job searching is still my top priority, but I'd like to start this project 2morrow. When do you normally come on?

After doing my Facebook business of the evening, I'll put the existing article in my sandbox and play with it. I'll attempt to incorporate any changes into the new version that may potentially go live 2morrow, but I'll link you to the page when I have a rough setup. Mainly, my goal is to create an album listing much like Taylor Swift, Aerosmith, Aretha Franklin, or any other great artist with multiple albums. For now, I'm just going to do the album bit with redlinks so you get the idea. =)

Maybe we can both work on it there before I put it up 2morrow. I'll quietly set up the other pages in the morning and work on them (including careful edit summaries indicating that I am copying information over so the newpage trackers don't jump me *LOL*). CycloneGU (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the job hunt! We're probably in different timezones, but I usually come on around 4pm GMT. It's probably just because it's late here, but I can't really envision what you mean with the album listing - all that comes to mind is a discography, which obviously already exists, so I'll just wait until you've got it up in your sandbox and I'm sure it'll click for me when my brain is engaged, haha. We'll probably need a subcategory in the main Glee category specifically for music, but I'll wait until tomorrow to set that up, because I'm not quite sure what the best name for it would be yet. Probably just 'Glee (TV series) music'. Frickative 03:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Section Break

I ran over to the Terri Clark discography (random artist selection) and copied from there as a sample. I've only included the three most recent studio albums in this example. References actually were not present, so makes for less work removing them too (they were likely presumed unneeded as another album above may have already linked them).

Year	Album details	Peak chart positions					Certifications (sales threshold)
Year	Album details	CAN Country	CAN	US Country	US	US Heat	Certifications (sales threshold)
2003	Pain to Kill Released: January 14, 2003 Label: Mercury Nashville	4	28	5	27	—
2005	Life Goes On Released: November 1, 2005 Label: Mercury Nashville	1	26	4	26	—
2009	The Long Way Home Released: September 1, 2009 Label: BareTrack/Capitol Nashville/EMI Canada	3	16	44	—	—
"—" denotes releases that did not chart * denotes unknown peak positions

Clearly, I'll edit the album names. Clearly, I'll have to edit the sales data and such, certifications, and where the album went in each country or chart (the chart listing itself needs work). Also, I haven't decided whether this is the format I want to use yet; I'll look up a few artist charts and find one that looks more or less complete, then sandbox just that as a section. We'll then play with it. Maybe I won't update it 2morrow, but let's uncollapse the listings for now since it's a pain in the ass having to click the "show" link (for me, NEway), and we'll update and resolve that problem sooner or later. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: On second thought, this looks good. Let's use this, but I'll sandbox it first thing in the morning. Hopefully I do not require a morning nap. CycloneGU (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that is what I was envisioning! I thought I must be wrong, because the album stuff is already presented in that format at Glee Cast discography - perhaps you haven't seen that page before? For the Music page I was thinking more of just a brief summary paragraph, eg. 'X album features songs from Y episodes. It was originally released on Z date, and charted at ABC in DEF countries.' Just as a sort of directory to link to all the various music pages, including the albums, discography and episode by episode song list, if that makes sense. Frickative 04:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh! If that already exists, that's even easier; we just have to delete the Music of Glee page after incorporating all oif the information elsewhere. For starters, I would place a note at the top of the page when I begin working that the page is being merged with other pages and will be deleted soon, and please do not make further edits to that page as they might not be seen. I would then start moving information, carefully fixing Wikilinks as I go. After all of the albums are moved to their own pages, I would move the general music information perhaps to the Glee Cast discography. Namely, "Production" would just become the main information on that page and the info at the top might need reviewing. I might in fact move "Production" before doing any moving of albums. List of songs in Glee is a redundant page; Glee Cast discography ought to be good enough for the purpose with a "Singles" section. One concern for the Production section, however, is that some information is best placed on the main Glee page and other information is better for the discography page.

In any case, the entire Albums section is the easiest move ever; create five pages, and just copy everything. While preserving edit history is important, it's unconventional in this case because there are five albums to move and it's just inconvenient to make such an attempt by creating five copies and then paring them down. Do you agree? So before ANY edits are made to the Music of Glee page, other than the note regarding merging, I would get all five pages created and put in the references for "Previous Album" and "Next Album" on each one, and change the album artwork information to note the new page so the uploaders of those don't get nasty PMs. =) Singles takes a little more work to work out, and that will likely be my project incorporating it into Glee Cast discography in some way. I do not know templates well, but I'd add a template indicating that the charting information may be incomplete if we haven't already charted every song. Do you think we should split them by episode under Singles as well? I consider it a nice touch, sorting as they appeared in the episode as well (i.e. "Don't Stop Believing" basically ended the pilot episode), so that would be another project for me since we have the DVD of the first 13 episodes here (and I have a general idea for the others).

So after putting in the "merging" template (or note, it's good enough), Step 1: album pages for all five. Step 2: fix the discography. Step 3: work on the Singles page. Step 4; take the production part and relocate it appropriately. Step 5: delete the page. I'll stop here a moment; what are your thoughts? Also, I'd recommend talking to an admin. about deleting the page after we're done, as well as List of songs in Glee which seems COMPLETELY irrelevant. CycloneGU (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I made a discovery! Some albums already have pages (at least the first does, maybe the second). Others I will still have to create though, and the ones that are there redirect to the summary page that we are working to eliminate. I also looked at List of songs in Glee; it refers to other songs that are not singles. Should we still leave that summary? Personally, I say yes, but merge it into each episode summary instead of a huge list; this will eventually get too long as well. CycloneGU (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly seems irrelevant about List of songs in Glee? I've spent a lot of time working on that page, as have several other editors - it's comprehensive and very well referenced, and I don't agree with deleting it at all. I'm also not sure what needs to be "fixed" about the singles section of the discography, and separating them per episode wouldn't conform with the manual of style on discographies. Per year, perhaps, because it's a very long list without a section break. And twice now I've said I'd like to see Music of Glee become a summary style page linking all the musical articles together, leaving the production there, so I'm not convinced that should be deleted either. Frickative 05:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Just saw your addendum as I was about to hit reply. The individual episode articles already mention the songs performed in each, but the list provides an overview of the entire season. Someone a while ago tried to add all the songs performed to a 'Glee songs' category, and it was agreed in the deletion discussion that the list is the best format to present that information in. We've already discussed the length on the talk page, and it's likely that there will be a separate one for the second season. In the time it's taken me to write this ETA I've realized I really don't care about keeping the main Music page though (fickle, lol), there's already too much redundancy between the existing articles as is. I don't think it can be deleted, because merging the content elsewhere means the edit history has to be preserved, but once we're done with it it can just be redirected to the main Glee article or something. Frickative 05:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is my proposal. This is doable for each episode and makes sense on the episode page. I didn't even know List of songs in Glee existed at all until you mentioned it. CycloneGU (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you scroll up to "Production", you'll see that the songs used are already covered there. In regular articles, prose is almost always preferred to list format. Although it's probably just a pipe-dream, someday I'd like to take the list WP:FL, so I don't agree with de-constructing it. If you think about it, it's similar to List of Glee episodes. We already have individual episode articles, but it's still helpful to have somewhere that gathers all that information in one place. Frickative 05:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so kind of something that most people wouldn't actually use, but nonetheless something that you think people find useful as a summary. I don't see much use for it outside of putting the table in each article myself. I actually find prose dull; tables like this within an article stand out and draw eyes just like a album standing chart within an article (I mean, who wants to read prose of performances in several countries compared to a chart making it easy to reference?). My opinion, it seems, differs from guidelines however; this would not be the first time! LMAO Would you still object to placing the table? CycloneGU (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I definitely see your point, but all the episode articles so far have been classed as good articles, and once the season is over they'll hopefully become a good topic, so I would prefer stick with the guidelines and keep it prose. List of songs in Glee actually receives surprisingly high traffic. The page view stats show that at its peak, it was viewed over 27,000 times in one day this month. The discography averages about 2,000 a day, and Music of Glee somewhere in the 4-5k region, so it's actually the most heavily viewed of all the music articles currently. (I only just discovered this myself, I'm surprised but quite pleased the page is so popular!) Frickative 05:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Section Break 2

Clearly, the page was well-designed to become a place for Gleeks to find all of this information! =)

I still like the idea of a table in the episode article just to further make the page useful to different types of readers, so maybe down the line it'd be worth considering. Since the season still has three episodes to go, I'll ignore it for now, but we have to revisit this come Season 2. The page will get WAY too big with another 20-plus episodes. I presume you have that planned (Season 1 list, Season 2 list), but still my feeling and I can't shake that. =)

On an off-topic note, I accidentally visited the talk page for Cyclone earlier and accidentally learned about usurptions. I'm attempting to get that username since it's my usual name online. =D CycloneGU (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as I mentioned above there'll almost certainly be separate lists for each season. The list currently is about 56k for the entire first season, which isn't too bad. At one point when the back 9 episodes had barely begun airing, it was a rather monstrous 80k and took forever to load, so we've definitely reigned the size in by weeding out all the fluff.

I'd never heard of that process before, I hope you're able to take over the username! I'm off for a while now, but I'll be back later, and I'll get a subcategory sorted for all the album articles :) Frickative 06:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

One request for the username got denied before, but the user hasn't been editing; I'm hopeful since my username is CLEARLY my attempt to respect the earlier user, but that user has never edited on this Wiki and I kind of want the global account name Cyclone as well. We'll see. CycloneGU (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)