User talk:JohnFromPinckney/Archives/2010

Re: "World single of the year"

No problem! :) Apparently the info came from the United World Chart website, which mantains year-end charts (though not all of them matched), but since the UWC was deemed unverifiable, it cannot be used on Wikipedia. However, the IFPI does publish official global year-end charts listing the best-selling albums and digital singles of the year (under "Top 50 Global Sellers"). Hope it helps! Funk Junkie (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Woop

I was unwittingly reading a fakepost that said it was called Duggar Trash, my bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --96.243.180.45 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That must be why the R is included in RS. ;-) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rude Boy

Billboard says Rude Boy debuted at 93. [1] Candyo32 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Documentation

Excellent job on the singlechart documentation. Do you think an example of mixing singlechart calls with manually formatted entries would be a worthwhile addition?—Kww(talk) 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I think it would be useful, and your question made me wonder why you couldn't see it; I was pretty sure I'd put it in there. Turns out (apparently) that I hadn't, but I have been doing exactly that over in the sandbox to get familiar with how the template works. I guess the manual thing didn't make it over to the doc with all the other stuff I tried to cram in there.

I'm beat right now and must sleep (rather than mess something up), but I'll be glad to add it in later, along with whatever else (like lie corrections) we think of by then. ZZZzzzzzz — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fencing

The error is really strange... I will immediately investigate and fix the problem. Thank you for your message. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Simply inexplicable. I applied the same script to the same page (old revisions placed in this sandbox) and everything was fine. Really odd also the double edit of the page (it was in auto mode!)... maybe a bug of the pywikipedia suite. Please, let me know if you see any other problem. Thank you! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna 2006 Tour

Thanks for the help. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Barber's pole‎

Now that you cleverly eliminated the link to "some building" that had a red and white ONLY barber's pole, I would suggest you find another. Eliminating links connotes other responsiblities -- and I am sure you are up to the task. Such a picture is missing from this article. It was not put there gratuitously, or to promote some English barbershop. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

Good job!. Much better than the link, I think. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

Collaboration is good. We now have a better 'product' for our 'customers.' 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

re:Rihanna discography intro

Howdy. First, I really appreciate all the work you're doing with the discogs - I know it ain't easy when dealing with the pop-music stuff. Anyway I'll keep this quick cuz, well, ya know, it's Saturday morning and I'm hungover and not fully caffeinated yet, heh. Anyhoo, I didn't mean to insult or anything by calling it pretentious... actually, I had started to write this long diatribe on the talk page about how overly-detailed the intro was, and then I just thought 'screw it' and axed the header. I dont know exactly when or how, but discog pages suddenly began to get more and more verbose in the intros. Personally I don't like it, but several featured lists have them, so not much I can do there. I think someone as relatively 'new' as Rihanna doesn't need this gigantic, release-by-release description of her music output. If anything I'd love to see it cropped a bit but I am very familiar with how 'the fans' are. Did I say I was gonna keep this quick? - eo (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't template experienced users

Please don't use impersonal templates to warn experienced users, like you did to Okip here. It's considered bad practice. Fran Rogers❇ 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up john. Okip 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeodin

Re: this warning. Next time, I'd use {{subst:uw-vandalism4|Lass uns laufen|'''You must not add charts listed at [[WP:BADCHARTS]] to Wikipedia articles'''}}. It's obvious that he isn't listening, and in those cases a short block is the only thing that seems to wake them up. Sometimes a final warning does the trick.—Kww(talk) 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Leave me a note next time instead of warning directly if you are reticent. I've left numerous level 4 warnings for BADCHART violations, and have never had a problem getting follow-through from admins.—Kww(talk) 03:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeodin.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, Kevin, I won't miss doing my weekly reversion of Friend Jeodin's efforts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Italics

LOL. That was some essay. Personally I feel that its ok with the italics. Its an MOS issue that online sources are not to be italicized. However, the work parameter forces the italics jargon on the word added in it. Adding italics cancels it and renders the final version as non-slanted. If we need to change, we should change {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} etc so that user's can chose to italicize whichever source they feel like. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: [File:Rude Boy Remix.jpg] [2]

I didn't uploaded the image. I just completed what the notice said. So, whatever. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't bore me. I have already changed what you said. If you don't like, do whatever you want, propose the elimination of the file, whatever. One more thing, my talk page is not your garbage, where you can put whatever you want. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Real nice attitude. You get to write on my Talk page, but I'm not allowed to write on yours. Right neighborly of you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm nice, thanks. You're always complaining. You can write in my talk page, but then I put in the archive, and give my answer in your talk page, like any other normal user. Do you understand? Or do you need a cartoon? Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason I have continued to revise your edit, is because your wrong. If your where to go to www.billboard.com you will see your mistake for yourself. Every single that reaches #1 on the Hot 100 has always had the following weeks ending as the date the #1 single was issued, this is a fact that seems to be unknown to you. For example yes "Rude Boy" reached #1 on Thursday, Ma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.12.100 (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Rude Boy" Is The #1 single for March 27, 2010 not March 18, 2010!!!!!!!

If your were to go to www.billboard. com you would see that every #1 single has and always probably will be issued with the following Saturday, as the day the song was issued not when it reached #1. So yes "Rude Boy" reached #1 on Thursday, March 18, 2010 but it wasn't issued until Saturday, March 27, 2010. This is the practice of Billboard, if you have a problem with it you should write them. It was an honest mistake that you keep making, we all make them but I will fix it once again. Remember go to the website and you will see for yourself, so you wont continue vandalizing someone elses work!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.12.100 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

More about Billboard chart dating

Billboard's chart date is the LAST date of the chart period of one week. SEVEN DAYS. Rihanna's 'Rude Boy' became #1 in the issue dated 3/27, but, and think about it, the song was number one for five weeks. That's 35 days. Your chart box shows only 29 days. Where did the other six days go? They have to be accounted for. What I'm doing is correct. I am not mistaken. Billboard magazine has been publishing the chart this way for a very long time. The chart is for the issue date and the previous six days. That's a week, and those days should be accounted for in the chart box on here. Also, if you don't believe me, you're welcome to ask Billboard, and they will tell you exactly the same thing.

Adfalcon (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)adfalcon

Um, hi. Are you talking to me, or are you responding to the above post from March? If you're talking to me, what are you talking about, and why? Which article, I mean. I don't have any chart box, and I don't know why you're posting this here. If you're posting to 71.191.12.100 above please indicate (preferably by posting on their talk page).

My understanding of Billboard is that they announce charts in advance, meaning there's some issue date maybe 10 days in the future with which the chart values are associated, and that's the date we use on Wikipedia. It came as a big surprise to me, because it's not explained anywhere, and I wish it were done differently, but that's how I believe it's always been done here. If you want to change the system, you'll need to get a big discussion going so as many people as possible (1) agree with it and (2) know about it. Otherwise your edits will keep getting reverted. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I'm talking to you. My knowledge on the use of this site is primitive, and I'm not exactly sure of how to write to other users, but I'm glad you wrote, so that I can talk to you directly. First off, whether or not something has 'always been done here' doesn't make it correct. I'd REALLY like to be able to show you exactly what I'm talking about concerning the chart dates, and the information I posted above IS correct. The change you just made to Eminem's 'Love the Way You Lie' page isn't correct. PLEASE look at the Billboard Hot 100 page. It says clearly that the charts are published on a 'week-ending' basis. Please go look. That information is also verifiable on the Billboard site.

What's more is that I'd like an ally in this quest, because it REALLY needs to be put right. I'm truly willing to talk to you at length to get the help I need for this. Here's an email address, and I'd really like to hear form you. [redacted] Adfalcon (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)adfalcon

Speedy deletion declined: Brodie Pasten

Hello JohnFromPinckney, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Brodie Pasten, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to television programs. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you really believe this is a real television show? Starring Sandra Bullock?

I am quite convinced that this article is a joke made by some guy who has included members of his family in a description of a fake TV show, where siblings, parents, etc. are played by famous people the author thought would be funny. Google has heard of this name only from WP; the IMDb articles for Sandra Bullock, Madison Pettis, Michael Poryes have no mention of this "project", and IMDb's search returns no matches for "Brodie Pasten", either as person or show title.

Maybe it should be deleted as a hoax. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't read the article closely enough to see the cast members. My first (and only) thought was that creative works aren't eligible for speedy deletion under A7. Thanks for digging in a little. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no: thank you. It was easier for me to see what a farce that article was after I reverted a series of that user's other facetious edits. Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

UK R&B Chart

I brought it up in Record Charts because it wasn't archived, so I asked if I could use a non-clickable link based on the Music Week ref, it was turned down but most people just said that the chart isn't needed or shouldn't be used when it charted on the main chart. It's somewhere on Wikipedia:Record charts discussion page, I don't know exactly how long ago it was though, sorry! Jayy008 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, the beings on my planet are equipped with powers unknown here on Earth, and are aided with a level of technology unparalleled in this part of the galaxy. My clairvoyance told me that the discussion began some 19 days and seven hours before the note here, and by mentally flipping through the posts from that time period that I had memorized when I scanned through the WP server logs last Friday during my lunch break, I was able to divine this URL: Wikipedia talk:Record charts#UK R.26B Chart. Wow, I'm good (no need for you to kneel). ;-) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, well I'm glad you found it. Jayy008 (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Record charts

Hello, I will be glad to support it, but I think still that the old certifications should be shown, not simply a date of when the new ones came into effect, if that's changed then I will post my support. Jayy008 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Having problems posting [to Good Luck Charlie]

Hi John I got your message regarding my post. I think I figured this talk thing out. I can understand why you think I might be starting a campaign. Please note that I am not. What would you suggest I do to make my post permanent. Understand it is hard to get the controversy off Twitter (as it seems one sided and out of context) as well as you need to understand the symptoms to catch it on the video. What would you suggest so we can work together and make everyone happy. I am not breaking any rules or the five pillars that I can see. Jrfoldes (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your post! I have moved it down to the bottom, so that the postings appear in (rough) order from top to bottom. It is the usual way.

The short answer is that you need reliable sources indicating that this is a notable controversy. That means the YouTube video showing 1-1/2 minutes of commercial for the show is not useful here, because nowhere does a character say something like, "That's our brother PJ, he's got bipolar disorder." The article you included as a reference from bphope.com may explain about BP, but doesn't point to PJ in Good Luck Charlie (and how could it? The show hasn't aired yet.) to indicate a clear example of BP. No Disney official has even hinted at BP in the show, so no third-party source has remarked on it in print or on-air. There's nothing connecting PJ and BP except you, and even if you were a doctor and PJ were a real person, it still wouldn't be good enough, until your diagnosis were printed in a scientific journal or your discussion of PJ's condition at a press conference were reported on by the TV stations.

What we do have is a bunch of tweets (hardly the most reliable of sources) from you, the same individual who's trying to add this "controversy" which, apparently, nobody else has heard of. And these tweets indicate (a) that you think it'd be "awesome" if PJ had BP; (b) that you know Disney has not set PJ up as a BP character, but that you think "they should"; and (c) that you want to start a campaign promoting the idea you're trying to claim is a controversy over in Wikipedia. Do you see that this is an obvious conflict of interest? Those tweets only make it appear to other editors that you lack a neutral attitude to that aspect of that article, so your edits automatically appear suspect. The lack of an article from, say, The New York Times or even the E! Web site make WP editors move toward reverting your edits on that matter (and, unfortunately, any other edits you make in the future will get scrutinized more closely as well). What you need is a reliable, third-party source connecting PJ and BP (and then it needs to talk about some controversy, which is another thing, too).

Does this help you at all? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll try to gather more evidence before I attempt to repost this or any other entry. Please note the discussion is being made on secure message boards so obviously no ref link can be made. Please don't make the assumption that no one else has heard of this "controversy". I would like to remind you that those are just my tweets and they are easily taken out of context w/o the other parties, which if I were in your shoes I would assume it was made up as well. Thanks for the help in clarifying Wikipedia policies. You were much more informative then the other moderators. Jrfoldes (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. Can I now be entitled to a "haw-haw" moment should Disney go with the bipolar thing? :-P

Well, whatever may be brewing behind the walls of the message boards, we can't do anything about it on this side until it breaks into the open on its own (usually means mainstream media: gossip and entertainment rags first, then newspapers and serious mags).

And WP doesn't really have moderators; you've been interacting with editors, which is what you and I are. They may have more experience than you, but stick around and some day you'll be helping newbies find their way yourself. Good luck! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Note

I think you may have accidentally removed some entries by other users (I actually just edited them) in error when you deleted mine. Jrfoldes (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worried, but I'll look at it. By the way, please consider using more meaningful headings. Something like, "Inadvertent reverts on Good Luck Charlie?" might have been good here. Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As expected, looks like separate, deliberate edits on my part. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Record Charts / Billboard Components

I've made an alteration to the table. Does this help? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

do you think the new table suffices? of course there is much debate to be had about which charts are deemed component charts so the exact position of the charts could change.Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm still unhappy (sorry). I'm working on describing what I think we could improve on it. It's not terribly simple (but you knew that already). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Confused: From the current table prototype it looks like Rhythmic Airplay Chart is a component of Hot R&B/Hip Songs (as well as of Hot 100 Airplay), but in your tree analysis above, that doesn't seem to be the case. Which is right? — JohnFromPinckney (talk)

Apologies. I've got my wires crossed. Apoligies. i've been through that many billboard and wikipedia pages i've gotten several things wrong. I've modified and simplified the table. I've also used more instructional comments from your flow diagram (its not complete waste). what do you think now? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't keep track of the details anymore, but the form of it looks okay to me. Good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Radio adds

I don't like it either, but when a song's only released to radio, it isn't allowed to be called "Release history" if it only has radio a radio release. But if it has both they are separated, I'll try and find you the discussion, but trust me it's a lot of reading! I argued it out alot lol. Jayy008 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A better example is "Blah Blah Blah". 'Release' means being sold as a 'single' independent of the album track with a DIFFERENT digital release date from the album or a physical release (CD or other).
Radio date is NOT generally recognized as a 'release date' as it is a 'promotion date'. Radio adds is the date that the Record Label wants it to start receiving Radio play. Many insisted that the 'radio promotion date' be included in the table of 'Release history' and not just mentioned in the article text. A compromise position seen at "Blah Blah Blah" is to indicate that Radio material is included in the section with the use of section title 'Radio and release history' and then listing each portion individually in a table. Thus the infobox 'Release date' = the earliest date in the 'Release history' table and NOT the 'Radio add date(s)' table. I am open for possible alternate titles from 'Radio adds' or 'Radio add date(s)'.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I edited "Put It in a Love Song" Radio adds > Radio add date(s). I believe that I prefer this better also. Less confusion with the possible thought of Radio 'advertising'.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note text 'made available to U.S radio.' instead of 'released to U.S radio.' Sometimes it is seen as 'officially sent to impact radio' or similar but should not contain the word, 'release(d)' as when discussing radio.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, whatever you say. I'm too uninformed about that area to understand what the differences could be (and I don't know what impact radio is). I have to confess that I don't even fully comprehend the idea of the single (and here I am meddling in all these music articles!). I'm still interested in seeing the discussion about the "radio adds" term though. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Radio adds, Radio impact, officially impacts radio...are terms that the industry uses for the date that the Record Label wants it to start receiving Radio play. I prefer your edit even more :) to 'Radio add dates'. In addition to adhearing to WP style (you point out), it also looks much less awkward because the parentheses are removed. I had adopted someone else's resolution as seen at "Blah Blah Blah" and that is how 'they' did it. I am more than happy to now adopt your tweak. I do compromise and I am willing to accept improvements if I agree. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, then we're very similar; I'm glad to do things your way as long as that's the way I wanted to do it. :-) And thanks for helping me separate "Impact Radio" (I figured, a Clear Channel competitor) from "sending something so as to impact radio". Me get now. Ugh. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

ROFL. Great!—Iknow23 (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

New billboard chart policy

As per consensus at WP:record charts there is a new guide to using Billboard Charts available at Billboard charts guide. Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) (formerly known just as Pop Songs) is no longer deemed a component chart - there is no evidence to support this motion.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JohnFromPinckney. You have new messages at Jubileeclipman's talk page.
Message added 06:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jubilee♫clipman 06:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeodin

I think you should take it to level 4 the next time: immediately resuming an edit-war that resulted in a two-week block isn't something you have to go through four steps again over.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Check. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ur warning

I already have appoligized for the edit summary i got pissed but then i tried to undo what i did but it was already done STATicVerseatide talk 01:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Record Charts

Hey John, You left a length post on the at talk page of WP:record charts which i've attempted to address. Can youy please take a look then we can decide what to do next. =)Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I'm clean!

Young, fresh and new. SnapSnap (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Admins

Excuse me, but that was rude, we want to ask an admin because they can tell us if it's possible even for a fansite to be used as a ref, if it is, then it will be brought up for discussion on Carey's page for anybody to support or object. Jayy008 (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see what you mean, but it's not a decision, all we want to know is if it's possible, and an Admin can tell us. It's as simple as that, if it goes beyond that, then everybody can join in if it goes as far as discussion. Because the rule is fansites aren't credible, but I want to know if there's even a point of bringing it up for discussion. Jayy008 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

When you put it that way John, it makes sense. Wikipedia isn't a classroom where students ask a teacher for permission, it's a community of editors who make rules and decisions together. I agree, however some editors Iv'e dealt with are stubborn and will not take that as an answer, which is why the word of an Admin is helpful, though I personally don't deem it necessary. Now in terms of knowledge, I can tell you Kevin probably has some of the most extensive knowledge and judgement on Wikipedia. He's never made a biased decision, and has always acted truthfully and good faith, and doesn't do things secretly. These are traits even most Admins DON'T have. Iv'e seen Admins do foolish things, things that could have costed them their position. This is why I always go to Kevin and will continue, I just would also appreciate the input of an Admin, not for the advice, but just for skin deep, to be able to say and Admin approved, for the more stubborn editors.--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No no, the rude part was it just seemed very deemening, but if it wasn't intentional I apologize. I always like to ask an Admin where I stand on something, because they have power to do a lot of things on here not just blocking and protecting. Kww is very experienced yes, but he cannot do those things, so I only trouble non-admin's if I think there's no other choice, I always believe an Admin has the title to help others, I don't like troubling other users when there's no need when it's not their "job" so to speak. Sorry for the mis-understanding :) Jayy008 (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey John, I really appreciate all the effort you put into explaining it in a friendly and educated way. I want you to know your opinion is very welcome when we present our argument, and look forward to working with you and more editors like yourself in the future!.--PeterGriffin • Talk 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I feel bad that I got Jamie upset. He's another user with more experience in music articles than I have in WP in general, so being demeaning was about the opposite of how I'd like to approach him. I wanted to find out his (your) reasoning, then found myself arguing against that reasoning, when I really was trying to understand what I missed.

I get rather verbose sometimes, but I'd rather spend some time writing (and reading) clear explanations than having people get upset with me through misunderstandings. It appears that this time I hit that middle ground where I failed both, at least for a while. I hope it's all clear now. Thanks again for your friendly words. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:GOODCHARTS editing

There's a little bit of a trick to editing GOODCHARTS. It was an accident, but it's so good at keeping vandalism down that I've never been able to bring myself to fix it. Go give it a try: go to WP:GOODCHARTS and click the "edit" button, and see if it doesn't take you a moment to figure out what to do.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Now I see!

And... damn! That's pretty tricky. I had to take a couple of runs at it. But I'm in. Now I can finally add the Pinckney Hot 147 Punk/Country Ringtones Chart. ;-) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Airplay, Billboard & Digital Charts review

Hello, i was wondering if you could give your opinion of the following as part of the final review process for WP:USCHARTS before it is fully promoted to policy. Discussion. Thanks. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna: Live in Concert Tour

Hello. Thanks for the information. I was referencing a photocopy of a ticket from her show at the Mezzanine. The ticket stated, "Rihanna Live in Concert". However, the website seems to have deleted the image so I will begin to see if I can find another copy. On the Def Jam website News section, it does mention, "The Live Tour" as a title but whenever I try to access the article, it redirects back to the main page. Since the tour was over four years ago, its becoming hard to find information about it, but I will continue to look. I did not know about the WP:SWAP feature. I thought reverting the edits would work. I believe the title "Rihann 2006 Tour" was a title the creator came up with to create the article. Thanks for your input Itsbydesign (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

street single

New one on me. I'm tempted to treat it as a leak.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OLJO

I can't see any reason to treat http://www.oljo.de/eurochart_eu_chart/eu100.shtml as reliable. Can you?—Kww(talk) 03:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Of all the various "Eurochart"s hanging around, Billboard's is the only one I know to be reliable. It is a mirror of another chart, but I don't have a URL for that chart online. Replacing any or all with the Billboard chart seems reasonable. {{singlechart}} calls it the "Eurochart Hot 100".—Kww(talk) 15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that (singlechart usage) a good thing? Are you using "Eurochart" as some generic term, meaning something like "a chart of European singles"? I've been understanding it as a specific (branded) chart name, which may be why I'm confused.

If {{singlechart}} is expanding to "Eurochart Hot 100", but pointing to a Billboard thingy which we call European Hot 100 Singles and Billboard calls "European Hot 100", I think we ought to change the {{singlechart}} code to the latter. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. You can look at articles in Category:Singlechart usages for Billboardeuropeanhot100 to double check my work.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool! It's like the story about the guy who has elves doing all this work while he sleeps. ;-) I did add a tweak to the template, so that the ref line also uses "European" instead of "Eurochart". You may have left that deliberately, so feel free to revert if I've messed it up (it was also my first-ever template edit, I believe). Thanks again, Kevin! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jaan00732

So far I've been assuming that this is a bewildered refugee from Spanish Wikipedia. I'm having a hard time still believing that. Can you come up with any good faith explanation for this edit summary? The actual revision id flagged is this one.—Kww(talk) 22:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, he's out to make me regret assuming good faith for him. For a while thought it was just a problem of ability, but his last edit to Rude Boy, adding United World chart, cinched it for me; I now believe he's a deliberate menace.

I also studied his claim of self-reversion and couldn't work out how he managed what his summary claimed. I know I have performed a simple reversion and then, before saving, seen one or two little things I might as well change at the same time... suddenly the reversion is the smallest of the changes I'm making. For Jaan's edit, though, it seems to be a completely different thing.

He's going slowly enough at the moment that he hasn't needed a block (IMO), but when he decides to be active, the block ought to come quickly. It's a bloody nuisance cleaning up after him. He's actually got 7 notices (after my welcome) on his Talk in 3 days, so we've been plenty friendly, helpful, and lenient. When and for how long he gets blocked is up to, er, some admins. Those decisions are why you get the big money. ;-) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If it starts again, I'll indef him until he agrees to behave. The cleanup has been a real pain, sprawling over multiple edits on multiple articles. On Spanish wikipedia, he has simply been copying our chart tables onto theirs, eliminating all sourcing and referencing along the way because Spanish Wikipedia doesn't support {{singlechart}}.23:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)—Kww(talk)

Ha, niiice. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked here now, and I don't really expect him back. He's making friends on Spanish Wikipedia now.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What a strange little gremlin. Odd pattern of vandalism. Can't say I'll miss him. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

User:RyanG222

I've had to report User talk:RyanG222

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic the distuptive editing of discographies and vandalism by RyanG222. Thank you. — Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

I was talking about three warnings for things I didn't do. About those personal attack notices I have said sorry to that editor. STAT -Verse 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

2nd ANI for iLuvrihanna24

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Iluvrihann24's POV-pushing, disobeyal of community opinion/practises and repeated disruption of Rated R, Rihanna discography and "Te Amo". Thank you. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

re... sorry. I only notified you because your reverted an edit of Iluvrihanna24 which i've brought up at ANI. Thanks for the advice. In fututre i'll try and be a bit more specific. And yes im aware of WP:CANVAS and that's not my intention here. But again thanks for the heads up. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I've reverted lots of her edits. Lots and lots of them. It was practically a hobby until I got smart enough to unwatch a few of the Rihanna pages.

The thing about WP:CANVAS is that it's rather easy to get tangled up in it even with the best of intentions, yet it's not widely enough known by editors (until they tangled in it). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I need your help

Unfortunately you are the only admin I can trust and can give a reasonable answer without talking in riddles. Who do I complain to when a user is going in removing all references from an article then posting said article for speedy deletion. This individual has done this three times and has even had a valid entry deleted. I know they are doing it deliberately towards me as some of the articles aren't even related. If I can give you the name of the articles can I get your help, even though I had to fix them again? Jrfoldes (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm flattered to have your trust, but I am not an admin. I am just another user, like yourself. I'll still try to help you, though. I hope I'm clear enough for you.

The second thing to do when you're unhappy with somebody's behavior is to go to that person. The user you want to complain about has a Talk page; go to that Talk page and respectfully explain your viewpoint. By doing so, you might just clarify some misunderstanding and the other user will change their behavior. Possibly, you will be the one who has misunderstood, and the discussion with the user will still result in a resolution. If you've both misunderstood, you can both adapt your behaviors.

After that, you can begin a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard and explain your concerns about the user's behavior there. That's rather serious, and I've never felt the need to take anything there (nor have I been dragged there myself!).

But notice I said "the second thing to do" above; the first thing is to check yourself to make sure you're not doing something wrong. If you assume good faith toward the other user, you have to consider that they are removing references (are they unreliable sources?) and nominating articles for deletion (are they non-notable? lacking reliable sources?) for some good reason.

What makes you say that you "know they are doing it deliberately towards" you? Are you sure your actions are in order? If not, consider that the user might be "doing it deliberately towards" your actions. Keep calm and good luck. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Consensus for {{italic title}}

Hey, for me, it's no biggie. Seriously though, what does it do other than display the title differently? I can't be bothered getting into lengthy discussions, I'll just say I don't agree with your revert. Whether or not you agree with me is your choice, I just stated my opinion. Thanks. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Attention please

Your input is requested at WT:Record charts#Chart template formats.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Certifications

Want to really have fun? Take a peek at User:Kww/singlecert.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! Ow! No, wait! Sheesh, I'm already pedaling as fast as I can. *huff* *puff* *wheeze* Okay, it's a good idea, though. I'm wondering why you went to certs before albums, although — now hold on just a cotton-pickin' minute. That template was last changed in December! What else you got hidden in your cupboard? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just been waiting for a bit more acceptance of the concept. It could be that the certifications would be an easier sell, because fewer people know how to look them up. Hell, I can't do France or Sweden without looking it up in the template source.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ultratip

I've always been uneasy with our description of Ultratip, and haven't found good sources for it.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Going blind

I tried to make Norway conditional, and can't see what I've done wrong. As you can see at User_talk:Kww/singlechart, the Hung Medien case won't generate a reference anymore. I modeled it on the Dutch Top 40 logic, and this diff probably has a clue. Help?—Kww(talk) 23:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Your code covers the case that (reading into the conditional {{#if}} tests from left to right) a week parameter is present, then if that's true, when the year parameter is (also) present. Otherwise, it starts doing the Hung Medien version. But the "otherwise" here is just if the year-parameter-present is false, when the week-parameter-present test is true. I believe you need to close off the week-parameter test with two more closing braces between the first |name="sc_{{{1}}}_{{{artist}}}"}} and the |{{#tag:ref|"[http://www.norwegiancharts.com... stuff.

Before you do that, you can test with no year parameter, just a week and an artist. I believe you'll see your reference then, pointing to a Hung Medien citation. Little addition added after my original post. 08:24

I hadn't noticed the changes to the Dutch40 template, so I had to figure out what you were on about regarding "conditionals". Then I had to learn about #if|true|false, because I've never done much template work here (but I've been wanting to learn so it was a good excuse). Now I think I ought to change the singlechart documentation a little to include the more exact forms for Dutch40 in our example data section. But maybe I'll wait until you've done Norway, too. I also think we might want to explain the Denmark varieties better, although I have to get my head around the details better myself. I think I'll wait until your next save of the template, in any case. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you noticed, but I just rewrote that bit of code from scratch. You get nice error messages if you tell me only the year or only the week now, too.—Kww(talk) 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was very sneaky clever of you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Czech title

The title given on the HTML source for the page is "ČNS IFPI". My reference is showing a title of CNS IFPI, and a work of "Hitparáda - RADIO cz50 Oficiální". You are right that it should be a work of Hitparáda - RADIO TOP100 Oficiální, both because that's what the link brings up and very few songs on the CZ50 will ever have Wikipedia articles: that's a Czech-only chart.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheeky...

Kind of you to say so! I was really being cheeky because I've asked similar questions at WP:ANI many, many times, and I was wondering just how many people sniggered when they saw my reply ;-)

Good luck with WP:SPI - do let me know if you need a hand, SPI is another place where I've made all the mistakes there are to make...!

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Gucci Mane's Discography

I'm responsible for the article's summary as it is. It began with simply "Discography of Gucci Mane". You want a source, view nielson and billboard. Otherwise find another article to toy around with making minor changes just for the sick, sexual, thrill you obviously get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partially730 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nick Chirco

Someone beat me to it, it looks like, but thanks for letting me know anyway! - Vianello (Talk) 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hungary done

I've completed Hungary, and added logic to allow people to override the default reference name by specifying "refname=".

Hungary baffles me on one thing: I can only get to the Radio chart with a specific URL: they archive all the charts, but don't seem to provide a specific URL for the archived copies of the other ones. Feel free to see if you can figure one out.—Kww(talk) 22:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Broke the code. Dance is "dance", which isn't too surprising, but "track" turned out to be "kislemez". I had to reverse-engineer the site source to figure that one out.—Kww(talk) 06:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good work. When I read "broke the code", I thought you meant {{singlechart}} didn't work at all anymore, because, well, you broke it. How relieved I was to realize you meant you cracked the code used in the Hungarian site. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OOPS

Thanks...for your editing and my intentions aren't evil . I was new and just wanted to make 10 edits so that I could edit MJ's semi-protected page. But what was wrong in my idea n edit, please explain and help me out. Sorry for bad edits. Aryan song (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well, I didn't think you were evil (did I say that?), I just wanted to point you to some other behavior.

And, frankly, when you set out to make ten random, meaningless edits just for the sake of completing that number, the result is bound to be, well, ten random, meaningless edits. Such edits don't improve the articles you touched, so I reverted them. Adding a line or two of partially misremembered lyrics in brand-new sections containing only those snippets, with no source or commentary, is just plaing unhelpful. And because the rest of us need to clean that up, it's disruptive.

By the way, you can get semi-protected and fully-protected pages edited even as a new or IP user. Use the appropriate template ({{editsemiprotected}} or {{editprotected}}) on an article's Discussion page to request the edit. (You can click on those links here to see how to use them).

I hope that's a clear enough explanation that you won't be inspired to do something like that again. It's also rather tacky to evade the spirit of the ten-edit rule of thumb that way. I believe folks call that "gaming the system". Please just make edits that improve Wikipedia, rather than finding ways to get around the rules. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A new category to keep an eye on

Category:Singlechart used with missing parameters should populate over the weekend. It will contain articles that have error messages in the singlechart calls.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest round of glitches

I'll get to them pretty soon. I'm on the final rounds of glitch fixing. Unfortunately, the discussion on table formatting seems to have come to a stall.

I hadn't noticed the IFPI.CR was publishing pages in Slovak, and thought the pages were in Czech. The difference between Uživatel nepřihlášen and Užívateľ neprihlásený didn't leap out at me.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Whattsa matter, can't you read? LOL. (Disclosure: I had to let the online translator tell me what the language was.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Periods are moved around again. Slovak chart updated (it is still published by IFPI Czech Republic, even if it's in Slovak). New bright red error messages for people not providing year and week with the Irish charts.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I Am...Sasha Fierce

Read the article concerning this album. You will see a song titled "Poison" It was included on an EP. It gained major attention in Korea. Let me know if you get the point. Regards. (Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

I don't. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Denmark

Fixable. It will be ugly, but it can be done.—Kww(talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Old bug in character handling

The Hung Medien sites don't handle special characters like èióü properly, and encodes them using a non-standard format, obviously causing problems with Beyoncé. I've tried for months to figure out a graceful fix, because developers refuse to give me an new encoding function. The best I can do is this:

• {{singlechart|Australia|65|artist=Beyoncé|encodedartist=Beyonc%E9|song=Halo}}

Too kludgy to bother with? Think you could actually document it in a way that people would understand?—Kww(talk) 16:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ick. Lemme look at it a little. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No me gusta esto. First of all, I thought you already had an encoding function or two. "germanencode" or something like that. The right way to deal with this problem is to get the encoding to happen invisibly.

But if we can't get the encoding happening, I thought of a few ways around it, listed here, none of which seem to help much:

1. Tell people to look at the WP article's URL for the artist in question (ignore song titles for a moment), and have them copy that into the template parameter. And lo, already with Beyoncé that doesn't work, because she's got Beyonc%C3%A9 in her URL. That two-byte code makes me think we're looking at a Unicode form up there. And of course, that's different from the E9 Hung Medien is using. Meanwhile, over at musicline.de, feeding the regular Beyoncé into the German macro gets us to the "No data found" page for "Beyoncé". Unicode, I say.
2. Tell people to do what we already tell them for certain other charts: go surfing and searching for it, then look at the URL, then parse it yourself even if you're not interested in IT matters, then plug it in to the macro params, preview and test (and possibly repeat). That's okay for me, because I have no brains, nor life, and I'm IT-experienced. Reasonable people will not be as patient, I suspect.
3. Hmm, I guess I don't have a third way, yet. Maybe don't work on any articles for Beyoncé or German (Swedish, French, etc.) artists. Or <whisper>don't use the template</whisper>.

I can document anything, I guess, but it's just going to come out ugly. Diacritically-challenged users in cultures like the U.S. have enough trouble entering the artist or song name already, but they can still copy-and-paste Beyoncé's name pretty easily, so it's not too much work. One of the cool things about {{singlechart}} is that it creates and finds the ref for me (the Hung cases, anyway). I don't know how I can explain where to get the encodedartist parameter value, unless I just provide a table of If-this-Then-that values.

Is this just Hung and musicline.de? Have you tested the other archives already?

Still looking at this. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The musicline.de site has stored Beyoncé as simply "Beyonce". Meanwhile, they've got Mötley Crüe's works at http://musicline.de/de/artist/M%25d6TLEY+CR%25dcE. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)

Musicline and Hung Medien just use an obsolete standard that the Wikimedia developers refuse to allow me to support. Theofficialchartscompany.com uses another incompatible format, but the developers will be adding support for that (it's in the latest release of Wikimedia, but Wikipedia isn't using it yet). The real problem is that there isn't any string-handling in the macro language: I can't test for special characters and process them. The other solution would be for me to put an intervening website that hosts a Perl script: the ref would link to that, the script would translate, and then redirect to the appropriate site. I've considered that, but that would be a cash outlay.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography

Kappabk has written in Lady Gaga discography that Alejandro was number 16 in Germany but it isn't. --84.158.28.127 (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Why are you telling me this? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I wanted you to edit it --84.158.3.229 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 singles

Hi mate, I have posted responses to your resume on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)#Top 10 singles. I have made some changes to the List of top 12 singles in 1952 (UK) article. Please can you answer my queries on the MoS page. 03md 10:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your query on the Mos page. 03md 22:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Responded again at the talk page. 03md 23:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please can you respond on the talk page. 03md 14:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please can you respond to my queries as I can't move on without reassurance. 03md 17:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unusual Silence

You've been noticeably silent at Template talk:singlechart#Works and publishers. I find it hard to believe you have no opinion on the topic at all.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Busy, busy, busy! No time today to pay this the attention I want to give it. Looking now.— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know that when I invite you to a discussion you are supposed to agree with me on all aspects of everything? You've been a very naughty boy.—Kww(talk) 20:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting. But come on, I didn't say you were a jerk or an idiot or something, did I? <*checks*> No, not in that discussion. But I am abashed, and I will go stand in the corner, as soon as I find one. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad...

Thank you it works perfectly now. I thought it had something to do with Wikipedia because other pages were fine. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mexican certifications

Mexican certifications work differently. When a symbol with two platinums and a gold is listed. that really is "two times platinum plus gold": it certified at one gold sales level over 2xPlatinum.—Kww(talk) 13:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. But how do you know this? Where is this information hidden (or, possibly, published in great big letters that I just haven't noticed)? And what other countries do this? (I already know about Germany's unconventional progression.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research from the sequence. Look at http://www.amprofon.com.mx/certificaciones.php?artista=Belinda&titulo=Belinda&disquera=&certificacion=todas&anio=todos&categoria=todas&Submitted=Buscar&item=menuCert&contenido=buscar . It was issued a gold, then a 2xplatinum, and then a 2xplatinum+gold. If the gold was just residue from the first certification, it would have been on the first 2xplatinum. I know some other country does this too, but I can't remember which one. It's rare.—Kww(talk) 13:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just realised I wasn't clear: I've seen this several times with Mexico. The Belinda album isn't just some kind of glitch.—Kww(talk) 13:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, gracias, Kevin. I learn something new every day. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Shakira Waka Waka

HI, Johnfrompinckney. I add the position 3 because it is officially updated by billboard. check this link http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004101110 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishvats23 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay! I've made the change in the article, even though I did not add your .biz ref to the page. My reasoning: (1) I expect that page to expire anyway, as Billboard likes to discard the info it publishes ; (2) I expect Billboard will eventually update the page we're currently using as a reference. I think that might happen as soon as tomorrow, but may take until Saturday. I have included your .biz ref in my edit summary, though, so other editors may notice it. The presence of a reference citation goes a long way toward differentiating a good edit from vandalism. Thanks for explaining. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

LGOE Tour // SLC

The date was canceled as noted in: [3], [4], [5] and [6]. This was noted in the section entitled "Cancellations and Reschedules" with a link to a Billboard article that appears to be delete. Regardless, it did not justify reverting an entire set of edits. Itsbydesign (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that you did some good, complete work with the SLC cancellation and provided sources and even an adequate edit summary. I hadn't realized you really intended to remove Salt Lake City because it really had been cancelled; I think I just noticed it was suddenly gone.

Your very good edit got caught up in my attempts to keep the box office section clean after another user started adding contradictory data and deleting the well-sourced stuff there. I apologize for my carelessness. I've seen your work before and I hope you keep it up. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Shakira Waka Waka

Hello, John. I added the position of uk single charts .ref http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/1/2010-07-10/ .Ashishvats23 (talk)

Fight for This Love

Just to clarify (you seemed a bit confused in edit summary) in case it was a bit confusing. Australia (Pandora) is used for Fight for This Love because the single chart at 54 but Hung Medien only archives positions 1-50. Unless I did something wrong Hung Medien won't show singles charting about 50 in AUS. Regards. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I hadn't noticed the limit on Hung archives (although I've probably seen and forgotten it long agon). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

One Tree Hill characters

Hello, just thought I'd let you know I have replied to your message on the List of One Tree Hill characters discussion page. I'm not sure if I explain myself very well, but all regular characters are called starring on shows made by The CW. Jayy008 (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Hello. If you can spare a few minutes your opinion would be appreciated at: Wikiproject/Discographies#Do music videos and other charted songs belong. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

P.s. on a side note it might interest you that I've attempted to clean up Rihanna discography. I've been working on GA/FAs recently and it struck me how bad the article was in terms of standards required by even GA. I've attempted to clean it up and bring it inline with MOS:DISCOG --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry couldnt resist

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for the following edit summary losing a lot of baby there with that bathwater you were tossing. as well as other general good humor. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooh! Shiny!

Thanks! Now I guess I'll have to go build myself a Barn of Good Humor. The cows can keep their ice cream in it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL now that would be very funny! --Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

P.s. is it REALLY your first barnstar? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Absotively. I'm not like some people I could name, who have, say, three. Unless people give out secret barnstars, and I just haven't heard about receiving mine. No, I'm pretty sure this is my first. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Chart articles

I think any article that simply reproduces chart positions without commentary violates the copyright of the chart producer. Let's take an obvious case: let's say an editor sat down every week and created articles corresponding to every Billboard chart for that week. I don't think anyone would dispute that that injures Billboard: why would anyone buy a subscription to Billboard.biz if the information was available, verbatim, on Wikipedia? To justify our use of information that was generated by Nielsen for Nielsen's profit, we have to add value: commentary, historical information, or analysis. Mechanical transcription doesn't cut it. It's basically a fair use issue.—Kww(talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks.

I also see that you're not going to get further involved over on that other talk page. Oh yes, I see now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll drag myself over there.—Kww(talk) 21:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey Discussion

Hi John, I would appreciate you input here, so we can finally reach a consensus. Thanks :).--PeterGriffin • Talk 01:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Hey, how are you? Im putting this here as i dont want to provoke another argument. This is regarding Lil's comment on a talk page. The original comments that lead him to state such things are regarding words stated here and here calling myself and lil's age and view into play as a negative, which i believe was completely uncalled for. With that said i hold no ill will towards either of those editors its just something that shouldnt have been brought into play, our ages have nothing to do with our ability to comprehend and discuss rules and changes. Ive moved on and dropped it, i could care less at this point and im sure lil is on the same page. I just thought you should know what originally provoked that comment :) talk to you soon. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 04:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine, thanks. And thanks for the pointers to the other discussions. Meco's "immature premises" rubs me the wrong way a bit, but the rest of his/her statements (even in that same sentence) appear to come from an editor with some respect and restraint. I don't think Lil's notice on Meco's Talk was appropriate there. But I sense Lil is rather upset (as are you, I guess), so I don't (and never did) want to stir anything up. I'll be quiet now (for a while ). Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Its ok John your input was appreciated and I respect (within reason!) your opinion. I was frustrated (and still am a little) because both users keep interjection the open discussion for the deletion of IDF Tick Tock without letting it progress. I was upset by their suggestions that some how mine and CLK's age made our POVS less valued and was not pleased to see that we were part of a discussion between to users which took place in an elitest/we know better/we're more important tone. If that was a face-to-face conversation I would have felt as if I was being spoken down to. Whilst my response may have been crude it was designed to drive home the point that all editors are equal and that the value of POV should be based on the evidence and arguments put forward. In particular the actions of User:Epeefleche seem tp cast doubt in my mind about the civilty of preceedings after he/she appeared to trawl through to find an article I was attributed to (James Wright (music producer)) and nominate is for deletion. Which is fair enough since it is unsourced. (all i did was move it from James "Big Jim" Wright). I found it suspicious how he nominated it for deletion without putting the tag on the article and then nominated it for speedy deletion. Its not even something he corrected. It was something I had to do and when I was in mid way on the AfD page trying to explain this he conveniently added a note saying he's been tagging unsourced BLPs for ages. Notice I didnt get an explaination from him until I brought it up at ANI when another editor questioned his conduct. Sorry for the lengthy response but I wanted give my side of the story because frankly it put me off editing a little. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

All cool. I just didn't see anything like the same tone from Meco that I was sensing from Epeefleche. We just have to remember that in the WP world, we'll rub up against some folks that are more abrasive than others we meet. Got to just deal! I'm currently doing some self-questioning about the time I spend here, myself. So take it easy, and look beyond the currect friction. Things are smoother elsewhere, or will be later. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am with CLK on this one, I'm over it. I've spent my first whole day away from wikipedia. Yesterday was the first 24hrs in ages that I've not been online. Its amazing how it consumes you sometimes. I just noticed the "22 THING" you left on illuvrihanna24's talk page. I have to say you couldn't have been more detailed if you tried. I'm glad that someone's still trying to engage with him/her I tried but he/she stopped responding after initially showing signs that they wanted to engage and learn about better editing. My hunch is (and i mean this without badfaith) he/she owns or is affiliated to a rihanna fan site becaue the information (and timing of it) appear to conside directly with several well know fansites. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Rude Boy (song)

I am trying to get Rude Boy (song) up to GA. Seeing as you are a major contributor, is there anything else you think needs editing? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I hardly think of myself as a major contributor; I feel as though I spend all my time reverting other peoples' edits. The article is not in bad shape, IMHO. It could probably use a rewriting of the "Critical reception" and "Chart performance" sections, though.

The performance section is one that got changed a couple of times a week (or more) with a sentence here or an update squeezed in there. It makes it a piecemeal report created by committee. What it (and similar articles, at least the Rihanna ones I've seen) needs a fresh start with the goal of making the section mean something, rather than just be the place where some performance snippets were dropped over a few months.

The reception section might profit from a table of reviews, if we have enough of them. The Template: Album ratings might look good there.

Can we get some sources for the genres? We list five of them; did we (WP editors) make them all up ourselves?

Um, that's all that occurs to me now. Except: Good luck! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

German charts

No idea why you are being redirected away. MTV.de archives some reliable charts (like the Deutsche Black Chart) and some private charts. It's worthy of discussion, because it isn't obvious to me where the annual charts are coming from, either good or bad.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

They are quite visible to me.—Kww(talk) 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A small gesture

Hi John, I've been WP:BOLD and placed some useful shortcuts on your page. Feel free to delete if you don't want them. I just thought you might like them. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha I kind of got lost reading your response. But I took the jist of it to mean, "Thank you for the links"? Lol. Quite a few editors have them, I have a subpage with them on and so I thought given that you edit music articles quite a bit they would be of use to you... Pah! a real life outside of wikipedia. Never!!!!! hahahaha --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess your not a fan to talk back templates then? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not if they don't help me (they don't). I had already read all of your additions before you edited my Talk page. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Billy Bush

Hi. I cleaned up the formatting in the succession box. Let me know what you think. Best, JTRH (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably better now. I'm not sure how accessible these succession boxes are anyway. I added a little space before "(2006)". Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it again, wouldn't it be okay to eliminate the (fat, ugly) years on the before and after boxes? What do they give us? Compare with other successions (songs, kings, etc.). Once the Miss Universe repetitions are cleared (as now), the other dates aren't needed. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Otis and Hound Dog

Just something to think about... Click on the links that will take you to the labels for the early country versions of Hound Dog. Otis is listed there, as well as on the Peacock label image. I'm not defending the bit someone put in about 1955...written for a male vocalist..., but how about in the info box? Again, just food for thought. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

In regards to what I did on the WDIV-TV article, I simply merged sections related to the station's news operation (current and former on-air staff, news/station presentation) with the main news operation section, which I also did with the WXYZ article shortly after finishing edits on the WDIV article and on other station articles, which is hard at times since some stations don't have a separate news operation section, and I have to create one by moving excerpts from the station history section without stripping too much from said station history section (if they're related to a particular subject, each individual section should be a subsection of a main section of the article). As for the failure to write a edit summary, I often do that, but sometimes I do write one for certain edits on some articles. It is a kind of a bad habit that I don't provide specific info on an edit, but I'll try to make that error less often in the future. (TVtonightOKC (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks. I hate whining about it, but it really is useful for the rest of us (okay, no citation for that; let's say, "myself, and probably many others"). Regards and happy editing, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

UK Singles Chart

Hello John!

The article on the UK Singles Chart has been bugging me for some time. As someone who's been fascinated by the charts for some 40 years and contributed much to this article, I now feel that it has lost its way somewhat. Can I refer you to an earlier comment I made on one section of it in particular:

"The Internet Age is the section that covers the most recent period of chart history up to the present day. It may be many years before this is superseded by a new era as newer technology comes in, leading to new parameters and yet another set of new chart rules. In the meantime, the "Internet Age" section, already quite large, may become much larger as the effects of the latest set of chart rules continue to pan out. Already much of the section is taken up with the activities of particular singles which have done notable things on the chart, and more such things are regularly being added (and I plead guilty here), but as more and more singles do noteworthy things, the section may be in danger of becoming overbearing and unwieldly.

I believe that the added information in question is interesting, relevant to the article, and possibly fascinating to "chartologists" as they are known, and therefore should be presented. The question is - how? I think that the present appearance of the "Internet Age" section - a great mass of text - doesn't look inviting. It doesn't call out to you from the screen, "Read me!" Perhaps it should be broken down into titled sub-sections. The problem here is that a sub-section titled something like "Notable chart performances of individual singles" doesn't sound very snappy, may end up looking more like a thinly disguised "Trivia" section, as well as possibly deviating from the article's subject. Yet I still think that the information it would contain is relevant.

Any ideas here would be welcome."

I love studying the charts and conveying that interest to others, but I think the time has come to seriously trim this article down a bit (correction, a lot!) I'd be grateful for your comments. Tonythepixel (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

markup around singlechart

You should probably be aware of this discussion.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed. But, um, are you sure this is the direction we need to go? And right now? I had the impression the discussion was still ongoing (in about six gazillion different places) about how the record charts tables should look, and how the Serious Accessibility Problems would best be addressed. Also, I figured that leaving the piping character out for the {{singlechart}} entry line (now, already) was a case of just forgetting it, although it works anyway. That piping character matches standard wikitable syntax and so I'd think people would be inclined to more natuarlly add it than naturally leave it out. I'm thinking also of the case of converting an existing table with manual charts to the use of {{singlechart}}.

I'm also thinking that if we want the piping symbols to be deprecated, I'll (well, somebody will) have to change the documentation to not suggest it's the preferred way. Almost all of the examples include it; I only noticed that some lacked it in the last 36 hours. I've been feeling bad about it, too, and put the addition on my to-do list.

Let's see now, if we don't need the piping for the cell now (or want it in the future), it implies (to me) that we can just put the {{singlechart}} line on the same new-row line as the |-.

Chart (2009)	Peak position
Australia (ARIA)	1
4
5
Belgium (Ultratop 50 Wallonia)	6

Naw, that doesn't work. Too bad, sort of; it'd put the rows together rather compactly. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This way I have the choice of marking it as a header or a data cell, and we can figure out when I want to do which. The other way prevents me from ever making them header cells, and the inconsistency keeps me from getting any solution to work. I thought I had it this morning, but huge numbers of charts blew up and I had to revert the change.—Kww(talk) 05:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the documentation update. I'm still not eager to rush ahead and make this change, though. What I'm tempted to do is add a parameter to make the macro to produce a row header if desired, and figure out some way to issue an error message if the pipe is used. That way we can change the parameter default later if we want to. That way I don't get in the game of forcing compliance with an MOS that I don't see broad support for.—Kww(talk) 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

For now, adding rowheader=true will create the header output. I figured out how to make the template misbehave if you add a |, but decided not to rush ahead on that one.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've figured out how to make the HTML mark it as a header for screenreaders but keep the appearance the same, which strikes me as likely to create much less controversy. What would you think of that?—Kww(talk) 18:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kww I thought you'd like to know that User talk:RexxS says that |scope="row" will be read by a screen reader and that !scope="row" is not necessarily required. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 18:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, I think that those cells (with the chart name) should be considered headers (which is why marking them up that way is appropriate) and since they are headers, they should actually look like them to us sighted users, too. Maybe the centering isn't popular enough to keep (I could accept left-aligning them), but I think the bold + slight shading makes them look better. How's that for some heresy? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

perhaps you are right John. Afterall the Charts names do have significance. There is talk of developing the wikitable code so that it can include an option such as "colhead=left" which would only need to be placed in the table once but would automatically left-align the "!scope=row" to fix the formatting issue. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi John, thanks for your clear eyes scanning my Steve Martin edits. 'Preciate it. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Aah, but I'm no good at but finikity finiky details. I'm more of a big picture person. :o) I'm off to bed. It's 3.30am in London. *Sighs*. Oh the addictive nature of the beast. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no link to archives, the link is the same for the week 20 of 2007, for the week 39 of 2008 and for all the other weeks. And the link I put is better: it has also the chart cronology of the song. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 21:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, its not important if it looks bad with the other refs, because first of all you can edit it, and if a ref is correct its correct, theres no need to standardize the references and make harder the finding of the week. If there are pages with all the chart trajectory of a song, why put a useless page with the complete chart? Users should copy and paste the link of the chart trajectory for the reference, its more complete and its also a direct link. Even thought it takes more time to write the reference. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 10:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Illuvrihanna24

I've been tracking the edits a number of times and I'm beginning to suspect that the act is affiliated to a Rihanna fansite (Rihanna Daily). It woudl explain why sometimes the user is aware of the issues raised with him about his editing style but then other times his edits a premature or primitive. I suspect that the account is being used by the team ar Rihanna Daily although I can't really prove it. I think this case because the information and updates to the article happen at times just before or just after updates are made to the fansite. It is a large assumption. Either way Illuvrihanna24 has been given way too many chances, two ANIs reports and lots of attempts by yourself and others to engage in better editing. Is there anything else we can do? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 18:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced about the fansite connection, although it is always impressive how soon the latest tidbits and factoids get added to the articles. I assumed he just avidly scanned for any news about his OMG favorite performer.

I do think it is only one person, however. That one person is just not especially skilled or concentrated. I think he has an eagerness to be first with adding the information, wants to take pride in having contributed (see below), and merely has too little attention span left over to remember to provide edit summaries, use the preview button, add references, check the resulting page before going to the next edit, etc. You may be amused when I tell you I am certain he is a youngster (younger than you, even), so that explains some of the behavior.

I said "see below" earlier. That earnestness is what makes it inappropriate to block aggressively, since blocking is usually for malicious or intentional disruption. The eagerness to contribute exhibited here is a symbol (if not the epitome) of good-faith editing. Perhaps this user is intellectually incapable of learning how to generate a reference citation. A certain competence is required, but I believe the user means well, or, uh tries to mean well, but the result is sometimes frustrating for the rest of us. Sometimes I just want to scream. Like today, for instance.

In counter to your "this-user-is-multiple-people" theory, I will offer you my "this-person-is-multiple-users" theory. I haven't made a report yet, and I'm not sure what's reportable anymore (I can't yet say there's deliberate socking going on), but one of these days I'm liable to bring the user names and IP addresses to the admins and at least (I hope) get him to edit with only one account.

And "way too many chances"? Well, it's pretty close. I sometimes feel as though I've wasted way too much time there. On the other hand, I have seen small glints of good work and glimmers of some improvement, so maybe I'm just an idealist. What to do? Well, a certain Kww sometimes mention quantities of rope, if that means anything to you, and meanwhile, I'll probably bounce between patient instruction and scathing criticisms. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm the thing is that I'm not sure we have enough rope left to give any more out. I do agree that a ban would probably be harsh considering that the user has improved over time. But there are considerable editing issues. His style is erratic to say the least Sometimes its wonderfully constrcutive but the problem is not often enough. I find you, myself or other users often having to clean-up after his edits which begs the question of how can we can get the user to understand about consistantcy etc. I too have noticed possible connections to other accounts and IP addresses but since I went down the stick approach with numerous warnings and two ANI reports I didnt want to bring that up for fear that I would be seen to be hounding Illuvrihanna24. It is a genuine concern though that does need to be raised. You're approach of criticism and patience is amusing because it almost has a bipolar quality to it. Amusement aside it does seem to have worked so keep up the good work. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, I don't mean to butt in (even though I am going to), but I came to this page specifically to leave a comment to John about this user and I saw this thread already started. I am also questioning how long this kind of editing-and-clean-up is going to go on. John, you have much more patience than I, as I would have blocked this user long ago. I understand the earnest attempts being made, but I also feel that Iluvrihanna is really more concerned with "being the first" to post Rihanna news and tidbits, rather than sincerely trying to keep the article (or any article, for that matter) in decent condition or to benefit the encyclopedia. Yesterday you left quite a long note on Iluvrihanna's Talk Page and just today I undid an edit in which Iluvrihanna again used a Wikipedia article as a source (with bare URL) for an obvious WP:OR statement (and with no edit summary). It's obvious to me that Iluvrihanna either just isn't listening/reading his talk page, or worse, just does not care. I've been tempted to leave warnings on his page but have hesitated because I thought that the two of you were kinda mentoring Iluvrihanna or helping him to improve, but I just don't see any effort on his part to change. He's just going to keep doing whatever he wants and I feel it may be time for others to step in. - eo (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have more patience than you, or just more stupidity? I've been trying to salvage this user, assuming good faith, etc., for what's become way too long. He's not just a time sink, he's starting to make me crazy. Crazier than usual, I mean. I suggested a mentor once, because I thought that was the best way to go (and I knew I certianly didn't have the time or interest or patience for it). And here I am. a month later, explaining my edits in line-by-line explications. I think I'm what they call an enabler.

Don't hold back with your interactions on my account. Warn when it's warranted, explain if you think it'll help, block when you think it's needed. I'm probably too close anymore to know what the right warnings would be. And I go weary. So weary. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Side note

Do you know what's happened to {{Singles}}? It doens't appear to be showing up in articles anymore meaning that album pages have no singles in their infoboxes. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I admit I'm clueless. I saw that there was a discussion about merging Template:Infobox single with Template: Infobox song (there were ugly banners at the top of the infobox on every page I visited), but then those suddenly disappeared, despite the fact that I can't tell that the discussion closed.

At the same time that was happening, I noticed that Category:Templates for merging was filled with 35,000 pages (not templates, but pages) but when I asked about it, I never did understand the explanation. That category then emptied out suddenly, just as the merge-discussion banners disappeared from the infoboxes.

And now you say the {{Singles}} have gone missing. Well, I see some changes were just made, although I have no clue about them. Maybe you'd have some luck asking at Template talk:Singles. Maybe you're seeing a problem they don't know about. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

About "Adrenalin Rush"

Hey! Ya! I know that the song itself hasn't been released yet. But I don't wanna be in a position that when the song is unexpectedly dropped in September (ANYTIME), we do not have a page for it. Our readers and many of Rihanna and David Guetta fans will ask for it. So please suggest me a way through which I can work on the page as well as even not to violate the Wikipedia policy of making pages(which includes that songs must be released until the page is made that too as singles).Even I have enough reliable sources that the song is gonna be the first single from Rihanna's fifth album and that it will be released in September/October 2010. Oblige me. Syedwaheedhussain (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, we're not in a race. There is no deadline. But for now, you can create a page in a user subpage of your own. You can add references, revise your text, add and remove images, etc., without worrying about somebody (like me!) coming along and requesting deletion. Then when the song really does deserve an article (per WP:NSONGS, which you seem to have read), then you can just move (rename) your article to the main article space, or copy your text into a page if somebody has created a stub for it. Okay? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok.! I got it! Thanks!..:)Syedwaheedhussain (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

CSI Crime Scene Investigation (Season 11)

Hi, i found out that you have edited some parts of my original article in CSI Season 11 page, i would like to inform you that i copied from the press releases, so everything is correct. And hence i have edited back to avoid any conflict. Thanks. Evan Weinstein 11:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say, "copied from the press releases", you're saying you've plagiarized somebody else's work. The conflict is that WP has a policy against plagiarism, and your wholesale pasting of copied text violates that policy. I'll have to revert (to really avoid any conflict).

Also, please include a link to your Talk page in your signature. See WP:SIGLINK. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply, however i have adapted the same format using The CSI Miami and CSI NY version, so yup

And yes, i prefer to keep my signatures off limits here in wikipedia. Evan Weinstein 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What?!?

WP:SIGLINK says (emphasis added), "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." Your preference is outweighed by the preference of the Wikipedia community.

I have no idea what you mean by "so yup". Was something resolved with those five letters? I think you're telling me that the article tables are poorly formatted on pages for the sister series, so you made sure they were poorly formatted on this page, too. But that can't be the point, can it? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies on this issue, i missed out the one of the lines, anyway 'so yup' is a term that describes so yes or please agree. I have fixed my signature, hope it looks good now. For CSI sisters page, it's has been always this way, so basically i am using the same template. Hope this misunderstanding has been cleared by now.Evan Weinstein | Talk 17:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Evan, and thanks for being so quick to revise your sig.

Forgetting for a moment that you must have many pages for the three series with these tables by now, take a look at the column headings (and not necessarily the colors) on List of The Girls Next Door episodes or List of Lost episodes. These tables have headings which are not only different, but indicate what the numbers are supposed to be. Maybe they'll inspire you to make a similar change (on ... all... those... pages). Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My reply

Today, got "5.4.7 - Delivery expired (message too old) 'DNS Soft Error looking up bluemail.ch (MX) while asking recursive_nameserver0.parent. Error was: unable to reach nameserver on any valid IP'". Must have taken a week. Anyway, I know exactly which editor you are talking about. If you think he has been using alternate names (not just anons) let me know who you suspect. There really isn't too much more to do: WP:COMPETENCE is the relevant essay to my thoughts, and I think we are nearing the end of tolerance.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Drake

mixtapes are classed as discography, you can purchase them online and instores. and they feature on many other artists pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaytonaMike (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Adminship?

Hi John, Just wondered... are you an administrator? (I don't actually know tbh) If not have you every considered adminship? Someone a while ago said I should go for it myself but never formally nominated me. It's something I'm beginning to consider. Just thought I'd get an opinion from someone I respect first. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 20:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm no admin. I've only been here a year and a half, haven't created any new articles or done much expansion myself (something considered during RfAs), and, most importantly, I don't believe I'm right for the job. I get grumpy, snarky, verbose, distracted and I have a whole lot more to learn about WP rules. It'd only make me crazier, and I doubt that I'd be of much more help than hindrance. Beyond which, I already don't have time to finish the things I want to; I should add more work? Naw, I'm not ready, and I'm not sure I ever will be.

You can easily tell who's an admin, by the way. Go to a user's Contibutions page, and at the bottom are some links; click on User rights. Voilà! If you look at mine, you'll see I'm a reviewer (bow down low before me, peasant!) and administrator isn't listed.

Thanks for asking, BTW. I'm flattered by your remarks. If you want to go through it yourself, ask some real admin types. They've run the gauntlet themselves (I think Kww went to RfA four times) and know what will be thrown at you. They might also be willing to tell you whether they think you're cut out for it, if you're ready to hear that. I think you'd be rushing it by running this year, but maybe you'll hear more encouraging words from folks more experienced than I am. Anyway, good luck! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Time to update Project Discography/Style

With regards to all the recent developments for discographies your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Time to update would be appreciated. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Recovery

If you check this source you will see that, according to ARIA official website, the album Recovery has only been certified one time PLATINUM in Australia.Coltsfan (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, man. It's just that I would rather change the Certification when ARIA update their website, so that way it's "more official" and more "reliable".Coltsfan (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We share the same point of view, man! and we have a commitment to Wikipedia's readers to give them only reliable sources. If some people want to rush in and change the certification, well, our job is to keep an eye on these people and undo what they did in order to maintain some sort of reliability in the Wikipedia, which has been much weakened [the reliability here] in last few years. But take a look at this: Recovery has sold more than 2 million copies in the US alone! and RIAA did not give them any kind of certification, and we all now that the record sold more than 700,000 copies on it's first week, wich is more than enough to break the sales threshold to reach Gold certification in the USA. And some people think that certifications are automatic, but we know that they're not! so my focus is to keep an eye on that!Coltsfan (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna fifth album article

The draft page isn't completed yet, I'm waiting a bit longer then I'll complete it. Like I say I think its a bit premature yet for an album page and I need the title of the album and first single really. Let me know when you think the time is right. Regards, Stevo Stevo1000 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Beta tester wanted

You should give http://www.pinkbeachproperties.com/chartsearcher/index.php a try. Should be pretty self evident how to use it. Doesn't handle all error conditions perfectly yet, but handles most. Let me know what you think.—Kww(talk) 03:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page is a fine place for commentary. I plan on adding Ireland, Germany, Czech, Slovakia and others in the next few weeks. I'm not sure Billboard is possible.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1) It will wind up on a website with enough ads to cover the costs. Not surprisingly, this is a substantial amount of code, backed up with custom indexing tables and SQL databases. Definitely needs prettified for that. I was more interested in proof-of-concept and search algorithm problems.

2)Alphabetical order by country code. I'll work on prettying this section.

3)I'll have to patch that. Swisscharts.com links to hitparade.ch.

4)This is a search engine (and legally has to be ... I can only store information that I can justify is necessary to order my searches). I output the links in the form that the websites return. The more I massage, the more validity an argument of repurposing has.

5)Germany is going to be its own pile of problems. The artist massage is pretty regular, and I already do some of that for the OCC/Hung Medien inconsistencies. "Yellow Submarine" by "The Beatles" was a lot of work, for example. The German habit of postpending bizarre release information onto the title isn't going to be easy to deal with.

6)Understood.

7)More non-standard URL formatting on Hung Medien. I'll be able to adapt to it for search purposes, but singlechart will never be able to handle it properly.

8)"date" matches the format in the OCC URL. It's not a printed date that needs to conform to Wikipedia standards. I agree that a radio-button control for the other dates is the way to go.

9) Damn it. I thought I had caught all of that. Again, to stay a clean-and-legal search engine, I don't store the dates, only the URLs, and I keep recalculating it when I need to.

10),11) Date format radio-button should take care of it.

12) No client clipboard, because that would require Javascript. This is pure PHP running on the server. I'll put a leading and trailing blank line to give cursors room to breathe. Maybe some left/right margin as well.

Thanks for looking it over. I'll let you know when I get a newer version up. You are free to keep using it while I work on the new one.—Kww(talk) 21:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Music Box (album)

Hi John. So I don't get why you removed the "certifications from old criterion" sentence. I find it necessary for readers to know that given certifications don't match up to when they were issued. For example, Germany changed twice in level since 99.--PeterGriffin • Talk 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. Well, first, the sentence wasn't really clear, but I kind of knew what you were talking about because I've been looking at certs quite a lot over the last year or so. It was also an asterisked note referring to... nothing with an asterisk. It appeared to be an orphan that didn't belong to anything (or we couldn't tell which awards it was applying to).

But the main thing is that certs levels are constantly changing. Every month, some record industry association adjusts their award thresholds. For somebody like Mariah Carey, who's got so many awards from so many certs providers, it goes without saying that the criteria will have changed for at least some of them. At the same time, a gold record is a gold record. Folks can compare Music Box with other albums from 1993, and that's fine. What they might also do is say she's got 47 (or whatever) gold records in her career, and compare that number to Madonna or Aerosmith or whomever. But when they do that, they either need to know what shipment levels those awards represent, every last one, or they won't care at all, which I think is usually the case.

If we say, "these awards are to pre-July 1, 1993, levels, and this one is to pre-September 1993 levels, and those are based on 1993 thresholds before they were changed in January 1994, and so on", we need to tell what levels were used for every award. That's too much for a discography or an article about an artist, album, or song. That's why I'm trying to keep the info in List of music recording certifications current, and flesh out the threshold timing info in the RIAA, ARIA, BPI, etc., articles. That's where this info belongs. Okay? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Having thought about this a little more, I realize I've left out a third view. I said people either (1) need to know what threshold every gold award represents, or (2) don't care about thresholds at all. There's another way to look at it, and I assume this is the one the record industry associations take. It's (3) a gold record now is equivalent to a gold record in 1993, because the thresholds are adjusted to market conditions of the time. A 1993 gold is equivalent to other '93 golds, and they're all relative to how many people bought records on CDs and vinyl. 2010 golds are relative to the current market for digital and CD albums; 1970 golds are relative to the market of albums on vinyl, 8-track, and cassettes. The adjustments of criteria are supposed to make them somewhat equivalent, and if that's close to accurate, we don't need to mention the change of criteria at all. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, I didn't realize you wrote me back :). Yes I understand what your saying, it makes sense. So do you think it is okay the way it is? How would you like to place it then?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, back at ya. Well, I don't think we need the note at all. "Sales may be higher than the certification level says now" could be placed on every damned music article that mentions certifications, and so I think it's actually appropriate (better, even) to just leave it off. Users interested in the criteria can click through the heading link or the provider link, but it shouldn't really matter, if we accept the idea that gold records in one country are supposed to roughly equal gold records in that same country for other years. Omit that whole line, I'd say. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, so I see where your coming from, considering they would have to click on the certifications main page to even see the sales. Makes sense, I'll go with you on this one. I'm removing it :).--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

eminem

[7] It shows that "Just Lose It" was nominated. Purple Colorings (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Only Girl (In the World)

Just thought you might like to take a look at the talk page: Talk:Only Girl (In the World) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If we could lock all the Rihanna-related articles, I wouldn't have this terrible ulcer. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I know... its a massive headache. I actually swore out loud when I realised that the page had been created again. I'm glad its been protected. We might have to implement this type of strategy for all future rihanna articles. That way someone has to create in a sandbox first. *sighs*. I've requested indef semi protection for Rihanna discog but dont think it was successful. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: XML

Hi John,

• Thanks for the quick explanation. I think I understand it. The xml thing is basically a programmer's code for what the archive search at billboard.biz shows in tabular form? (yes or no?)
• what does it mean for people like myself who aren't programmers? Can i search billboard.biz for an artist (say David Guetta's "When Love Takes Over") and expect to generate an xml file? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; what happened when you tried?

Heh, just kidding (a little). Actually, I just assume that, after you enter a search, when you select from the list that results and click the .jsp link of your choice, you'll go to where the XML file is (or it'll be presented to you). I don't actually know, because it seems to rely on me being a subscriber, which I am not.

The links to the XML files at Fat Joe discography were placed there by another editor, who I presume is a subscriber and was able to get at the URLs. And now that I write that, I'm wondering whether we're supposed to be deep-linking the way we are. Maybe we're violating the subscribers' license. Hmmm — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No I dont think I was able to articulate what I meant. You post a link on my page this BB page saying if I manually did that I could generate the XML link myself? I tried to do it but I couldnt quite figure it out. My question was ... is the output (the XML file) a code version of what billboard.biz generates? (based on the Selena Gomez example that Kww generated, is that the same as this?) Sorry about this, I'm just trying to get my head around this because I fear that allowing the use of the XML source may complicate what is already a complicated issue. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One question at a time. I think the link I posted would get you the XML file if you were a subscriber. The XML file output is what I think you mean by "what billboard.biz generates". I don't know if what Kww posted is the same as your Gomez link because (1) Kww trimmed most of the actual XML file out of his post and (2) I can't get past the login screen after I click the "Naturally" link.

And I'm not saying that you, personally, are going to be expected to go and get URLs for XML files for Bubbling Under chart positions; I'm really just asking if, once some editor has added such a URL as a ref, we should accept such a resource as a valid ref (it clearly comes from Billboard), or it's just too obscure for us to use. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I get it out thanks! Hmm... but that's my point if I got confused by it (I have relatively little in-depth IT skills beyond everyday use but quite sizeable wikipedia editorial experience) think of its effect on the masses... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"I can't get past the login screen after I click the 'Naturally' link." - They are teasing you to say there is one record (as in information) to be found, but won't tell you. They are providing subscription encouragement!—Iknow23 (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:GOODCHARTS accessibility

If we are trying to make it audio accessible, shouldn't we add some kind of alt text to the archive symbols?—Kww(talk) 03:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be getting to that. Right now I'm fiddling with those long columns, trying to make it easier for users to separate certs from charts, albums from singles (more readability than accessibility). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey singles discography

Hey John, so I noticed you were frustrated that none of the Canadian positions were sourced. So I placed an individual RPM source on every single until about 2000. I think it's what you wanted, and believe its an improvement. Tell me what you think. Thanks!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good, Peter, keep going. BTW, if those RPM refs are to a magazine, shouldn't there be page numbers? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi John. They are from a magazine, but they are available for viewing on the web. If you click on the link, it will take you directly to the posted page from the magazine. Check it out :). Unfortunately, the magazine doesn't post anything after 2000, so that's the best I got for now. But as the bulk of her success has been in the 90's, up until 05, I think we have a pretty good thing going so far.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 14:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Kanye West discography

On the face of it, your revert seems a bit heavy-handed. It looks like the anon basically replaced links to an unlicensed and unauthorised site with links to the official chart site. Not all of it was good because some of the positions are too high to verify at theofficialcharts.com, but the albums change looks reasonable, and most of the singles change looks good.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If I could get even a whisper of an explanation from these guys, I might not drop the hammer on edits that remove a bunch of references. In this case, I just managed in the last week to scrape together acceptable refs to verify all the singles in the table. I frankly did not follow the IPs refs and am susprised to find, now that I have checked the OCC albums ref, that they even have by-artist pages, of which I was not aware. I'll look at all the changes a bit more soon. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The by-artist pages are the best, since they source down to position 75. I'll support them in {{singlechart}} once Wikipedia is up to a version of Wikimedia that fixes https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22474 .—Kww(talk) 21:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Katy Perry album cover debate

It would be really helpful if you could give your opinion here. thanks. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

LoudR24

Give me half an hour.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna discography

Hello. Yes, the comment on my edit summary was directed to you and sorry if I looked a little angry (I just read the summary again and it seemed it), it was not my intention. I was only able to check the discography today, so I wasn't there during all these add/remove of peak positions, otherwise I would have added those references before. Anyway, now the peak positions are sourced and that's what matters! =] Decodet (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect works and publishers

Just so you know, the work/publisher interchanging is the latest dodge to avoid having {{cite web}} italicize the work.—Kww(talk) 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I think it's really an oldie. I'm still hoping some mob will form so we can storm the gates of the Cite Web Palace and get this silliness fixed. There's no reason for a Web site to be italicized, and the insistence of that template that the work be italicized (and the site be the work) is ridiculous. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold it there lads... it appears that someone has beat everyone to it here. Apparently another use told me (in a seperate issue) that everyone was wrong to think that the {{cite web}} was formatting incorrectly. His words were After much consultation of external style manuals, the consensus seems to be arriving at the view that websites should be italicized in references, and a few days ago it was suggested that MOS:ITALICS should be updated to recognise that this happens. Nobody at that discussion is now suggesting "cancelling" the italics introduced by the |work parameter. o_O -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise I would gladly stand at the forefront of the mob with a nice big pitchfork bringing with me the blazes of hellfire to bring down the infernal forced undiscussed formatting policy. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support (and your pointer to the earlier discussion). My reading is that, once again, the discussion just sort of withered and died before anything was actually cleared up. The OP went away happy, having decided to artificially hack the work field to cancel the auto-italics (which will only work until the bot comes around and removes the italics delimiters). In the end, nothing was cleared up there.

Back to your metaphor, I think we've got a machine full of dirty laundry, half-washed, with the power switched off so we can't get the auto-locking front-load door to open, so the clothes just sit there soaking in the scuzzy, lukewarm washwater. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm glad to bring it up on the template talk page as i personally believe its WRONG for the template to enfore style policies. But it would require a massive change in use of the CITEWEB which is required. For example when people source something like Rap-Up, Rap-Up is not the work, but rather rap-up.com is because we're sourcing from the magazine's website not the magazine itself. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Explain

Can you please explain this revert. It was incorrect;

• By reverting you removed an inconsistent date fix.
• Removed a publisher and work addition.
• Incorrectly italicized references. (Only online newspapers, magazines and other things like that are to be in italics. Eg: swisscharts.com NOT swisscharts.com.) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, CK. Thanks for asking about this. I had hoped I was clear, but I'm not surprised somebody got confused.

The whole thing was because I saw a pair of edits by User:Petergriffin9901 which changed a large number of hyphenated strings to use dashes, in a sense that was inverted from the correct usage (see his thread below). I saw that every one of his changes in those edits was backwards, and that changing them all back would be tedious and fiddly, so I wanted to just use the automatically complete coverage of a simple reversion. Unfortunately, subsequent edits made a simple reversion impossible. So:

1. First, I reverted one of his own edits, where he had already noticed that hip–hop (with a dash) wasn't right. My reversion temporarily undid his "perfectly good revision", as I mentioned in my edit summary.
2. Next, I dealt with your edit, where you had changed the italicization of several refs, including one in which Petergriffin had changed the dates to use dashes instead of hyphens. My reversion of your edit was meant to be temporary, at least in part, because I knew it was a good-faith revision. I ran out of room in my edit summary to really make this clear.
3. Then, I had to temporarily undo another edit by Petergriffin, where he quite correctly reduced an inline ref to a Harvard-style ref thingy. In my edit summary, I called his "another perfectly good edit".
4. I finally got to undo the dashes here.
5. Then I could go back and revert my newest reversion, to restore Peter's Harvard thingy...
6. ...revert my reversion of your edit, although I did it only partially, more below...
7. ...and then I was done already, because my very first reversion was to Peter's correction to his fix to what I'd just undone.

Yow. Well, now to your edit, and what I did with it. As you mention here, your edit included an inconsistent date fix, a publisher and work addition, and changed the italicization of references. My reversion did indeed undo all of those, but I restored the first two. It was only a temporary reversion, as I tried to make clear in my edit summaries. (Please take a look at them in a row.)

The only area we can get into an argument about is my disagreement with fudging the italicization of the work parameters in {{cite web}} (see the thread above). I, personally, like using cite web, although I know some are against it. Cite web italicizes the work, and the work is documented as being the Web site. I think Web sites shouldn't be italicized, and I believe you agree with me on that.

The real difference between us here is that I don't think it's a good idea to add '' italic end- and start-delimiters in the work parameter of the template. It's a hack to fix (what I consider) a broken template, and I wish the template would get fixed. When it is fixed, the turn-off-italics markers you've added will become turn-on-italics markers. And if the WP community says, no, the template isn't broken, we want Web site names to be italicized, even though JohnFromPinckney thinks it's stupid, then, we're wrong to unitalicize them. Meanwhile, there's also the bot that comes through and removes those things anyway.

Now, I'll bet you're sorry you asked, but I'm sure the answer you wanted is in the text above somewhere, and I hope you can locate it. Now to go explain dashes and hyphens to Petergriffin9901! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaing that LOL. BUT, BUT, we have to get one thing clear, when using cite web you MUST add '' to the work or it is a MOS violation and will not be promoted to FL status. Only magazines and newpapers are to be in italics, the rest cannot. Unfortunately we have two issues, if we dont use '' as i said, its a MOS violation. You said the code is broken, if it gets fixes and the '' is no longer needed and actually makes the work field turn into italics, literally millions of references will have to be re-fixed. Its much easier to add a simple '' then to fix millions of refs. Does this make sence? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

En-Dash

Hi John. Frankly, at this point I'm confused as to when and when not to use En-Dashes. Care to explain? :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking, and I hope I can help. Unfortunately (or possibly fortunately), I'm drained from answering (CK)Lakeshade in the thread above, so I'll try to keep my first response short.

The shortest, easiest thing for me to do is provide the links to WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH (DASH follows HYPHEN, and includes details with the shortcuts WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH). These paragraphs are part of the Manual of Style, and they help me when I'm unsure. I hope you will also find them useful. Had you seen them before?

In the specific case of your edits on Mariah Carey singles discography:

1. You used dashes in the middle of, well, hyphenated words ("self–titled", "number–one", "record–breaking"), when that's never done. The hyphen is correct for joining two words into one term.
2. You used dashes within the dates ("2008–08–30", "1995–05–15", etc.), when the hyphen is the correct separator inside dates. Now, when you have two dates, it is correct to use a dash to separate them, indicating a range, as in "January 20, 1980 – December 31, 1988" or "December 1988 – March 1990". This usage is called a disjunctive dash; it indicates disjunction (see MoS).
3. You changed hyphens to dashes in names ("Frere–Jones", "Ne–Yo", "australian–charts.com", etc.) and titles ("The World's Number–Two Music Market Is No Afterthought", "Gold/Platin–Datenbank", "australian–charts.com – Helping Haiti – Everybody Hurts"), which is a big no-no. Among other things, it can keep people from finding the correct name or title when searching, since the hyphen is actually different from the en-dash and em-dash. Now, the Web site titles ought to have dashes on the Hung Medien sites, in my opinion, and if I ever to get to work there I'll change the sites, but since they do use hyphens, we need to, too, when we cite them.

I hope that's clear, and if it's not, ignore it and just use the MoS links I gave you above. If you do want more detailed discussion, go ahead and ask me; I'll be glad to try to help.

By the way, spacing is one of the fine points when one does use a dash (it's never used with the hyphen). So, for extra credit, go over to Mariah Carey (album) and see if there isn't something that needs fixing. Say, in the general area of the infobox. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Heheheheh, why thank you John! :) I can say my understanding in the matter is better.lol. Hmmmm, that stuff isn't my storng point, but I'll give it a shot. I'm guessing because in the dates recorded section there is a – . Or is that right? Now I'm not even sure :s.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 20:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's an en-dash. And that's fine; it separates the end dates in a range. What do you think about the spacing? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, no clue John :S. I guess I'm getting a C- haha. What is the problem? :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Only that when you have two items separated by a dash where one or both of the items has a space in it (such as "December 1988–March 1990"), then you need to have spaces around the dash, too (as in "December 1988 – March 1990"). That's all. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha phewww, glad to hear it! Its all fixed :).--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing chart positions

The new number-ones of Germany and Austria are publisched on www.media-control.de and hitradiooe3.at every Tuesday/Wednesday. Because of the new writing of chart names Germany (Media Control AG) (old: German Singles Chart) one cannot add this sources and they are only useful until Friday/Saturday, when the whole charts are published. I'm not changing without references but I'm not able to add them there.Anonymus 25 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Recluse (Plan B song)

Please see the talk page for "The Recluse" (Plan B song) for my proposal for undeletion. Ellm6 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

???

This edit (here) is not acceptable. Adding failed verification is 100% incorrect. This is how Billboard Canada and Billboard US weekly chart performance is cited. Please explain why you did that. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply being not able to see peaks past 10 is not a valid reason to add "failed verification" (if that was your reasoning). - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse the delay, CK, I had to fix an overwritten post here on this page, and then I had to calm down a bit before formulating my response to you.

I agree 100% with your first sentence. The edit you point to is not acceptable. The person who made that edit failed to explain their reasoning, although they were reverting another editor's work, and said only, "do not do that again," which I consider more threatening than enlightening. Hardly very collaborative, so I agree that it's hard to accept.

I am also left wondering what your problem with my edit really is.

• I fixed "the Digital chart" to "the Digital Songs chart";
• I turned the sentence ending "her eight number one digital single" into grammatical, correctly spelled and punctuated English;
• I replaced the "author" parameter in a citation to "last" and "first";
• I corrected the misspelled "ninteen";
• I changed the page titles in two citations from something invented by somebody somewhere into something including the actual <title> texts;
• I rephrased the sentence ending with the redundant "and topped the chart by jumping to one";
• I replaced the bogus accessdate "2010-10-02" with something not involving time travel; and
• I added two {{failed verification}} tags.

Your appearance here seems to be based only on that last item. Nevertheless, you reverted my entire edit, made a threatening-sounding noise in your edit summary, and stormed in here to tell me I'm 100% incorrect.

Here's my perspective on this, since it apparently wasn't clear for you already. I hope you'll consider it and then tell me whether you still think it's "100% incorrect".

The paragraph has claims. "Entered the Hot 100 at 75" is one of them. Refs are provided to support verification of those claims. This is one such source. And now, here's the important part: the page at the reffed URL does not mention "Only Girl" at all. It is, therefore, a completely inadequate reference to support the claim its attached to.

Not being able to see peaks past 10 is, IMHO, an excellent reason to add "failed verification". How can a page that shows positions 1–10 hope to support a claim of "entered at 75"? It can't; it's useless.

Now, in your excitement, you probably failed to notice that I did not delete the unverified claims. All I did was add two tags. I'm trying to give this article a chance. At this moment, three of the chart peaks down in the table are not verifiable by the associated refs. Two of the refs in this paragraph fail to cover what they purport to cover. And the first one has some completely different (invented?) title. Still, I'm being patient, and somewhat generous. I'm trying to give others a chance to rehabilitate the sourcing on this article. It needs it, because it's been pretty pathetic for the last two weeks. But I'm trying to collaborate, by fixing what I can, and pointing out the problems I can't handle. I thought that was supposed to be the WP way.

Now tell me, is that 100% incorrect? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary was harsh because truthfully that kinda pissed me off. This is how chart performance is written, we use Billboard US and Canada to source chart performance. This is because it is the only licensed archive acceptable per WP:GA and WP:FA referencing. The only other option is aCharts which is a unlicensed archive (which means it violates copy rights) and is very frowned upon. So again, adding a "failed verification" is not constructive or the solution. If you want to undo my revert and remove you failed verification then please do. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, bro; I think I'm totally missing your point. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't use Billboard as a reference. Well, I think their Web site totally bites ass, but that's a different matter. For peaks on BB charts, I'm 100% O.K. with using BB as a source. No argument there.

When (or, heh, if) those schmucks at Billboard ever get the chart pages updated, and all the BB pages all show the same results, then I'll be happy to see them used as refs in our articles, provided that they actually show the peaks or info we're using them for. At the moment, we've got no source for the Hot 100 debut position. Because we have a ref at that position, the {{failed verification}} tag is appropriate (short of deleting the text). If we had the debut claim but that ref weren't there, the {{citation needed}} tag would be called for. But either way, the claim's unsourced. If we can find some BB page (I think we can't, but then I don't actually read BB's site), then we can add the new ref and ditch the tags.

But I really don't understand what you're so upset about. This makes me think that I'm definitely misunderstanding what you're getting at. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. You are going against community consensus for sourcing. The information IS there you ust have to sign up to see it. There is nothing wrong with that. Billboard is one of the most reliable and trusted sources wikipedia has. Its unfortunate that it doesnt show all the peaks but there is nothing we can do about it. Again, adding {{failed verification}} is for something if you state, "the sky is pink" when the source says blue. Honestly i dont care if you want to do things your own way and not listen to what i am saying, but this is how chart performance sourcing is done. If you want to add failed verification for something is is verified then go ahead as im not editing the article further. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I thought "community consensus for sourcing" was covered by WP:V. Second, the page we're talking about has a little gray padlock next to the "1–10" and if you hover over it, a tooltip will pop up that says, "Additional listings are only available on Billboard.biz". I do understand that BB likes to hide some of its data so it can charge us for it, but what I'm whining about here is that (please correct me if I'm wrong): the statement by BB that the song debuted at 75 is never, ever, ever going to be on that Billboard.com page with the 1 to 10 listing. Right?

If there is a Billboard.biz page with "Only Girl" at 75 somewhere, and I can't see it because I'm too cheap to pay these dopes to see the rest of their crummy Web site, then okay: the ref needs to be changed from the .com page to the .biz page, and the note subscription required needs to be added. And if that's how it is, CK, I and my failed verification tags are out of there in an instant. (And I'm not trying to do things "my way"; I want to do them the right way.)

Are we getting closer to understanding each other yet? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You could have just used THIS as you're appropriate, verifiable, reliable source. Best of all no one needs a subscription or anything else to view it, it should be available for all to see! Additionally if you want a link for the POp songs debut then use this. Hope it helps guys! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Butting in here for a sec. John I find it hard to believe you actually agree to that, because I don't. I don't agree to sourcing something that we cannot see. How reliable is something that isn't verifiable? You can't post claims, and then just say, "Well you need to pay to view." Sourcing in Wikipedia should be free for all to see, not the particular few who are dumb enough to subscribe and pay to every source site on Wikipedia (not talking about you CK, I mean in general). IMO, book sources are pushing it, but I can understand their use in biographies etc. Sources that require payment, subscription, siging in, personal information or any such thing should not be allowed.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

KWW once clarified this point Peter, verifiable doens't mean the easiest way you can check something. Verifiable means that with some work it can be checked. You could get into the car and go to the library to find the appropriate book. Equally you coul purchase a subscription to verify the info. But yes wherever possible non-subscription should be used. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin clarified useing Book sources, which is why to this day I myself use them. However, he never mentioned anything regarding payment fire walls. I do not agree and do not think it is the same. Submitting your prsonal information to sites (maybe not Billboard) can be very dangerous, and noone in their right mind would do so. Book sources are understandable, however not payment or subscription sites.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 03:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiya!

I'm a friend of Meni Rosenfeld and we are a gay couple. I know him well. He always says that he's afraid to admit that he's gay since Israel frowns down on gays. So he doesn't want to publicly announce it on Wiki. But I told him. See look you're a prostitute (he's a gay oral sex prostitute) and you shouldn't be afraid to admit it. So he's like OK. He advised me to put it up on his user page so that's what I did.

Please put it back. It's disrespectful to Meni Rosenfeld. You're telling that he should be ashamed of being gay by removing what I wrote there. Don't humiliate him. If you need proof send him an email (using the email on his toolbox) and he will discuss the matter with you privately. Please don't make a scene out of this. Email him please. Thanks John! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.68.163 (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I never knew we had to prove the nationality of a band, simply because I've never seen it in any article about a band, neither did I know we should add sources to the genres, unless they are controversial. Actually, I don't see it at all in that whole list. Besides, I always cite sources when adding new albums to that list, but in this case, I only added countries and genres, which are quite easy to check by clicking on the bands' articles. Cheers, Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Double ouch! Not only did I template a regular, I did it for no good reason. Sloppiness on my part. I am a dolt, a dunderhead, a fool.

I read your message, which goes on inexplicably about having to prove the nationality of a band, which is crazy, because I didn't remember caring about that. So I went to have a look to see what might have inspired all your crazy talk, and it appears... that I reverted and warned you having not paid close attention to your edits. This is unforgivable and more than a little embarrassing. I only saw that an article which regularly gets releases added to it without references had had two edits made to it, also without references. I reverted. For lo, I am a moron.

Victão, please accept my humblest and most abject apologies. Sincerely, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, you don't need to humiliate yourself in that way, now I am feeling bad. It was just a misunderstood, nothing significant. Thank you for the cookies, they will ruin my diet but will also save my day. =) Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 00:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Readability and usability

Hi. Just to let you know that I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability#Readability issues and small text size. You might want to comment there. ;-) Dodoïste (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Recluse (song)

You recently tagged the article The Recluse (song) for speedy deletion under G4. Can you please point me to the AFD? I can't seem to find it. — ξ^xplicit 01:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It had a slightly different name, but it's the same topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Recluse (Plan B song). Note that the previous title was better anyway, since The Recluse (song) doesn't differentiate usefully from The Recluse, also a song. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. When the title of the article for speedy deletion is different from the one deleted via AFD, it doesn't link to the CSD template. This can be resolved by using {{db-g4|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/nameofarticle}}, though that has to be done manually as Twinkle doesn't do it. — ξ^xplicit 01:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured I was doing something wrong, but I couldn't find a place to provide the AfD link. I had it ready, but couldn't feed it to Twinkle anywhere. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You belong with me...

• Sighs* ... we appear to be getting nowhere with the attempts to maintain singlechart at You Belong with Me. It was reverted back today. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem. The way I see it... is a form of ownership of articles. And if the said user can't let go then further action maybe required. The use of singlechart (and its future potentail to combat vandalism) far outweighs any of the concerns outlined by the user in question which, are simply just personal preference. There is an established consensus yet I dont see any attempt by them to establish an alternative consensus, just reverts of the addition of the template. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Layla studio track charts

Sharp eyes, Mr. Pinckney. I welcome your query.

The referenced Criterion Studio Track Identification Charts are the original - at least the surviving - record of what songs were recorded when by whom on what channels during the "Layla" sessions in Miami, including subsequent overdubs. A dozen pages (most featuring two recordings per, as there were multiple takes of several) were included in the boxed set 20th Anniversary Edition of the Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs release, issued on CD and cassette in 1990. I had a set back then, just got a new one with a purchase this past week of a new 20th Anniversary CD set.

Unfortunately, the Track ID sheets are copyright material belonging to Criterion/ATCO, so I can't just scan them in and add their images to the album's page or anything like that (which is also why I can't cite anywhere that they might have been posted online by third parties). I am, however, planning on scanning them for my own use, and would be happy to email you a set at whatever address you may use for such things.

They're really time capsule stuff. Imperfect, yes, as a few lack dates and many have cross-outs and nearly illegible handwriting, but the key information is mainly there. Wonderfully, welcomely so.

Let me know if you're interested in a set of scanned jpegs. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Corrected link: This is the URL I used to order the 20th Anniversary set here in the US: http://www.amazon.com/Layla-Sessions-20th-Anniversary/dp/B000001FZ5/ref=sr_1_8?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1286075525&sr=1-8. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, John. Giving adapting the documentary record discussed above to Wikipedia citation format the old college try but not really getting anywhere useful with it. I need some advice on how to proceed.

Some brief review first. Two supplementary items came with the Derek and the Dominos Layla Sessions 20th Anniversary Edition packaging (along with three CDs): one, a 14-page LP sized booklet (functionally entitled the same, containng a 12-page essay labeled merely "The Layla Sessions" by one Gene Santoro followed by two pages of song/performer listings and cursory who, what, and where information on the 20th Anniversary and original Layla session mixes; two, a white 9x12" envelope with the same titling (actually a black-and-white facimile of the embossed gold-on-black logo-style graphics and text employed on the booklet and reproduced as a label on the package's shrinkwrap) containing twelve black-and-white pages, each one an Atlantic Recoding Corporation "Track Identification Chart" containing channel-by-channel track and performer information on the various takes of songs recorded as part of the sessions which came to comprise the original double-album "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" issued in 1970, sixteen channels worth apiece.

Honestly, there is no direct connection between the two items. Santoro wrote an essay some time in 1990 (one may impute directly from its final two sentences: "Layla hits you on every level. That's why, twenty years after it was made, we're still listening to and celebrating it.") to be included in the 20th Anniversary package. Separately, Polydor (meaning whoever put the composite package together) decided to include copies of the twelve surviving relevant Track Identification Charts, duly issued in the aforementioned white envelope. It's information contained on the latter original Track ID charts that I'm seeking to cite, not either Santoro's essay or the two pages of "as issued" boilerplate data on the songs and the production staffs that oversaw the 1970 and 1990 mixes.

There's really no standard publisher/publication data on the latter, which are the original sources I am seeking to cite, not either the Santoro essay or the two pages of "as issued" boilerplate which follows it in the booklet. All that has been added (in the process of someone at Polydor scanning the original pages) is a brief identifying phrase in the bottom left of each page, which reads "Derek Tracking Sheet (page #, from 1 through 12)", followed by the same numeric notation on each in a smaller font, "847 083 2/4", whatever that means. Thus page one of the series reads (verbatim): "DEREK TRACKING SHEET 1 847 083 2/4", and so on two through twelve.

What have I got to work with (that will be satisfactory in Wikipedia format)? The forms were generated by Criterion Studios' parent company Atlantic Recording Corporation (designated form TI 10/8/69 by them in the lower right-hand corner) for use in their studios. The filled-in sheets' putative authors (to be literal about it) are the session recording engineers who filled them out (variously and often in combination by page) Mssrs. Ron Albert, Ron and Howie Albert, Carl (or Karl) Richardson (spelled both ways), Chuck Kirkpatrick, and "Staff" (with two pages where the engineer space was left blank), all of whom worked for Producer Tom Dowd during the sessions. Dates span between 8/26/70 and 9/3/70 (with two pages blank, and the latest overdubs - notations for which were added directly to the original track ID sheets - done on 10/1/70).

Other than that all we know is that they were produced at the Criterion Studio in Miami.

Given the above, what would be the best combination of which information in what format to cite the original track ID sheets? Thanks. Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna discog

It might be worth converting the discog to the new agreed format at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. That is sure to get a few comments going? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm itching to do it. I can hardly wait. But as I've been discussing with Dodoïste, I'd like to try to get some further discussion (and buy-in) over at the Are we ready to apply this updated guideline? section. Then when we start changing Rihanna and *ahem* Kelly Rowland discography, we might not get reverted so quickly, and we can point to a more solid consensus. I mean, I think you're cool and all, but the three of us don't necessarily pull a lot of weight with the entire rest of WP. And besides, you haven't said anything in that section yourself, yet. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from bitter experience, you are in for a lot of resistance based on scant little logic and scads of emotion.—Kww(talk) 21:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's already started. But it's okay; I have no other life.

Actually, my evil plan is to invite much discussion, then wear down all those who oppose my will with voluminous explanations of why mine is the path of righteousness. Who needs logic when you've got verbosity? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Testing discog problems

Give me 20 mintues and ill try to make a mark up of whats happening on certain computers. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ive drawn up a quick "whats wrong" on my other account and left the issues i have with it below the boxes. User:L-l-CLK-l-l-Tester - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Are you talking about only the Certs column breaking weirdly?

Let me look at this (and maybe test some things). I don't believe it's solely the font size of the column headings, but I don't know for sure what it is.

What browsers do you have available right now (for testing) where this happens? Browser name and version, please. And my thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its the Cert and sometimes sales that do it. On all computers i have the newest Firefox and Internet Explorer (my comp updates on its own when its asleep when i new one becomes available) thats not meant to sound cocky lol. Right now im on my laptop (where i 99% of the time edit from). However on my other computers they have smaller screens, and on those on the text appears like ive shown on the page i linked. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

question, @CLK you used !style="width:3.5em;font-size:80%"| to show that the certification gets warped... but we're proposing the use of !style="width:3.5em;font-size:90%"|. I know it sounds silly but could you confirm whether the proposed code with 90% makes things better or worse? (this would establish whether is column size or not) Also could you confirm the exact browser and resolution size when this had occured? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The 80% doesnt do it, if its 85% or higher, its makes the text go funny. I just copy and pasted from Kesha to show what was happening. Also i just realized, this is the only computer (my laptop which i always use) the text is fine, but this is Windows Vista, the rest are XP or something else where the text goes funny. Could that have anything to do with it. On all computers i use "Firefox 3.6" and the sizes and res are all different. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you try specifiying the column size (inputting code to force the column to be wide) and then see if it alters the outcome? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue 1: Mid-word break

Okay, let's see what we can learn from looking at a few first pokings at the code.

1. First, CK, please look at this unchanged copy of Kesha's albums table and confirm to me that you still see the problem.
2. Second, please have a look at this version (2) (where I've changed the width specs to use CSS [still px]). Any better? Different?
3. Now we come to version 3, where I've used em units instead of px.
4. And finally (for now), look at version 4. All I've done here is reduce the Sales col width spec from 13em to 11em.

Are any of these better? Merely different? How? Why or why not? Explain. (You're in school, right?) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies i was updating a bunch of Ke$ha pages. On this computer (which i have never had an issue with the discographies) i notice no difference they all look fine. Im actually at my other house right now, so i will not be able to check whether they have been corrected or not until tomorrow at noon(hopefully) (its 5:30pm right now). And yes im in school, but currently i do online school cause i have sports so online is much easier. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll wait to see whatever results you can report. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, just waiting around for some results... — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue 2: Years not aligned

CK, I'm still trying to work out what problem you're describing with Issue 2. I have made a test page to fiddle with.

1. Please look at this, and tell me if you still see the problem. It's my otherwise unchanged copy of the videos table from Kelly Rowland discography#Music videos. Problem still there?
2. Now look at this edit, where I have changed the scope for the column headings from "row" to "col". Problem still there?
3. And now check out this last edit. How's that one? Better? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

i think CK meant... he doens't like that we've decided to include the years at the end of the table and that I didn't use rowspan= -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Im afraid you still havnt understood what im trying to say. Let me try another way of explaining.

Look under User:JohnFromPinckney/Sandbox#Music_videos_Kesha. Reading left to right it goes, Year ,Title ,Director(s). If you :look under User:JohnFromPinckney/Sandbox#Singles its written "Year ,Single". Looking vertical, the years are in the same row. Now the issue i have is under User:JohnFromPinckney/Sandbox#Music_videos_Kelly the year is at the far right, and is not inline with the rest of the "Year" sections. Get it? =S - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I did say on the project talk page that you could include year after titles if you wanted to... its not a big deal as long as they don't appear in the first column, -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the year as second column would look much better, myself. Would that solve Issue 2 for you then? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, from top to bottom in the article, they need to be in the same row like they currently are now. Thats the issue i have, having them in random places, (Kelly Rowland; Studio albums year is the first row, Album appearances its the last row) they need to be consistent. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup Kelly Rowland discography (like I said on the talk page) is still being updated. I did the music videos a while ago as a live-demo for what could be achieved. Don't use it to judge standards just yet LOL. All's good then. Lets see if we can smash the first issue. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lil, I've copied my version of the table with centered years as the second column into Kelly Rowland discography#Music videos. If you decide you don't the the Year moved like that, you can grab the Year-as-last-column version from my edit history. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

More Issue 1 reports

File:Lets see.jpg

To show whats happening : Ke$ha top.. Rowland Bottom

<---------The Image to the Left, i will tell you the issues i am experiencing. (This is on Mozilla Firebox 3.6 with a changed res of 800 by 600).
The top is of Kesha discography, notice the text in Cert and Sales goes underneath? On a smaller res (which i cant show right now) it breaks up more. Other then that its fine. With Rowland, the text and boxers are bigger, again, the text is broken up, this may be what is suppose to happen, but what is not suppose to happen is; you see the back arrow i drew? there is a little grey field where the web page ends and you cannot scroll over to see the rest of the text. The box overlays and keeps going, but you cannot see what is there, it just cuts it off. On an ever smaller res more text is cut off where you cannot see. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, now it's clear at last. Remember, when you can't describe an issue, a screen capture works best. Well it's a really common issue. Both of them are perfectly normal and supposed to happen on small resolutions. The first isn't that bad anyway, and it's normal.

As for the second: the new table is slightly larger, so you're only experiencing this problem now. But hey, this DISCOG tables are fairly decent, and much larger tables exist in Wikipedia. Tables do have minimum width, so whatever you do you'll always find a smaller resolution too small for any table. In such cases, it's OK if you have to scroll, it's more important to be able to read the table. That's why we'd rather encourage normal text size. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The text aside, thats not the issue. The issue is if you re-read, i said that with the box/text being so big, the computer isnt reading it right or something and its cutting off part of the "Sales" section and you cannot scroll over and see it. Make sense? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see that, but want to make sure that I understand it correctly. It appears from the small image that the only thing you can't bring into view is a one-pixel wide right border. True?—Kww(talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the solution to insert a code that automatically makes all text in a discography table appear at 90% font size? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced this has anything to do with font-size. I'm still trying to understand what he's seeing as the problem condition. In any case, the example is currently using 80% font-sizes, in columns which appear to be plenty wide, when "normal" is 75%, and we're trying to get him to 90%. I don't see how the 5% difference from 75% (which isn't even visible in my Firefox) could have an effect on his horizontal scrolling. On the other hand, he lets his browser gets updated while he sleeps, so I can't be sure some behavior wasn't affected by some recent update about the same time as "we made it wider". — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I honestly done have a clue what it is, i think it may be Mozilla. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually according to some stuff that a non-wiki editor friend of mine says regarding the programming of lower resolutions, the squashing of such text is normal as hardware running at 800 by 600 px cannot process lengthy horizontal scrolling. However I've been advised that from the standard settings of 1024 x 768 px and above on either XP or Vista there should be no issues. Note apparently this will happen with any kind of html formatting not just wikipedia. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Uh oh, I knew I would be warned. I am really sorry about that and I agree with you. I was greatly frustrated, that I couldn't smoothly revert the erroneus changes in one click of "undo" as it conflicted with other changes. I usually try to avoid that kind of behavior in an edit summary, but caved in due to immense frustration at the sockpuppeting IP users of 88.29/31 who is possibly Mutante96 or Luminoth187 that are guilty of vandalizing the Michael Jackson singles.Carmaker1 (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Magical Thinking

I take it you've never noticed that the current Top 40 is 100 entries long. If you add the date, they lop the last 60 entries off. One of the dumbest websites I've ever encountered. In a few days, chartstats will update, and I'll switch the link to there.—Kww(talk) 06:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Small favour

Hi there! I was wondering if you could just give your input to a deletion discussion here, please, if you had a minute. Thanks so much! :) Yves (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I realized I never said, "Thank you" for your input. So thanks so much! :) Yves (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, that seems like ancient history already. I'd already forgotten about it. It's a shame we spent so much time on such an obvious case of deletable material (even before it got nasty). You're quite welcome, in any case. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, eh? That was a really great essay you wrote there haha; your eloquence is admirable. :P Yves (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

... and this may make the job a little bit easier. --RexxS (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rexx, and yay! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland discography

I had deliberatly put TBR because several people in the FL review asked for it. Additionally because the album is currently only confirmed for UK release it seemed important to point that out whereas previous the release stood worldwide. (see here) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 13:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hunh, funny. I don't know why they'd ask for it. Seems weird that they would want something that's different; usually they want something that's the same. Although I have seen tables where two different indicators are used, one for not charted and one for not released. "TBR" wasn't one of them though. Anyway, I won't meddle there anymore. Leave it as you think it needs to be. And: are you brave enough to try changing for the new WP:DISCOGSTYLE? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah its on my list of things to do along with the stack of work i've got from university - there really isnt enough hours in the day. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you're setting sale against the storm with Rihanna discography. I'll hopefully do Kelly Rowland in the next couple of hours over the course of wednesday. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. It took me longer than I expected, although Rihanna's discog is rather large, and I took the opportunity to convert most of the tables to list the peaks horizontally. I spend too much time trying to figure out what peak some editor has changed from 3 to 2. When they're horizontal it's usually possible to see a title either fore or aft. So it all took me almost two hours, when I'd originally figured 30–45 minutes. Ha! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Its still a work in progress. No I did an example in one of my sandboxes a few weeks ago where I come up with the conclusion that I prefer horizontal layouts. I was already using it for the albums table. There's no automatic way to do it but its easier if you copy | — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || — || then input the peaks rather than try and modify the old ones. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

New WP:DISCOGSTYLE guidelines?

I know you must be busy right now, working on Rihanna discography but I just want to know if that new discography style has been already approved so I can start to edit the featured lists I'm working on. Thanks! Decodet (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Decodet. Wow, I didn't realize I was making so much noise with all my hammering and sawing over there.

As far as the guideline goes, I'm considering it approved, although I still fear it's more accurate to say that it wasn't roundly rejected. I really wanted more involvement in the discussion, but it remained a small group most of the time. Nevertheless, I'm starting making a few updates, albeit slowly, to see what kind of yelling and screaming and how-could-you results from it. I think the revisions described in the new guideline are sound, but if there's going to be howling and whining leading to a change in the changed guideline (now that peaople have actually noticed we're trying to make changes), I don't want to have too many articles to have to change a second time. So I'll be going slowly for the next few days. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I understood. I'm editing a discography and updating it - in your opinion, should I stop and wait or can I continue? Thanks! Decodet (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Naw, go ahead; be BOLD! You've already started it, so I wouldn't recommend leaving it half done, nor reverting your changes. Finish it up and see if anybody complains (or reverts). I see at least one of your edit summaries points to WP:DISCOGSTYLE and WP:ACCESS, so nobody should wonder why you're vandalizing the page. Go for it! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! :] Decodet (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I did know about that but I forgot it while I was converting the tables. It's done now. I also converted the tables in Paramore discography, another articles I've been working for a while :] Decodet (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Related note: shouldn't the albums in the singles' chart be linked per WP:DISCOGSTYLE? Yves (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I say, but at most only once per singles table. This was discussed here and although margin is somewhat slim, the consensus seems (to me) to be once per section or once per table. Some preferred no linking at all after the Albums table, and some advocated linking erevy time, but I think we ended up at once per table.

I see that Rihanna discography, Kelly Rowland discography, Ashley Tisdale discography and Paramore discography all use (at least some) unlinked album names. I think that's not so bad on the Tisdale page, since the tables are rather small, but it would be better, IMO, to re-add the links to Rihanna. I think I had them in until some other editor removed them. That was before the discussion I noted above, though, so maybe I'll try re-adding them. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; makes sense! And another question, if you don't mind: should associations (e.g. ARIA, CRIA, RIANZ, RIAA, etc.) be linked to the countries in the certifications column? Because it isn't at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Also, the page doesn't show an example of other charted songs. Or music videos (though I realize their inclusion is(was) being discussed). And shouldn't Ricky Nelson be linked? Yves (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In reverse-sideways order: As I was writing my reply to you I realized the "other charted songs" thing hadn't been added yet, so I decided to do that tonight. Yes, Ricky Nelson would be better linked, IMO. And I'm not really sure where we stand on linking providers behind the country names. As Supreme King of Wikipedia, I think I'd leave them unlinked, but as just a regular editing peasant like your own good self, I dunno. I think others (most others?) might prefer linking (and so I'd readily do it that way). You might start a discussion (or look for an archived discussion) about it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Amateur control

I am seeing a lot of amateur/fan users editing Usher album articles Confessions (Usher album) and Raymond v. Raymond, adding puffery and excessive content concerning commercial/sales statistics, particulary about the albums' singles. As there are multiple users like this, I am asking for some help as my reverts and edit summaries citing WP guidelines about leads is no help for their unexplained revisions. Dan56 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I know I kinda championed it....

but I'm not exactly happy with the results of one of the discogs I've converted to WP:DISCOGSTYLE. and I can see how we might get some resistance. Take a look at Nicole Scherzinger#Discography. Its not exactly easy on the eyes, any suggestions? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those row headings for "Song" (feat. Some Guy) look very different from what we're used to, and I'm not sure I'm satisfied yet myself. I do have some alternate formatting ideas in my drawer here, but I'm not ready to bring them out yet. In the meantime, and for what you're seeing on Scherzinger's page, try adding the closing quotation mark on your <span style="font-size:85%;"> elements. See if you like the resulting effect better. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually now that the span thing is working correctly im ok with it. thanks -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 13:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Singlechart usages for Billboard Pop Songs

Are you sure Category:Singlechart usages for Billboard Pop Songs is used by {{singlechart}}? Looks to me like it is using Category:Singlechart usages for Billboardpopsongs. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 19:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Now deleted, in case you hadn't noticed. Thanks for the tip, Pascal. (And thanks, Kww.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Russian charts

The Russian Charts article lends a bit more credibility to the 2M charts. Still not seeing anything that makes me believe in tophit.ru. I'm not going to rush and do anything.—Kww(talk) 01:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

santana discography

don't let santana alone, hope you don't forget him :(-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wondered about this ambiguous publication...

Hi John erm, I've just left Kww a message. Could you also take a look here? Thanks -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

peer review

hello john,

with "nobody" i meant that nobody answered my question after i asked some question. Please don't understand me wrong, i just wanted that someone might help me. however, i will delete this peer review and make a review in the FL nomination directly. cheers-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Brazil

The positions that DeivsonPrescovia aren't from hot100brasil.com (I checked) and are being cited to the physical magazine, which is permitted. May I suggest that you revert yourself and undo your warning?—Kww(talk) 17:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have left this right after you logged off for the day. I went ahead and undid your reversions.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but I'm a little confused about what's good and what's bad. I saw that DeivsonPrescovia had pointed to Billboard Brasil, but when I double-checked WP:BADCHARTS before I reverted his edits, I saw "Brazil Hot 100/Hot100Brasil: This chart's article was deleted..." in the list. And as all of Deivson's 3 additions on 2 pages included "Brazil Hot 100 Airplay", I consided them to match. Is the difference just the word "Airplay"? Or is anything Brazilian cool as long as it's sourced to the paper Billboard Brasil? Maybe the BADCHARTS list item needs more info to disambiguate a bit? Your post above makes me think it's supposed to be really referring to web sites with those names, not just charts with those names. The GOODCHARTS table explains the paper BB bit, but doesn't mention specific charts.

And thanks for reverting me. I hadn't so much "logged off for the day" as found my connection to Wikipedia broken (or WP was just down). This is the kind of methadone that inspires me to go do something else besides injecting myself with WP junk. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This should be a start. Do you really think GOODCHARTS should come down to saying "Airplay and Pop 100 are acceptable, but the per-city and per-state charts aren't"?

Thanks, that's better. But:

1. The California Gurls edit included a mention of Hot Pop Songs, which isn't listed in either spot. I wouldn't (and didn't) know what to do.
2. The other notes like the one you just added are in italics, so I think it should be italicized, too (or the others de-talicized).
3. Is the magazine's entire name Billboard Brasil, or is it just Billboard Brazil, being the Brazilian version of Billboard? Oh, well I've had a look at our article, which suggests the former. We should format it that way on the page.
4. The comment in GOODCHARTS has a nice sentence that begins, "The singles charts from Billboard Brasil magazine are acceptable,..." This could be as you suggest, something like, "The Hot 100 and Pop 100 charts from Billboard Brasil magazine are acceptable, although the per-city and per-state charts are not; none of these are archived." Or maybe better:

"The Hot 100 Airplay and Pop 100 charts from Billboard Brasil magazine are acceptable, although the per-city and per-state charts are not. None of these are archived; they can be included only by referencing the physical magazine, not the online chart. Crowley...etc."

One problem for me is not knowing much about Brazilian charts (and not reading Portuguese). Everything I know about them I know from Billboard Brasil, Brasil Hot 100 Airplay and WP:CHARTS. What other cases do we need to worry about? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This and this are hopefully enough. Just curious, what languages can you comfortably wade through?—Kww(talk) 23:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks great. Thanks. I do German, some rusty Spanish, and clumsy bit-wise French in addition to English and some non-standard English. No Japanese except what I remember from reading Clavell's Shogun, rōmaji only, which, uh, limits me somewhat. The rest (including any serious French texts) I have to take to Google Translate or similar. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving Billboard positions

Hi there! I have a question: how does one go about archiving Billboard chart positions? For example, I would like to reference the Glee Cast's cover of "Le Jazz Hot!", which débuted at number ninety-four on the Billboard Hot 100 this week. Normally, when archiving Australian peaks and such, I would use webcitation.org, but this doesn't seem to work on billboard.com, I think because of its Flash elements or whatever that makes it both difficult and slow to navigate. Anyway, I'm at a loss as to how to reference it so it doesn't get "lost", and Billboard doesn't keep chart history of songs by the Glee Cast. Help would be very much appreciated! Thanks in advance! Yves (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you're wondering, I have checked Billboard articles, and none of them mention this (probably because this the lowest-charting of six Glee débuts this week). Yves (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, ouch, that's a toughy; I always consider it such a triumph when I get a Billboard page to even show up. On Billboard's own site. When it's still current.

Otherwise I think you have to look at AllMusic, which at best has a delay of days to weeks, and at worst lists things incorrectly or not at all. Then there's the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, which I expect won't work for reasons similar to the Webcitation problem. And I'm sorry, Yves, but I think that's all the help I can offer, except to point you vaguely at the other editors around here. Kww or Ericorbit might be able to help you, for example, based on their years of experience, but some of the younger guys might be better, if they've done (more of) the same kind of work lately. Good luck. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response! Yeah, I've looked at allmusic, but they seem to copy everything exactly from Billboard. And I know they might have delays, but the cast's second single "Rehab" charted at number ninety-eight the week of June 6, 2009, and it's nowhere to be seen on that page. I guess another option could be to reference the actual magazine, right? I guess I'll have to go to the library and wait until it's available. I just wish they had something in HTML, or in PDF, like BDS Radio does every week for the Canadian Hot 100 (not updated for this week yet, though); I archive those just fine. So frustrating haha. Anyway, thanks again for your help! :) Yves (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey singles discography

I assure you the re-adding of the link you removed was strictly a human error which I had forgotten about. I didn't' insist it was French, I actually hadn't realized the language paremeter said French, which is why after the reversion I edited to German. If we compromise I think language=English/German would be more appropriate. Afro (Talk) 14:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

JoAnne Purtan

Sorry, John. I was using WP:AWB and her name was changed inadvertently along with other legitimate edits in that article. Thanks for catching my error. --Thomprod (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that should teach you not to use tools to make your work easier. You should do things the slow, tedious, equally error-prone manual way, like I do. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Hey :). Please join the discussion here.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Heeeeellppp (WebKit table columns)

Hi, I'm working on a discog User:Candyo32/Sandbox14 to conform to the new style and several things are going wrong. Its some random space under sales in the albums, I can't figure out away to fix the year from being so big in the singles section, and 2007 is bold in the singles also. Think you could figure it out? I thought you might have a solution since work on a whole lot of these. Thanks!! Candyo32 01:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, lemme take a look. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There, I did a couple of teeny things. Does that fix everything? What'd I miss? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's one more thing I was wondering about, why the Year is so wide in the featured singles. Candyo32 01:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what you're talking about; they're just as narrow as in the other tables for me. There's just the same little smidgeon of space to the left and right of the number, as in any other table cell without a larger specified width.

Does the extra width change as you resize your browser window? What browser are you viewing it in when you see this (I've tried Firefox 3 and IE 6)? Do other browsers (if you have any installed) show the same thing? And it's just this one table, huh? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I've tried Firefox and it is fine. But in Google Chrome, in the featured singles, the year column was just as wide and looked like the title/song column. Candyo32 02:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hunh. Researching... — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that, too. When making changes to Taylor Swift discography, the reason I forced a width for the year in other charted songs was because the year column was wayyyy too wide: taking about half the page. I'm on a different computer, using Firefox now, and it's fine; I was on Chrome before. Weird. I think Chrome might also render things differently because there is no difference between {{reflist}} and {{reflist|2}} in the browser. This is explained in the documentation, though. Yves (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just checking back in. I haven't found anything yet, and the links at the Reflist documentation didn't lead me to The Answer yet. This is a problem, though, as I'd like to see us support Chrome with our new "improvements", too. Question: do you not have this problem with old-style discography tables? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And another question for Candyo32 or any other Chrome/WebKit user

Please look at the content currently at User:JohnFromPinckney/Sandbox2 using your Chrome browser. Please look at all of the tables (well, the ones with a Year column, anyway), and tell me whether they show the Year column as being oddly wide. I would like two lists, one of tables where the column's too wide, one where they're not. The "Music videos" and "BOGUS videos" should appear on your lists somewhere, too. Okay? Thanks for helping me try to fix this. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh. None of columns for years are "too wide" in your sandbox; they're perfect width (though Swift's discog page is still the same). Yves (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, damn. That almost makes me mad. It doesn't tell me anything I was hoping to learn. Maybe Candy will get some different results. Candyo? I need you! (Thanks, Yves!) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Haha, maybe a poke would get his attention? :P Yves (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Candy-O

Hi John. Just FYI, I removed the PROD tag from "Candy-O" and re-wrote it with sources. The editor who originally wrote it is new; he's very enthusiastic but doesn't quite understand the need for sources yet. I'm going to try to nudge him to start using them. In the meantime I'm going to try to de-orphan the article. It's probably on the edge of notability, but I hope you won't AfD it. I know claiming notability on the basis that The New Cars "covered" it would be a stretch, but the Melvins have covered it also and it's got Allmusic reviews for both the Cars and Melvins versions, so the article's at least got sources backing up everything it says now. Best, 28bytes (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness

Well yeah i know the article Candy-O is taking some risks with the lack of references, ratings etc... but i think your a cool person, im also glad to know you love that song I also love that song and the band, would you like to help me expand it a bit??.....Thank you and ROCK ON... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorHawke (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry

Since u helped out with the sock puppetry problem on the Usher album articles before, can u help me out with determing whether or not the IP editors to the Birth of the Cool article are sock puppets as well? The article's history shows such editors making the same edit going back to April, reappearing with the same one edit sporadically. Dan56 (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dan. The addresses you're talking about appear to be these:

• 93.41.38.219
• 93.42.7.250
• 93.41.58.134
• 93.42.3.134
• 93.41.34.79
• 93.41.56.9
• 93.41.30.17
• 93.42.102.250
• 93.41.38.138
• 93.41.56.203
• 93.42.5.212
• 93.41.57.155
• 93.41.1.43
• 93.42.9.178

I don't think this qualifies as sockpuppetry; it appears to just be a single user (making single-minded edits) using dynamically-assigned IP addresses. If I didn't log on when editing here, you'd see that I get a different IP address from my ISP every time I restart my computer and establish a new Internet connection. This user's apparently in or around Milan, Italy, and the ISP uses several NAT pools for its customers (see a few of the IP ranges: [8], [9], [10]).

The edits to Birth of the Cool (and Bob Dylan, Nirvana (band), etc.) don't come that often, annoying though they are, so a block of a few hours wouldn't help much; the user'd never notice (and other, innocent Italian users might be inconvenienced). Maybe you can get an admin to semi-protect the article based on the revision history; see what results you get at WP:RFPP. Good luck. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Can u do me a favor and revert the last edit to Tha Carter III‎ by User:67.181.35.35‎? I've explained that there is a 10 review maximum in the edit summary and talk page, but the user has reverted me, being 2 reverts already. Dan56 (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No Love cover

Hey, I saw you're revert of the No Love cover, but I have some evidence that it is the official:

• An official music and reviews site of the UK, it gives a review of the single, with the No Love cover next to it.
• Coverlandia will say in the title of the post if the cover is Fan made or Official - they don't lie, it is real.
• On Amazon, which provides either the real single cover, or the cover of the album it's from.

Hope I'm not being too pushy, I don't want to start anything. Thanks.

Ninjinian (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dance Airplay

Hi, first of all i wish to tell you that i didn't want top be mean to you, i do not want you build up a bad impression of me. Dance Airplay is the same as Dance Singles. Search for all the Billboard Charts and you will see. Can we be friends, i think it is the best way for us to work together or else we will keep on reverting each others edits. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I've already reverted my removal of List of number-one dance airplay hits of 2010 (U.S.), as I hadn't found the reference for it being #1 at the end of the first paragraph in the Chart performance section.

Second, they aren't the same, which is why you added two links (to two completely different articles) in the first place. Right?

Third, I'd like to get along, too. I'm sorry for my mistake in not seeing the reffed mention in the prose (I think I must have looked only at the Charts table). I hope we won't have any more name-calling in the future. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

'Dance Airplay is the same as Dance Singles.' The sentence should have been 'Dance Airplay is not the same as Dance Singles. And i have added the two right categories.' I got confused myself while trying to explain it to you. Don't worry about our past misunderstandings and i am sure we will get along well. By the, just to let you know, the pages i edit most frequently are articles related to Beyonce, Alicia Keys and Rihanna. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna discography at WP:FLRC

I have nominated Rihanna discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Discogs

Hi John, I'm actually a bit confused at the moment. Why are discographies changing format to this ugly bold and switched format? Its looks ridiculous.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I keep neglecting to answer your question

Usually that's because I don't know a good answer. The problem is that the chart really should have three columns: country, chart, and position. I've abused the first column into doing double duty, and now it hasn't got a really good, succinct description.—Kww(talk) 03:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured I got on the wrong list with you. It's okay if I make two columns, then? Say, "Provider" (or "Publisher") and "Actual chart name"? The Billboard chart only needs the one. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. I've just been a bit stressed and tired lately, making me less capable of coherent thought.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Same here, but I've been "contributing" here anyway (with sub-optimal results). Hope things get better for you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tha Carter III edit

The editor that made this edit is arguing that another article includes more than 10 reviews, therefore this one can. What is the name of policy/guideline about not referring to other articles, so that I can refer to it in explaining to him why his argument is wrong? Dan56 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:OTHERSTUFF, but that apparently has to do more with discussions about whether to delete an article or not. Otherwise you can just say that if others have more than 10, it's a sign that the others need to be fixed, not that Tha Carter III needs to be broken to match them.

I found this List of shortcuts, but didn't see a shortcut to what we're looking for. Maybe I'll think of it (in about three days...).— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Hey :), please help reach consensus and vote here.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Computer problem

Stop insulting me. I just have computer problems...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What? What insult? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You might not take it as an insult, but sentences like:

• Are you even answering the same issues I've mentioned? Or are you typing answers to questions on another page? or
• Where? In your Sandbox? I really don't prefer. It's like I'm the moron here, and it's not good. Only because I sometimes save the page until one subject was done, it shouldn't be provide with sentences like above. I'm sorry for the outstriking of your sigs or anything else, but please don't write such sentences. Thank you. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 06:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why Don't You Love Me

Please participate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Why_Don't_You_Love_Me_(Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles_song)#Single.3F Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up my mistakes lol! Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tweren't nothin'. (I almost didn't notice the year released error, though.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And again! I hereby award you this barnstar:

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For cleaning up technical errors, dates and typos. Your behind-the-scenes work here is truly amazing. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I changed "Wait Your Turn" to 55 because I thought that was the entry for "S&M"... don't ask me why... Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why, thanks, Adabow! It's my pleasure to help out with minor fiddly stuff when other people, like yourself, are doing all the heavy lifting. Please keep up your own good work!

Um, I don't want to be picky, or ungrateful, or anything, but: should I be able to see it? Because it's right there. I mean, it's really going to stand out when I nail it on my invisible barn. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, very good. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

nom

hello,

again sorry if I did something wrong. However, can you answer to my questions or making suggestions. Instead of moving this unuseful sig around, you could write something. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have withdrawn from those discussions and consider our interactions to be done. Good luck. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad Romance

Hey john, one small favour. I am planning to nominate "Bad Romance" for FAC. Would be kind enough to check the article's tables for WP:ACCESS related stuff? You are more versed in it than I am, hence just asking. :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Legolas. I've tweaked a few things for accessibility, and it's probably enough for now. There was a lot of resistance to attempts at WP:ACCESS implementation on discographies, so I'm leery about trying to attempt full compliance, but these are the changes I've been adding to recording articles, and never had anyone complain yet (FWIW). We talked earlier about making the left column into row headers, which would put table heading background shading on the Chart, Country, and Region data cells, but I'm not sure everybody's ready for this yet.

Since I was looking mostly at the tables, I noticed the headings, about which I have a little comment. My preference would be to change the "Charts" sub-heading under "Charts and certifications" to "Weekly charts", so that it's parallel to the "Year-end charts" sub-heading. However, I haven't been able to convince other editors (at least the two who didn't like it) of the value of this, so if you don't want to change it I won't be too amazed. Good luck with the FAN. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Many many many thanks for the table tweakings. Really appreaciated. And I am actually all for substituting the normal name Charts with Weekly charts, as was done in the recent most music FA "4 Minutes". — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Name that editor

Any guesses as to previous accounts? Special:Contributions/Next to Famous.—Kww(talk) 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The obvious guess is TrEeMaNsHoE, though I don't know that user well enough to say for certain. Early TrEeMaNsHoE edits seem to have fewer summaries, but comparing with Rodolfo Trotter I see more of a match. Ripe for CheckUser? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

reffed sources?

Lol smooth... very smooth. I'll have to remember to use that one in the future. =) how are you anyways? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm always looking for ways to fit more info, politely, into short edit summary spaces. I'm doing alright, thanks, although I need to cut down my WP time in favor of the pesky Real Life stuff. I've been trying to prune my Watchlist and teach myself to better ignore unimportant edits. I hope school's going well for you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... well its been a while since I was at school. I'm at university at the moment (2nd year) and dare I say the workload has increased at least 5-fold. As for wiki well I semi-retired but have a had a short burst of edits recently thanks to me needing a distraction from the real world. Things are a bit complicated with someone I wish to get romantically involved with so this is the perfect distraction (listening to people scream and shout and get blocked for sock puppetry/POV pushing). LOL -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Loud Tour

Hello JohnFromPinckney. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Loud Tour, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: If you want to merge content etc, please discuss this on the two talk pages. This is not a suitable use of Speedy Deletion - consensus needs to be reached about the correct title. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 12:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

German and Canadian album charts

hello,

do you know the official sites for the Canadian album charts and for the German album charts? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For this and similar questions you might be satisfied by WP:GOODCHARTS, which is really a shortcut to an area in the middle of a larger page including details about deprecated charts, record charts in general, and when to use/avoid particular U.S.-specific Billboard charts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Year-end charts

I don't quite understand your edit. While it does seem strange, the year-end charts were referenced and lead to correct pages. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hunh, my bad. I confess that I did not click through on even one of those links, figuring that a redlink user I'd never heard of adding year-end charts in early December must be adding bogus crap. I reverted without wasting the time to look at what must be complete hooey. Good thing I didn't decide to warn them, too, eh? Now to figure out what new madness Billboard is up to this week. Or maybe it's normal... — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that today, the 9th of December, the big list of year-end charts at the Billboard page shows them all with the date December 31, 2010. Now how did they manage that, I wonder. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Billboard are the one group you can trust to mess with dates, aren't they? :D Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Man! If they would at least be a little transparent about it, I could deal with it better. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They release the Year-End charts in advance so that they can get them published before the end of the year. To do this, they track data from December of the previous year to the end of November of the given year. Yves (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Shooting thaler

Hi John. Sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to let you know that I added a suggestion to your sandbox for the new tables we're working for the shooting thaler article. I mentioned it on the shooting thaler talk page, but I thought you might have missed it. My apologies if you've been busy with other things! Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Santana discography

hello,

please have a look at this nomination. It would be nice if you help to promote this disco into a FL. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, of course I won't. I'm not going anywhere near one of your nominations again. If somebody else asked me for an opinion of the articles you've nominated, I'd explain without hesitation that I oppose promotion, since the articles are nowhere near FL quality, but I refuse to waste my time interacting on your FLC pages. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is very sad. The list is very near to become a FL, it would be nice if you would help me. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Rockstar 101

So what should we do to clean that "Chart Performance" section up? Should I go ahead and revamp the whole section (with your blessing)? I will remove unreferenced comments, but I will make sure I try hard to find a proper source to back each claim before I remove anything.--mikomango (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, I imagine the info must be somewhere, but unless you have some old copies of the magazines, Billboard is probably not going to be the place to look. We have the option of using αCharts Web site, assuming the week-by-week stuff is there, but that site is not much loved here on WP because it seems to republish unlicensed data. I'm not sure they have the over-50 positions anyway, and I never get their week numbering to match the source charts they're copying from.

Otherwise, I would not be sad to see the fell-off-but-re-entered-but-then stuff removed, although it's in there presumably because somebody thought it was good. Or maybe they just had the info, so they added it. Personally, I'm not so great at adding sources I dig up elsewhere, so if you want to work on it I will wish you the best of luck. I felt bad adding all those ugly tags, but I kept noticing stuff that wasn't covered. If you can heal that, you'll have my gratitude. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I totally understand. I will do my best to source, verify and edit accordingly. All the chart obsessive freaks who wanted to make sure every twist and turn was noted are the ones who made those ugly tags happen, not you my dear! :-)--mikomango (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Heya :) Please help reach consensus here. Its an easy vote, so don't get discouraged.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna discography – Euro stuff

Can you take a look at Afro's question regarding European certs at the Rihanna discography FLRC? I don't quite understand the situation. Otherwise, things seem to be looking towards keeping it as an FL. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked, I saw, I commented. — JuliusFromPinckney (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Yves (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Some genre issues

I could do with your opinion at What's My Name? (Rihanna song) with some pretty determined editors who appear to be suggesting that all Rihanna song are only "R&B" and no other genres. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a shame. I'm a Caribbean person, I don't quickly call things "ska" and I was uncomfortable with the genre at first too, but influences are important enough to merit representation!--mikomango (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Rihanna Tours

hey...question. I just noticed something...is the List of Rihanna Tours article allowed to use Wikipedia as references for the article itself? I find this confusing...and it just seems rushed, unprofessional, not thorough. I see the people who make these edits are unregistered users. What do we do to clean that up? Or are you waiting for it to be deleted? What sort of plan of attack should we be crafting here? Help plz :-)--mikomango (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Miko. I've been out for a couple days so I'm sure what you're talking about. That is, I see a redlink for the article you're referring to, so I gather the situation has resolved itself. If I recall correctly, I nominated the article for deletion (via PROD). I guess that worked. I remember not liking the article for its triviality. Whatever references pointed to WP pages, though, would have been just more encouragement to drive a stake through it. It's hard to train IP editors en masse; it seems we have to do it one by one sometimes, although I'm sure many WP editors learned by seeing good role models. We could try to be like that. Does that help? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC courtesy notice - succession boxes

As someone who has taken part in previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums, I'd like to notify you of a request for comment that is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. It would be nice to finally come to a resolution on this. If you have already participated in this RFC or do not wish to participate, then please disregard this notice. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

UKchartstats

Looking for advice on how to make things clear: chartstats has switched from providing links with the "song" argument to using the "id=" argument. It no longer uses "song", but will still accept it, and it's a different number than the id. I can add an "id" parameter, but how can I a make this whole mess clear to people?—Kww(talk) 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm lost.

• I went to the Home page and saw several mentions of "the new database backend". This was news to me as I almost never hit the Home page, I usually just go to some artist's page, album's page, etc. BTW, how can the guy (gal?) write in the first person singular and never think to identify himself? How is that supposed to appear authoritative?
• I clicked one of the old sample links I glommed from Doesn't Mean Anything many months ago, and it (still) goes right to http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=34669, the page for "Doesn't Mean Anything" by Alicia Keys.
• I then tried searching from the Home page, first for Alicia Keys, then selecting DMA from the list of her works. The page is the same, with an identical URL, using id=34669.
• I don't know what you mean when you refer to the "song" argument. Do you have it backwards here, and you meant they're converting from id to song?
• There's a link on the ChartStats Home page (December 2nd, 2010 section) to http://www.chartstats.com/chartarchive.php which purports to allow me to enable/disable the new backend. I have tried this a few times but don't get any different results than above. I've looked at Rihanna and Eminem and Justin Bieber (as well as Barbra Streisand and Barbra Streisand), thinking that this change you describe affects only newer releases, but I don't see anything different.

So I'm lost, until you can give me more specific pointers to a song you see this on, and maybe how you got there. Sorry I can't help yet. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is why I talk to people before plunging ahead. If I'm confused, I confuse them, and then we muddle through. It wasn't a change from "song" to "id", it's a change from "id" to "release". If you turn the new backend on, the links get presented as http://www.chartstats.com/release.php?release=20343 , while with the backend off, the same song is at http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=20580. If you have the new backend on, it's very difficult to get the correct value for "id".—Kww(talk) 20:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's more useful info. I'm looking... — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Misc. notes

1. One thing keeping me from seeing differences in both FF and IE is that I was rejecting the cookies, which is how ChartStats knows I want to use its cool new DB backend. The current default is the old backend. I guess most people will be accepting cookies by default, although they won't automatically go to the chartarchive.php page to switch it on.
2. Cookies or no, whatever ON/OFF setting I've chosen, I can still get to both pages. WP users should have a similar experience, at least until #8 becomes a problem.
3. I see that the results presented for a search or very different depending on whether the old or new backend is being used. The old DB presents a list sectioned into Songs, Artists, and Albums. The new DB presents an Artists section, followed by what appears to be a rather longer list (looser search?) of Releases, all in one long column, with each title preceded by (A) or (S) for album or song.
4. The artist info appears to be untouched. The Carpenters are http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=2205 in both old and new DBs.
5. I see no connection or link between the DB numbering of the two backends.
6. Either page variety is fine, AFAICT, for purposes of WP verification (but see #8).
7. Template:Singlechart needs a new parameter, because otherwise you can't tell which URL to build. It currently has songid. We can either use this param for both old- and new-style URLs, with some other, new flag indicating to use the new backend (or not), OR we can just add a different id param for the new-style id number. The second approach is probably easier in terms of coding and explanation.
8. In the presence of both id numbers, you can form a URL by default to the new style. Maybe someday ChartStats will stop accepting the old songid, and we will be marginally less screwed for those few template instances that had both. (It would be good to know what the guy's plans are, though.)
9. Users of singlechart will therefore have to be taught to use one or the other id, depending on what their browser gives them (based on presence of new DB cookie).
10. The documentation needs changing to match the new parameter that singlechart will need. I can do this, I think, without too much more confusion than people already have with the template.
11. UKchartstats is the only macro that uses songid.

So how about a release parameter? Or maybe releaseid? (I prefer the former since it doesn't contain the "id" that's in the other form's URL, although it would more closely parallel songid and artistid.) What did you have in mind? Do you want to have a bot change all the current songid usages to id? Seems like a lot of work for a small amount of clarity (especially if the (song)id ends up going away in a couple of months anyway). Give me a clue and I'll start working up doc changes in a sandbox. When/if we both like my explanation you can try to actually code it that way. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not frightened of the code, just the explanation. For now, I'll add two parameters: "id" and "release". "id" will act like "songid" does, "release" will do the new url. I'll monitor use of "songid" and leave notes explaining the change to people. Once it's dropped enough, I'll do a bot run, clean out "songid" and desupport the parameter. See if you can write something that makes sense, and I'll get the code in place right after Christmas.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's make sure I understand this approach: you want I should replace the songid in the documentation with the id and release so that new instances of UKchartstats (probably) won't include songid, yes? (That'd actually be easier than trying to explain three parameters, where two are actually the same.) The monitoring you're talking about is of new additions of UKchartstats (somehow), to see that we don't pull the rug out from under too many people when songid suddenly doesn't work the way it did yesterday and this morning when they used it. Right? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. It's easy for me to watch parameters, I do it all the time. I just place the article in special categories based on parameter combinations. Category:singlechart used with UKchartstats instead of UK, for example, contains all articles that should be sourced to the OCC website that are using ChartStats because the editor didn't know better. I'm going to wind up taking a bot to those as well.—Kww(talk) 03:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at my Sandbox4 then. I haven't changed the code in the examples yet, because the template won't work, but you should be able to see if my explanation is clear from what I changed. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be instructions about examining the URL to decide whether to use the id parameter or the release parameter?—Kww(talk) 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Shooting thaler

Hi John. I'm the person who was working on the shooting thaler article. After some delay, I finally finished! Could you please take a look and see if everything looks alright? Thanks, and happy New Year. If it's still Christmas where you are, merry Christmas! If not, sorry for the lateness of my holiday greeting!-RHM22 (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

Hi john, hope you're well and you've had a good holidays? I've come across this which I specifically remember there being a discussion about before. I have two questions for you:

1. How do you interpret such pages?
2. Did we rule it out as a reliable source? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Lil. Holidays are fine, thanks. I hope you're happy and well, too.

1.: It helps if you view the things with Internet Explorer, which will not only preserve the XML structure, but do indentation and expand/collapse things for you so you can actually read the things. Firefox strips out the structure and shows just the data, so you have to make educated guesses, but if you do a View source in Firefox, you can see all the structure, even though the whole file is is one honking long line. It's the only thing I've found IE to actually be better for.

2.: As I recall, it was a somewhat inconclusive exercise (again) where we talk quite a bit but by the time we actually get everyone talking about the same thing (instead of 6 different things), most everyone has lost interest.

There are some reliable sources for Bubbling Under (BU) charts, but they're hard to get to. One is Whitburn's books, the other is the kind of XML result you came across above. The troubles with the XML files are (1) they're a bitch to read, (2) you need a (free) API key to get to them, (3) Billboard has apparently stopped generating them (without telling anyone), and (4) it's not really clear how to format a citation for one of them. Based on those problems, the XML's were shown disdain, not least by Kww, but while I wouldn't suggest people add a bunch of these (I don't like the BU listings much in general), I don't see that we can really insist that people never use them. They're reliable, but a PITA. A reliable pain.

I'd (personally) like to keep BU results out of the same column as Hot 100 peaks, too, but I'm not always successful there, either. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm that was pretty much what I was thinking too. Although I did wonder if they had a use on individual song pages or in chart performance sections? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for me, it's just fine if there's some good reason to talk about BU performance in the performance text (the best good reason I can think of is that it never hit the Hot 100 and so you don't have other US charts to report, but if it bubbled under for, like, 7 months before breaking through, that'd be worthy IMO). It's harder to work BU details into a discography though when, presumably, there's a lot more to tell about than how a certain song that didn't chart on the Hot 100 hovered just off shore. An artist worthy of a discog article has too much more notable stuff to find time to say "Up Yours, Darling" made it to 9 on the BU chart once. Discog tables are usually full of "real" charts so there's no room there, either. (Unless, of course, you cheat and say "109" on Hot 100.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Source of article

Hi John, I'm newbie. I hope I'm not wrong to write here, because in the other user I write 'similar' with in the Facebook ('Wall'). I use article from Ethiopian for my contribution in HP wins NASA deal due to I'm surprise that a huge contract like this is also Ethiopian concern. Thank you for your attention and need much guidances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsarwa (talk • contribs) 03:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

All the Best. Hope: 2011 is better than 2010.

Gsarwa (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)