User talk:IndianBio/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Artpop Edit

I'm sorry, but I fail to see why that source is not reliable. It came straight from Gaga's mouth through the official video section of the Today Show website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelly64 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jakelly64: that source was not from the Today show, neither it was from any other third party reliable sources. Anyways, the sources have been added now and the song is a single. So no worries. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well...I respectfully disagree with your first statement, but I find your second statement pretty exciting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelly64 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jakelly64: you can respectfully disagree but adding a copyright violating source, not from official website is a no-no. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know it violated copyright. And it at least seemed like the official Today Show website. But, as you mentioned earlier, it doesn't really matter now. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelly64 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Something to Remember

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Something to Remember. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not 'vandalizing' this article. I was attempting to correct it. The category of 1995 greatest hits albums is not appropriate for this album. While I agree with the article that it is a compilation album, Wikipedia defines as follows: A Greatest hits album is a compilation album of successful, previously released songs by a particular music artist or band. The album contains songs that were previously only released on an album and never released as a single and therefore can not be considered 'successful'. The album is a collection of ballads, not a collection of hits. I believe the category 1995 compilation albums would be more appropriate, as in the article for Rod Stewart's album If We Fall in Love Tonight containing the category 1996 compilation albums. MCMCTT (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is the standard for tour pages to have a list of opening acts in addition to having such acts in the tour table, right? For some reason IP 67.246.148.98 doesn't seem to agree with this. Maybe you could explain on the IP's talk page given your work on the article for ArtRave: The Artpop Ball? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, sorry to say the IP user was correct. This new format of putting the opening acts and the boxscore together is being implemented across the tour articles as we chat. Hence having a separate Opening acts or Boscore section is considered redundant now. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I have some cleaning to do on Hello Katy Tour, California Dreams Tour, The Prismatic World Tour, and Neon Lights Tour..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: hehe, yes they need to be updated. Good luck with that as it takes a lot of time though. Holla if you need any help. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My one question is regarding Neon Lights Tour where two opening acts do not have specified dates: what to do with those? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: check the Billboard boxscores for them, they have the Opening Acts for each date when they report the money. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: the reason I reverted you on Neon Lights if you see I did not allow the content to be added, but kept it hidden. The reason being, writing synopsis is a really pain in the behind for anyone I believe and this synopsis seemed pretty on spot. So what we can do is find sources conforming to what the synopsis says and then we are good to add it back. Remove those for which no sources can be found. Does that sound good to you? If not you can revert me back. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It does sound good, though I'm quite puzzled as to how not including sources for a synopsis doesn't go against WP:OR. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, you misunderstood me, I am not saying that we do not add sources. I'm saying that we find sources which validate what the synopsis says and add that source as citation and put back up the section. Whatever content in the synopsis is not verifiable by any existing reliable source, we prune it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Now THAT makes sense. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, dropping by because I saw the edits over there. The concert synopsis doesn't need to be sourced, or at least not too much. It's like a movie plot or a TV episode summary. The movie/TV show/concert becomes the source itself once it's either aired or the concert's been performed. So once the concert has taken place (which many have on this tour), that becomes the source for the synopsis. Gloss • talk 21:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please actually justify your edit

Please provide a valid rationale for why [1] and encyclopedia article should contain an unattributed POV assessment of "good collections" rather than presenting the specific values. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: The associated source, BH, lists the first weekend as one of the all-time top 25 weekend grosses. If you want you can edit it to represent the exact value, but saying that the collections were good is not POV, they were its a fact. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"good" is a value judgment and of course ALWAYS POV and completely vague and non encyclopedic. If you want to reflect " one of the all-time top 25 weekend grosses." then insert that specifics; but to replace specifics with meaning generality and to edit war over reinserting such non encyclopedic content just because you dont like me is disruptive.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

@TheRedPenOfDoom: do the honors and I already said that. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Scheiße (song) Page

I don't understand why Fanclip paragraph isn't conform.... Why you don't understand here : imdb.com/title/tt3512324/ Moreover, this fanclip is written on the newsletter of littlemonsters dot com Guena LG and Helen Green approved this fanclip too on twitter

78.243.68.88 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just gonna say it final time. IMDB is NOT a reliable source, neither is Twitter, little monsters and all. Either provide a third party reliable source asserting the notability of this source, else I will report you for continuous violation of WP:RS and get your IP blocked. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So check the video credits at 5:35 www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELMBAo2pgs "Scheiße" by the permission of Universal Music Vision by the kind permission of Sony/ATV Music Publishing France Do you want the contracts with Sony and Universal ? But there are non disclosure agreement With 10 000 views on the video and twitter, and littlemonster, and Wikipedia France, and IMDb, and the website of the association, and the contracts, and Allocine dot fr.... The first fan made with agree of an artist, I think it's not nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.243.68.88 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• If a newcomer has a problem, please explain in a polite and friendly way, IndianBio. Threats of "getting them blocked" aren't helpful. You're both edit warring. To put a stop to that for now, I've fullprotected the article for three days while the two of you hopefully work it out on Talk:Scheiße (song).

• @78.243.68.88: you're not in any imminent danger of being blocked, but please note that edit warring is not allowed. Please read the policy about it here. IndianBio, since you're an experienced editor, I assume you're already aware of it? Feel free to ask me on my page, both of you, if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

Random YouTube video with notation holds no candle when reliability of source is concerned. I'm not interested in contracts or other paraphernalia, I'm only interested in the notability and verifiability of the content through third party reliable sources, none of which can be done and the only source comes from your IP address. This is fancruft, fan-generated and I suggest you cease and trying to add the content. Because you cannot, Wikipedia's core policy stops you to do so. @Bishonen: the IP is neither new, nor am I breaking AGF here by threatening a "brand new" IP. I cannot count the numerous time I have reverted and explained the above through the different range of IPs this user is using/has used to add the said unverifiable content. There has to be a limit somehow. Thanks for full-prot the page though, some respite. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Really? I'd better count them, then. Do you mean this addition of a related external link on 10 February? Or this unrelated line from November 2013? Or this, also unrelated, from September? They're the only IP edits to the Scheisse article that I can see you've reverted over the past year; I don't have time to look further back. The first-mentioned external link might be the same individual, though I don't think it has to be. I don't see any reason to suppose the November and September edits are by 78.xx. More urgently, why has nobody edited the article talkpage since July 2013? Angry edit summaries and bitey usertalk templates really are no substitute for civil discussion. Bishonen | talk 17:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

I'm not bad faith, I added the link in Reference (around 10 february), but on Wikipedia France, they told me to add a paragraph not the link, so i added a paragraph here and no link to youtube ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.243.68.88 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because I changed my house.... It's not my fault, so please don't judge this and menace me. So, tell me what sources are "good" ;) But I think you're wrong. I don't think it's the first article on a "fanmade" on wikipedia, didn't it ? But it's a first fanmade with the agree of a big company and an artist. Because it's the first time, it's not possible to write on a wikipedia page ? ;) So I think it's "notable"... You think I spent my time to do that if it's wrong ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.243.68.88 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

IP user, as I explained before also, you are providing unreliable sources like IMDB. You have been continuously saying that the so called video is under the record company's agreement and by their permission. But where is the proof of that except you (primary source)? Coming to the notability clause, what is exceptional about this video? Has the media commented about it? Has it been represented in the media, newspapers, journalistic writings? The answer is again no unless such sources can be found. Lastly, the undue addition policy. There would be literally zillions of cover videos and songs of "Scheibe" across the internet and some of them maybe approved by the record company also. But what gives the precedence to add them to the article? I suggest you go through WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE policies. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please check copyright.... Just that.... I loose my time with you I talk on Scheiße Page. And check here (but for you it's not "notable", as you want) http://www.videostatic.com/watch-it/2014/02/15/lady-gaga-fanclip-schei%C3%9Fe-ludovic-martin-picard-dir 78.243.68.88 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Try all you might, until you can provide WP:RS, there's no point in being salty with me, I do not make the policies around here. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

As you want ;) 78.243.68.88 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited We Belong Together, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page It's Like That (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: 4

Thank you very much! It took some time, but I got there :P —JennKR | ☎ 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@JennKR:, I know its you who promoted Madonna to GA and the article surprisingly looks quite good. What are your thoughts on working the article for FAC? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely in good shape, but I think it suffers from quite a lot of puffery—the first paragraph needs considerable toning down and the legacy section reducing. I think this sort of expansion is common to female pop singer GAs, and the main reason why Beyoncé was reassessed. What are your thoughts? —JennKR | ☎ 14:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@JennKR:, absolutely, the article needs the POV and the fancruft toning down essentially. I believe the lead is more or less fine, but the legacy section s just something isn't it? lol. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In My City

Since you are a major contributor to In My City which is now a GA, I think you can do one thing: there are a few dead links in the article, do you know of any alternatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

Kailash, thanks for notifying, have to check and revert back to you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Behaviour

Well. I see I'm going to actually have the displeasure of conversing with you. Oh goodie! Do me a favor, keep your fancruft and other obnoxious messages to yourself. If you want to discuss a source or an issue, then come talk to me like an adult. Since you took the obscenely long routed initiative to "assess" the EW source, I have provided another supporting her half billion new worth; courtesy of The Daily Telegraph. I believe that more than suffices. Now please get back to those Madonna articles and what not. Cheers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Petergriffin9901:, you must be forgetting the WP:NPA clause of Wikipedia. Be nice to users else do not post here. You know how WP:ANI works I presume? Comment like that once more, you will see how fast the report is generated. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop being immature. I am expressing my opinion and describing your actions as I see them: obnoxious. Stop posting rubbish on my talk and stop fabricating edit-wars. I am in no way attacking you. Again, be on your merry way.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Petergriffin9901:, you really do not know how to talk in a civilized manner do you? Calling me immature won't do the job, first you should have assumed good faith and then spoken like true professionals, which does not seem to be the case. You have continuously for no reason at all called me obnoxious, added WP:OR failing content to the article as pointed by @Adabow:, and you have edit warred over the content. I just saw your block log and it seems you have been blocked previously for the same issue also, howeverm, you are choosing to turn blind eye on it, removing warning templates from your talk pages and then saying that it is "rubbish". Suit yourself, one more revert and you will see how fast the report comes up in ANI. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your posts are rubbish mate. I don't need you to post obnoxious rudimentary templates on my talk page. You should have stopped reverting like it was your agenda and reached out. And there is no such edit-war. Adabow and I are friends having a civilized discussion on the matter. Don't project your disappointments onto others. Good day.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Petergriffin9901: Suit yourself, you have no knowledge of human interraction it seems. I have absolutely no interest what your personal equation is with Adabow, you have behaved in an unprofessional manner, you have edit warrned thrice and you have personally attacked an editor. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I encourage both of you to take a break from editing, for at least 10 minutes if not for a couple of hours. Calm down, and try and get on. You are both somewhat in the wrong here: Nathan, don't jump to snarky remarks, and IndianBio, don't slap and reslap a non-newbie. Adabow (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The non-newbie should know better then that to behave in this way. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed he should, but patronising him isn't exactly going to alleviate things. I believe the actual content dispute is over, so unless there is another actual issue, please both of you go your separate ways. These sorts of discussions aren't achieving anything, and are wasting three people's time. Adabow (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of patronizing him/her in any way, when an editor uses foul language that negates the professional editing that we continue to do here, and repeatedly does so, sorry I do not have a choice in my hand. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• IndianBio, please do not think that templating talk pages is part of the professional behavior that we like to promote here. There are many users and admins who think that simply slapping a templated warning on a user's talk page is more uncivil than using a foul word or two. I closed that ANI thread in part because any more contributions from other editors would have come without sunshine daisies, as you put it, but I think it is a good idea if you made an effort to act in a more personal and less heavy-handed manner. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Madonna question

Hello, I've lately been adding fanbases to this page, and was wondering if you knew what the name of Madonna's fan base is. Please provide a reference as well. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: sorry buddy I'm not aware of waht Madonna fans are called, she is not my regular jukebox. Although, funnily enough, I saw in one YouTube parody called The Necki Menij Show that they were called "Medonsters". :P —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I had a feeling you would've known given your frequent work to her articles, but apparently not. No, the "Necki Menij Show" doesn't count :P. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I do love monitoring them though, too much of fancruft goes into Madonna, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Mariah Carey articles as well as the Bollywood ones I monitor. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, @IndianBio: I'm quite surprised to hear that. But I don't really listen to the artist who is the subject of my sole FA, so I guess I shouldn't talk. @XXSNUGGUMSXX: They do not have a name. It was a conscious decision. Naming was attempted; but it was later decided to just leave it as simply "Madonna fans". — Status (talk · contribs) 18:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, Status..... when/where was it decided to simply call them "Madonna fans"? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't add Bon Jovi's 2013 Tour into highest grossing list?

Just like wiki shows, Bon Jovi's 2013 Tour has got more 240 million grossing from 100 of 102 shows, which is in the top 10 in the whole 2010s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insnookermark (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know when you find a single source which can verify the content, including the gross sales and attendance. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Very Gaga Holiday

The article A Very Gaga Holiday you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Very Gaga Holiday for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For having made "A Very Gaga Holiday" a GA, just one day after Lady Gaga's 28 birthday. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Yeahhhh, I did not even realize it is Gaga's birthday. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And she narrowly evaded the 27 club, which Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison could not evade. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh God, never thought of it in that way . That list was really sad to read. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

G.U.Y.

Hello, I'm here as per your request about my edit on G.U.Y. (song). Giacobbe ^talk 04:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello @(CA)Giacobbe: how are you? I believe we have not interacted previously. :) Well the reason I have reverted you is because the LA Times source you added for insinuating "G.U.Y." as Contemporary R&B, does not exactly say so. It says "Lady Gaga approaches other fresh modes with more spirit, particularly in a handful of songs that pull deeply from R&B... " Here it essentially means that Gaga incorporated R&B motifs in the track, but it does not clear-cut say that "G.U.Y." is a R&B song. Hence since genres should be something that encompasses a whole song, rather than motifs and influences cherry-picked by the artist, we cannot accept it, even a reliable source is saying it. Hope this explains you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too. Yes that's what I figured was the problem, I was unsure as to whether or not it would be deemed appropriate, as the source for EDM states: "G.U.Y. embraces EDM". The wording of it confused me, as I couldn't tell if it was enough to explicitly state it's an EDM song, or should be better off classified as an "influence". Giacobbe ^talk 04:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@(CA)Giacobbe: there is a minute difference between the two. When embraces is used it encompasses the whole composition of the song. Think of this with an example (don't laugh :D): "Embraces EDM" is synonymous to you wrapping yourself around with a blanket so the blanket is now a part of you, while "pull deeply from R&B" is like you pulling out a handkerchief from a box full of the same stuff at a super market. Does that make it more clear? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol yea it does, no worries man I understand. Giacobbe ^talk 04:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Input

Care to comment here given your interest in the Hunger Games? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

ARTPOP Critical Reception

It seems as if two users are adamant on changing the album's reception section to "lukewarm", despite the clear consensus. It was just changed for the third time. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Cite web

Hi, Thanks for the comment regard citing web references. I never have done that before. I have given a try on page Swades, [2]. If you can check the way I have done it correct would be appreciated. Regard the planet bollywood I found the source from here [3] and followed the same for the rest of the stars. While its not a WP:RS I assume its ok to remove that too? Also can you also teach me how to check the realible source so that i wont be doing the same mistake again. Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Daan0001: thanks for taking the initiative to learn how to use the template and congrats, you are doing it fine only. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I feel happy. It's fun doing it through the tool box :))). Daan0001 (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't heard from you regard the bollywood hung ana surfers award yet ? No reply means I will add it on Ranveer Singh. As according to some users it needs to consistent that awards should be either stay on one actors page or removed totally. Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Daan0001: where exactly did you ask me about it? And what exactly is the issue? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey it's ok now. I think it's been sorted now. Will defo get to you if any ones pushes me. Daan0001 (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Question / help re: Black Coffee (All Saints song)

Hi there :) I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask but I've noticed some of your impressive work on Madonna song articles and I'm having a problem finding info regarding voice range, bpm, tempo, chord progression etc for Black Coffee (All Saints song). I've searched on Musicnotes but I can't find/deduce info? If you're not too busy could you perhaps help me out pretty please? Thanks! —Coolmarc (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Coolmarc:, I will surely search for one and let you know. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a billion! :) —Coolmarc (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey there! :) Did you manage to find anything for me? (Please say yes *cries*) —Coolmarc (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: Here you go. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to read sheet music lol :( how do I deduce info from that about the song's vocal range, bpm, tempo, chord progression? —Coolmarc (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be such a pain but could you perhaps help deduce the abovementioned info from the sheet music pretty please? —Coolmarc (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry @Coolmarc:, must have missed your request. The sheet shows that the song is in common time with 120 beats per minute. The bridge has a progression of Bm₇–E–Bm₇–E while the chorus has a progression of E–Bm–D–A. This is all I could find, It does not have the key or vocal range. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so so much! —Coolmarc (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji filmography

Hey IndianBio. I would really appreciate it if you could post your comments at the FLC nomination for the Rani Mukerji filmography right here. The nomination already has two supports, but has failed to garner much interest since, and I would hate to see it fail due to lack of participation. Thank you. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90:, sure would love to seeing the wonderful list you have developed. Even I'm trying one for Madonna too. Will be commenting in a few hours. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Great! Look forward to the comments. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

artRAVE: The ARTPOP Ball

Why you are removing the Israeli date in Lady Gaga's artRAVE: The ARTPOP Ball? According to the sources there is a link that says "Lady Gaga to play Tel Aviv in September", The date is not on Gaga's official site and on TicketMaster because the tickets are not on sale yet!. I'm not going to add the date anynore but this date is official and it should be on the tour dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaARTPOP (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

New FLC

Hey IndianBio, wanna take a look here and do something? :) Bluesatellite (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bluesatellite:, Hey that's a wonderful start. Can we see Jake Gyllenhaal filmography as a model? That seems to be so structured. And I think the US box office part can go because Madonna is really not known for strong box office collections. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do look up to some featured filmography, Jennifer Lopez filmography is good as well. Box Office is part of the film reception, just like chart positions or sales/certifications in discography, so I'd say let's keep it. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok sure, lemme know if you need help with sourcing and formatting. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Stubs

What's so bad about having stubs for future expansion? Stubs are allowed at Wikipedia, and these songs clearly pass the notability threshold. I am not going to go back and forth on this, especially because I really enjoy and respect your work, but I am surprised to see that you want these articles to go away just because they are not fully fleshed out. I appreciate your opinions, but I ask that you please keep in mind that stubs are ok sometimes! Keep up the great work here at Wikipedia--I look forward to seeing your work for G.U.Y. imported into mainspace. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Another Believer:, stubs which are likely not to be expanded much is not OK and I'm sure about it. Both the two articles you created had only one aspect, both had been performed once in one venue and that too something of not that much importance unlike Oscars or something. That is detrimental in their notability and frankly my research showed me that there was not much that I could add from Gaga's POV also like "Artpop" the song. Hence yeah you might be right that redirecting like previously is the only option. But for future references, you being the trigger factor for the AFDs, please refrain from moving these articles to mainspace if you just develop them as stubs and cannot expand further. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought my edits were constructive, but you disagree, and that's fine. It's how Wikipedia works. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Another Believer: voila! You conjured up quite a bit of magic on the "Swine" article! The live performances grant it its notability. I'm tending towards keep now. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Live performances do not always make songs notable. If there was in-depth coverage from a time she only performed that track (maybe with one or other tracks if they also get in-depth coverage), then it could be notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case they have made the song notable since multiple sources talk about the performance, the vomit, Millie Brown controversy etc etc. I get it XXNUG, you find it failing NSONGS but I don't. I see in-depth coverage from the time she performed the song. And nothing you say will dissuade my point so I politely request you to stop doing so in the AFD as well as here also. The continuous response to each and every user not agreeing with you might be seen as quarrelsome attitude however polite you are. I'm not blaming you at all, but just note how it is appearing to be. Let everyone say their thoughts clearly and leave consensus to build up instead of dragging that person through the same repetitive sentences which I'm sorry you have been copy-pasting in the AFDs. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The vomit performance controversy definitely brought it the most attention, that's for sure. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah for me it made me like her much less now, that woman is completely cuckoo now. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)