User talk:Legolas2186/Archive 16
Re:Gaga[edit]
Well Hitmixes probably is redundant, but as it's the only NN album out of the rest of Gaga's notable albums, it should have enough notability per WP:OSE. I'm not sure which other articles you were referring specifically to. List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga? Some other Gaga articles? –Chase (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh, more eager fans looking to create pages for every charted Gaga song in existence. Do they not release there is a Gaga wikia for that? Sigh. AFD'd that. As for the awards page, I definitely think you could clean it up and bring it to FL status. I may possibly assist with that. Right now, I think I'm going to look around and see what info can be found to possibly create well-sized articles for Fame Kills: Starring Kanye West and Lady Gaga and Haus of Gaga. And then I definitely want to improve Telephone (song) and bring it up to GA status. We'll see though, considering my extreme lack of wikifocus
–Chase (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I definitely meant realize instead of release. Haha. Blame it on me just having woken up, I guess. –Chase (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- He he. Lol. Blame it on the sleep, really. I think the Fame Kills article would be kinda redundant, seeing that all the info from it was merged to The Monster Ball Tour article. But Haus of Gaga will be interesting. As for Telephone (song), I'm soon gonna nominate it for GA anyways. Both that and Alejandro are almost ready. Thanks for Afding that Monster crap. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I definitely meant realize instead of release. Haha. Blame it on me just having woken up, I guess. –Chase (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
New Images[edit]
So, i wonder who just acquired like 40 new Gaga images... hmmm could it be me? Oh yes it is lol. I got pics from her concert in Vancouver, some are really good. Want me to upload them? do you need more images? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ive uploaded them at User:L-l-CLK-l-l/Images. Lemme know if you use any. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- You took these? Wow. These look like professional photography photos! Good for you!.--PeterGriffin • Talk 04:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
FLC Noms[edit]
Hi Legolas, just a quick question. You mentioned I couldn't nominate another Carey list until the albums was accepted or denied. However does this apply to only Carey lists, or can an editor only nominate one list at a time (like could I nominate another artist' list?)--PeterGriffin • Talk 04:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- This applies to your own nominations, nothing to do with Carey. Their should be a 14 day gap between two nominations by a particular user. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, Okay. Thanks!--PeterGriffin • Talk 05:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
Message added 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RE: You are[edit]
lol, just a little friendly. Of course I can give you a hand with the film, but I'm also working here and I'll work with the upcoming comments here, so it would be little by little. TbhotchTalk C. 05:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I just made some small corrections. You need to add the background info and the composition sections. Just let me know if you want any help from archives. And as for the Up award list, it will be a easy pass, I will comment in it later. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, i know, I just been editing the "easy" part (track listing, charts, certifications releases, critical recep.) Tomorrow, I'll continue with the chart performance and maybe the music video, of course search some 'bout W.T.G. (film). And thank you with the Up list :D. TbhotchTalk C. 05:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Fashion[edit]
Just curious, but why did you remove the AfD tag from Fashion (Heidi Montag song)? –Chase (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi chase, the reason I removed the tag was because it was actually giving a red link intead of the afd page. I thought that sumthing had gone wrong with the nomination while using twinkle. these things happen. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Madonna/Like a Virgin/True Blue[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For all your dedication to Wikiproject Madonna, especially for developing a wonderful encyclopedia of Madonna's first three album. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
WikiProject Children's and Young Adult literature Newsletter[edit]
|
| ||
|
Hello and welcome to this, the inaugural edition of the WikiProject Children's literature newsletter. We're very excited about it and we hope that you will enjoy reading it. We're still in the early stages, though, and need your suggestions and feedback. Do you like the newsletter? What would you like to see in the next edition? Please give us your feedback on this issue here. We really value it.
| |
The project's current discussions are as follows:
Complete Todo List:
Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.
| ||
Got a suggestion for a future issue or want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? - It's all here
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Children's literature at 15:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC).
Paul Grein's blog[edit]
I see you added the sales for "Me Against the Music", and I was just wondering, can we use Grein as a source now? I had an issue with this link, which I used for the "Womanizer" article, and led to a discussion in which it was noted as a bad source. Several users have added the answers about digital sales on Britney pages and I reverted them because of it. Xwomanizerx (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Legolas for answering for you :P. Paul Grein is definately more reliable than that DJ, he worked several years for Billboard, he used to write the "Chart Beat" column on the magazine during the 80's to 1992 or 1993 I think, until he was replaced by Fred Bronson. He has access to Nielsen Soundscan's numbers. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Lady Gaga discography FLC[edit]
Would you like to leave some comments at the Lady Gaga discography FLC? — Legolas (talk2me) 06:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, but it would be in afew hours, like in the evening (UTC). TbhotchTalk C. 06:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problemo amigo! (Did I say that right?) And I thought you were offline. Sneaky huh? — Legolas (talk2me) 06:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tb, Chase is actually correct in what he said at the FLC regarding the publishers. Well known media and newspapers don't need the publisher field to be filled, for eg: for The New York Times, you don't need to add The New York Times Company as the publisher. Same goes for The Guardian, The Independent, The Washington Post and online sources like BBC, FOX News, Yahoo! etc. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well known media[by whom?] and newspapers don't need the publisher[citation needed]. BTW you asked me for left comments, not for support when I feel that the work is not well-done. TbhotchTalk C. 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh crap[edit]
Hey, so i just got wind that Kesha is releasing a new deluxe edition of Animal for Christmas. How the hell do i incorporate this into the page? Do i add a new section like "Re-Release" or do i add more information the the background and development cause theres already a fair amount of info available. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Have a re-release type section. Check out Rihanna's Good Girl Gone bad album, about the re-release titled Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Need a favour[edit]
I figure you must owe me one after all the GAs I've reviewed for you! ;) Anyway, I'm working to save an FL at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Sugababes discography/archive1, but there are a few small problems with unsourced directors and things. Music articles (and the sourcing thereof) aren't exactly my speciality, so I'd appreciate any help you could offer. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Book[edit]
Which one? Rise and Rise? I don't think that's come out in the US yet but I've read a part of it on Amazon. Terrible. After the disaster that was Behind the Fame / Queen of Pop, I think I'm going to wait it out until Taraborrelli or another well-established author comes out with a biography - or better yet, Gaga does an autobiography herself. –Chase (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- So, I guess now that "Starstruck" should be certified gold any day now, we'll have to watch for the superfans to try and create that article. Honestly, this is getting ridiculous, especially since it doesn't look like "Monster" is going anywhere. We're turning more and more into a Gaga fansite by the day, sadly... I think she's great, but I also think that her pages should be excellent hubs of information, not "queen Gaga" fan shrines. Oh well. (PS: this is my 3,000th edit! :P) –Chase (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, they're definitely going to be waiting awhile if they're waiting for TFM to go double platinum, lol. And I'm so excited about the Gaga discography FLC. I wasn't expecting my first nomination to pass, and it looks like it just might. Thanks for helping me tweak it over the past month to make it perfect. –Chase (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm already starting work on revamping Lady Gaga to hopefully nominate it for FAC. That will probably be a nightmare but it should be interesting. I'm very excited for the VMAs. Laurieann Gibson said Gaga wouldn't be performing, but hopefully, she makes a surprise appearance. It would make sense, considering that "Dance in the Dark" was just released in Australia and France. –Chase (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course there's lots of recentism, I was planning on clearing that up, but now I definitely realize that that will be an issue no matter how much you try to avoid it. I may try the Hilary article too. Or better yet, I may start on that now, and leave Gaga aside at the moment. Thanks for the tip. –Chase (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm already starting work on revamping Lady Gaga to hopefully nominate it for FAC. That will probably be a nightmare but it should be interesting. I'm very excited for the VMAs. Laurieann Gibson said Gaga wouldn't be performing, but hopefully, she makes a surprise appearance. It would make sense, considering that "Dance in the Dark" was just released in Australia and France. –Chase (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, they're definitely going to be waiting awhile if they're waiting for TFM to go double platinum, lol. And I'm so excited about the Gaga discography FLC. I wasn't expecting my first nomination to pass, and it looks like it just might. Thanks for helping me tweak it over the past month to make it perfect. –Chase (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Who's That Girl (soundtrack)[edit]
 | On 7 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Who's That Girl (soundtrack), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Legolas[edit]
Hiya, thanks for your support :) I appreciate it. Having looked over your work I believe you'd make a great admin. If you'll let me I was wondering if I could nominate you? Kind regards, Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 06:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Legolas. I noticed you are going to review the page, and since I am the nominator I would like to share something with you. I will be away from Wikipedia from tomorrow (Wednesday) until Sunday (4 days), so I see you have four more pages to review as well. Can you please wait like three days before you begin the review? That way I can fix any issues you have with it. Thanks--PeterGriffin • Talk 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)--PeterGriffin • Talk 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, wasn't going to start reviewing it before next week anyways. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
New FLC[edit]
Do you mind leaving comments on the latest edition for the nomination of Ciara discography? Candyo32 04:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Re:[edit]
Why thank you. Feels like im making my mark, feels great, better use of my time than facebook. Im already working on my next FL lol (Bieber discography). Congrats on Lady Gaga Discography as well! - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. And yeah, wiki is definitely better time-pass than Facebook. I discovered its joy long ago. When are you nominating Bieber's FLC? That might be interesting seeing the flak he gets around here, which I digress though. Kid has accomplished quite a bit on his own. Might not be Gaga-like level, but kudos to him. Which other teenager can boast such? — Legolas (talk2me) 04:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hopefully soon. I have like 12 hours of school tomorrow so i may not finish it tomorrow, but the next day hopefully. Im going to try and get it done ASAP cause idiot is friggen releasing another Take It Off Music video in the next week or two so that will take up a fair amount of time trying to incorporate it into the article. Any ideas? i was think doing a heading like....
- Hopefully soon. I have like 12 hours of school tomorrow so i may not finish it tomorrow, but the next day hopefully. Im going to try and get it done ASAP cause idiot is friggen releasing another Take It Off Music video in the next week or two so that will take up a fair amount of time trying to incorporate it into the article. Any ideas? i was think doing a heading like....
Background:
Version 1:
text....
Version 2:
text....
then the same for synopsis and reception. Think that would work?.
And its amazing the backlash and amount of haters he has, if he was 20 and started singing he wouldnt get the same criticism. Baby is now the most viewed and disliked video and youtube history, some people really need to get a hobby. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- You just called God-de$ha an idiot? You, CK(Lakeshade), are hereby demoted from a Ke$ciple to a TSwizzle fan. Show some remorse!
- Just kidding. Well, let the background section remain as it is. Better have the subheadings in the synopsis section. And she really is releasing another video? Take It Off was the best Kesha video and actually looked like some money has been used. Why does she need another one again? — Legolas (talk2me) 04:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- OUCH! Demoted :( I dont even know, the video is amazing. Shes shooting this one with Jeffree Star. The label wants to give it a second wind, i mean her videos only cost 50,000(Tik Tok)-200,000(Take It Off) and they sell millions each so another video couldnt hurt, not like the label will loose money, take it off has already sold like 400,000 in the US. This one is going to be more relative to the theme i think as theres alot of trannie pics from the video already. what ever, im sure it will be good. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- BTW comments below, LOL :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I didnot even notice that you had commented. Lol, you guys dont know Dance-pop. The original diva of WP. He will be back I'm sure. Looks like Kesha is embracing the bisexual side of her with the video. I wish Kemosabe would start certifying her. Animal is over 850,000 in US but still not certified platinum. I think she can go upto 2× platinum with the re-release, what do you think? — Legolas (talk2me) 06:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hah thats what i figured. And shes actually sold 914,500 as of last Thursday. Blah blah blah has sold 2mill, Tik Tok 5mill, Your Love 2Mill and still no US certs. I think there waiting for Animal to go platinum then there gunna buy them left and right. I think she'll go 3times by her second album (her worst week was 34? and it still shifted 10,000). The re-release will help sales, especially is she gets a huge first single. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- OMG I hadn't realised that she had sold that much! Kudos to Kesha! Her rise has truly been phenomenal. Any news on how many singles she is planning to release and about her headlining tour? — Legolas (talk2me) 07:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I know, shes a single seller, she does alright on albums (so far). I dont know how many singles shes gunna release, i know she wants to release Dinosaur, Dancing with Tears In My Eyes and Animal (may not happen due to the re-release) and Dr. Luke said if all the songs are good (potentially 4-9) then alot may become singles. So probably 4 on original as i doubt there will be anymore released and im guessing 3 on the re-release. her tour i dont think is gunna happen until October 2011 so still away's away, i know she wants to release her second album before the tour so single from that should be our Julyish with album Aug, tour probably Oct, shes a hard worker ill give her that. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 08:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good to know. I hope DIWIME becomes a single. Would love to see a different side of Kesha, rather than the skandy slut she always shows. As for the tour, I am ready to wait as I am sure she will do a fierce tour by the time she opens. Remember Madonna's The Virgin Tour? She was awesome in it. For me Kesha is more Madonna like than Gaga is, frankly. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dancing in Tear with my Eyes needs to be a single, such an amazing song. And i think her next single isnt going to be as drunk cause, and i quote "i havnt been able to go out drinking with my friends so my next record will be young and fresh still but you will see a different side of me". I think Kesha will be the next Britney, Gaga will be the next Madonna. (Career span wise). Ive never actually seen a Madonna concert (ive read the ones you've written) but ive never been to a live one which is weird cause i see alot of concerts. Ever been to one? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 08:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good to know. I hope DIWIME becomes a single. Would love to see a different side of Kesha, rather than the skandy slut she always shows. As for the tour, I am ready to wait as I am sure she will do a fierce tour by the time she opens. Remember Madonna's The Virgin Tour? She was awesome in it. For me Kesha is more Madonna like than Gaga is, frankly. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I know, shes a single seller, she does alright on albums (so far). I dont know how many singles shes gunna release, i know she wants to release Dinosaur, Dancing with Tears In My Eyes and Animal (may not happen due to the re-release) and Dr. Luke said if all the songs are good (potentially 4-9) then alot may become singles. So probably 4 on original as i doubt there will be anymore released and im guessing 3 on the re-release. her tour i dont think is gunna happen until October 2011 so still away's away, i know she wants to release her second album before the tour so single from that should be our Julyish with album Aug, tour probably Oct, shes a hard worker ill give her that. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 08:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- OMG I hadn't realised that she had sold that much! Kudos to Kesha! Her rise has truly been phenomenal. Any news on how many singles she is planning to release and about her headlining tour? — Legolas (talk2me) 07:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hah thats what i figured. And shes actually sold 914,500 as of last Thursday. Blah blah blah has sold 2mill, Tik Tok 5mill, Your Love 2Mill and still no US certs. I think there waiting for Animal to go platinum then there gunna buy them left and right. I think she'll go 3times by her second album (her worst week was 34? and it still shifted 10,000). The re-release will help sales, especially is she gets a huge first single. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I didnot even notice that you had commented. Lol, you guys dont know Dance-pop. The original diva of WP. He will be back I'm sure. Looks like Kesha is embracing the bisexual side of her with the video. I wish Kemosabe would start certifying her. Animal is over 850,000 in US but still not certified platinum. I think she can go upto 2× platinum with the re-release, what do you think? — Legolas (talk2me) 06:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been to Madonna concerts since I was nine, ie The Girlie Show World Tour, don't remember a single thing about that one though. Madonna's concerts are simply out of this world, an experience every person should go with. Gaga, I'm not sure how much she will be Madonna like. Madonna had something that no other female artist ever did in the music world. Own up her own career and write her own rules. Gaga does have some flare, but I would digress and wait before judging. Although I love Gaga a lot, and even Kesha has become a favourite, I don't know how much these women can go up against Madonna. Britnye couldn't, lets face it, neither the others billed as the next Madonna, and that includes Mariah also. Hence, I am slightly doubtful. Well, the middle point is, next time there's a Madonna conert, puck up your pockets, steal your parents credit cards, and go, jsut go... He he. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well then, i will have to see her next tour :). Oh dear, i cannot stand Mariah, not a single song i liker by her. I find her very unoriginal and manufactured. (No offense to anyone who likes her, just my opinion). I like Kesha cause she writes all her own stuff and paves her own path, thats why i like Madonna as well. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 09:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mariah can be annoying at times as a person, but she once had that wonderful voice which did inspire other singers. That I won't deny. But for now, she is content on being a whale, and creating music only for the fans, which is fine. She will never be an icon though. As for Kesha, I strongly believe that she will emerge a better artist as time passes, and we will see wonderful stuff from her. This year is quite hers. Here's to "Tik Tok" being the #1 song of the year on Billboard. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Im back.[edit]
Hi Legalos. guess who Is back? me dance-pop and i will be editing gaga wether you like it or not Dance-pop is back (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
what is so funny. soon i will start editing GaGa once again. please dont be mean. i just want to do the right thing this time. i have got a lot of sources about a new gaga album and single . Dance-pop is back (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC) plus i will fix the beautiful dirty rich article. that is on my old userpage.
we will get it to feature article. you can please help me with it?
Friendly[edit]
Stalker again huh? He he, I forgot to thank you for the DYK of Who's That Girl. The fulm article is almost ready. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, watching you since a long time ago, your welcome, (you forgot to put it on your header) and sorry for not help you so much, I've been around all this week, making reassessements throughout, sorry :(, but I would nominate it for DYK when it is ready. TbhotchTalk C. 04:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wish you were around when Dance-pop was here. It was all hillarious and you won't believe the amount of vandalism this kid does. Already started. As for WTG, no need to say sorry and stuff. Friends don't say sorry to each other. :) You work through a lot many articles than I do. Kudos to you I can say. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. so meanwhile s/he is blocked, Wikipedia and Gaga are safe. TbhotchTalk C. 05:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank god. Now I can finish off the WTG (film) article. Hey I have one of your articles up for review, did ya know that? — Legolas (talk2me) 05:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, I'm watching your page and the nomination page, so I would know it someday, lol, and thanks but remember to be as arbitrary as the ArbCom. TbhotchTalk C.
- Thank god. Now I can finish off the WTG (film) article. Hey I have one of your articles up for review, did ya know that? — Legolas (talk2me) 05:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wish you were around when Dance-pop was here. It was all hillarious and you won't believe the amount of vandalism this kid does. Already started. As for WTG, no need to say sorry and stuff. Friends don't say sorry to each other. :) You work through a lot many articles than I do. Kudos to you I can say. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Arbcoms are really helpful and lengthy, and (boring) process. Lol, well "Manic Monday" looks like a good work. Once WTG film is promoted, we will have another GT at hand, though. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fourtunatly I've never passed through an ANI or Arbcom—and I hope that never— case. Manic seems fine, but somewhere should something wrong and you should think "which could be the next GT?" TbhotchTalk C. 05:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, GTs are my strong point. Always had each and every one with unanimous support, and never a single oppose. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I remember some
stressed opposeon some of your nominations, but at the end they finished in supports, so it is nice to know that you always are making excellent works. TbhotchTalk C. 05:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)- That was a stupid mistake of me, I forgot to include Celebration: The Video Collection in the nomination. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I remember some
- Nah, GTs are my strong point. Always had each and every one with unanimous support, and never a single oppose. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that it is the fastest GA ever in been reviewed and passed, it's a pity that it's backloged again and WP:GAN#SPORT is the worst. Well time for bed, one in the morning (here), good luck with WTG?. see ya. TbhotchTalk C. 06:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Gaga discog[edit]
It feels great! I think I'm going to contribute to some more discographies and bring them up to FL level before I work on an FA. –Chase (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Just Dance[edit]
Why do you keep doing this? The guidelines clearly say not to revert, and I corrected the reference error that you could easily have have corrected yourself rather than revert. After that, the corrections to the charts were perfect, and consistent throughout the entire article. If this article is a template for WP:GAGA, all the better: no Wikiproject should be encouraging the use of the manual table format. It would serve as an example of how to do the table correctly.—Kww(talk) 04:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think I have stated it clearly that single chart templates are crap in terms of formatting. Using such a template in an article, which is a part of a Good Topic series is unacceptable, as GT clearly states that articles should be consistent. And the Gaga articles are structured perfectly, with proper formatting and chart links, hence I don't see any reason to use the template. That can be used in articles where there's no consistency at all and the charts are faulty. As for the guidelines saying not to revert, I strongly oppose such a rule, since it is just making users to use that crap template. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- You have been asked for your input, and there was never a consensus as to a superior formatting for the templates. You simply insisted that your misuse of the "work" parameter needed to be maintained, and you could not get a consensus for that in the discussion. No one has ever come to a consensus as to better titles for the charts, and they are certainly better than the vague chart names you are using. If the "Good Topic" needs to be consistent, I'll happily convert all of the charts in all the articles at the same time. Certainly superior to having a highly visible Wikiproject use manual tables.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I never had any problem with the work parameter, don't accuse me of such crap. I only asked you to use en-dash in the references and have a consistency in the reference titles. A I type, I am looking in the charts section of "California Gurls". Its pure shit. Half of the references lack accessdate parmater, no usage of en-dash, wrong titles etc, I could go on and on. I develop FA quality articles, not some cheap fancruft. So untill and unless such erroneous templates are corrected, I refuse to accept the template. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Where's the discussion, as this needs sorting out, so as to keep all music articles formatted in a similar way. Aaroncrick TALK 05:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Accessdate" is an argument. You can't blame the template if the user doesn't provide the argument. So far as I know, all titles are an exact match of what the website returns. That's what the title is supposed to be: not the title that we wish they would return, not a title with en-dashes in spots where the original used a hyphen. I fill out the publisher with the actual legal entity that published the site, etc. References need to contain information actually provided by the thing being cited. That's what {{singlechart}} does. I'm sorry if you don't find accuracy as aesthetically appealing, but part of being good is being accurate. I don't see how you can refuse to accept accuracy. If you find spots where the template is not presenting a match of the cited website, let me know, and I will fix it. I won't make it inaccurate to make it prettier.—Kww(talk) 13:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Im sorry to comment here but why is it wrong to use the manual format for the sources if they are correct, shouldn't this be optional like the templates for citations? Frcm1988 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I've said this before and I'll say it again: forced employment of this template is a lovely example of WP:CREEP. — ξxplicit 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- No one is forcing Legolas2186 to use the template: all that is being asked is that if someone else converts an article to use the template, he should leave it alone, not revert it, and not use false edit summaries to explain his actions as he did here: there were no "orphaned references" in the preceding version. As for what's wrong with the manual charts, it's partly because I'm working on tools to automatically scan the singlechart templates for vandalism, and detect when people have changed the positions. There's no way to do that with manual charts. The other problem is Legolas2186's insistence that the templates are "crap" and "shit" and need correcting, when in fact they very precisely provide the actual source titles, chart names, artist names the song was released under and other information, things that the manual chart entries never do. The FA articles he's so proud of contain huge numbers of misformatted citations, but he apparently won't accept the templates unless they match the misformatting that he normally does. If a source title contains a hyphen, no one should change it to an en-dash because he thinks the source title should have contained an en-dash, or delete the website name from the title because it appears to be redundant. It should exactly match the title returned in other aspects as well. Other fields are normally filled out incorrectly: websites don't publish things, they are published things. Industry associations are authors or publishers, depending on the website, but never a "work". —Kww(talk) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- The MOS is very clear when to use dashes and when to use hyphens. A hyphen is used only to mark conjunction, and it is never followed or preceded by a space. Some of the titles have all the words in capital letters, when that should be avoided, some publishers have the name of the organization and the webpage others don't, they don't have publishing dates, and for example the Finnish chart is incorrect, YLE was always the publisher, Mitä hittiä was a different chart. So I don't see why this template should be left alone, is there a rule that forces this? the templates are far from perfect. If the references are correct the editors should also left alone the manual formats and don't change it. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- The MOS doesn't apply to external data. If a source capitalizes things differently than we do in a title, a citation should follow the source, not restyle it to match our desires. Similarly, if Hung Medien uses hyphens in its titles, we should use hyphens when quoting them. The title the template uses is intended to be a precise match for the title used by the source, since a citation is the equivalent of a direct quote. If they use all caps, the template uses all caps. If the source uses hyphens, the template uses hyphens. As for errors in the templates, point them out to me. If you have me correct the template, the fix is automatically made to many articles. For example, all articles in Category:Singlechart usages for Finland and Category:Singlechart usages for Finnish are now being automatically fixed. If you know of anything wrong with the template where it is presenting inaccurate data or not not matching the source formatting, let me know: I'm very responsive. If you think that Stefan Hung uses punctuation incorrectly, you'll have to take that up with him. Once you get him to change it in his sites, I'll adjust the template to match his change.—Kww(talk) 03:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- The MOS is very clear when to use dashes and when to use hyphens. A hyphen is used only to mark conjunction, and it is never followed or preceded by a space. Some of the titles have all the words in capital letters, when that should be avoided, some publishers have the name of the organization and the webpage others don't, they don't have publishing dates, and for example the Finnish chart is incorrect, YLE was always the publisher, Mitä hittiä was a different chart. So I don't see why this template should be left alone, is there a rule that forces this? the templates are far from perfect. If the references are correct the editors should also left alone the manual formats and don't change it. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- No one is forcing Legolas2186 to use the template: all that is being asked is that if someone else converts an article to use the template, he should leave it alone, not revert it, and not use false edit summaries to explain his actions as he did here: there were no "orphaned references" in the preceding version. As for what's wrong with the manual charts, it's partly because I'm working on tools to automatically scan the singlechart templates for vandalism, and detect when people have changed the positions. There's no way to do that with manual charts. The other problem is Legolas2186's insistence that the templates are "crap" and "shit" and need correcting, when in fact they very precisely provide the actual source titles, chart names, artist names the song was released under and other information, things that the manual chart entries never do. The FA articles he's so proud of contain huge numbers of misformatted citations, but he apparently won't accept the templates unless they match the misformatting that he normally does. If a source title contains a hyphen, no one should change it to an en-dash because he thinks the source title should have contained an en-dash, or delete the website name from the title because it appears to be redundant. It should exactly match the title returned in other aspects as well. Other fields are normally filled out incorrectly: websites don't publish things, they are published things. Industry associations are authors or publishers, depending on the website, but never a "work". —Kww(talk) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I've said this before and I'll say it again: forced employment of this template is a lovely example of WP:CREEP. — ξxplicit 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Im sorry to comment here but why is it wrong to use the manual format for the sources if they are correct, shouldn't this be optional like the templates for citations? Frcm1988 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I never had any problem with the work parameter, don't accuse me of such crap. I only asked you to use en-dash in the references and have a consistency in the reference titles. A I type, I am looking in the charts section of "California Gurls". Its pure shit. Half of the references lack accessdate parmater, no usage of en-dash, wrong titles etc, I could go on and on. I develop FA quality articles, not some cheap fancruft. So untill and unless such erroneous templates are corrected, I refuse to accept the template. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- You have been asked for your input, and there was never a consensus as to a superior formatting for the templates. You simply insisted that your misuse of the "work" parameter needed to be maintained, and you could not get a consensus for that in the discussion. No one has ever come to a consensus as to better titles for the charts, and they are certainly better than the vague chart names you are using. If the "Good Topic" needs to be consistent, I'll happily convert all of the charts in all the articles at the same time. Certainly superior to having a highly visible Wikiproject use manual tables.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
(Outdent)Kevin, you may feel that I'm being aggressive regarding the template, then I apologize. Yes, I still believe soe of the references generated still look crap and that is what all of us here are pointing out. These issues of reference will coe up, say I take an article to FAC, where reviewers will point out why a particular dash was being used differently. And then what? As Frcm and Explicit pointed out, the template is being forced to down user's throats. I simply don't see any point of substituting the templates in articles where the references and the sources are already present in a structured and proper way. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Seeing the crowds of people wandering into and out of your talk page, I've decided to duck in here too and see what all the hubbub is. Maybe there's a sale on something.
- Well, your approach isn't not so much aggressive, IMO, as slightly rude and rather unconstructive. When you say, "the references generated still look crap" you need to be specific, or you can't expect any improvements. I seem to recall you complaining about italics or something back in March or so, at which point Kevin made a whole bunch of changes. After those changes, I thought you gave your blessing to add the templates back to some article you were trying to GA or FA and didn't want contaminated by the inadequate version of the templates. But I thought you were satisfied then, and I'm quite surprised to see you not only resisting and removing the templates, but throwing insults at it.
- What is it you specifically find "crap"? Is it merely that it faithfully repeats the hyphens that webmasters have used in their titles? I think it's appropriate, even important, to do that, but perhaps you've got other, more substantive complaints. What are they? Do share your secret. And how come you aren't serving beer in here? Some of us are thirsty.— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I take it half of Wikipedia has this talk page on their watchlist? lol. I have to agree 100% with Kevin here. Though it may not look pretty, a reference must list the information from the source in the way that they present it. We can't expect Steffan Hung to abide by the Wiki MOS just because a user from Wikipedia likes a certain type of dash or thinks all capital letters looks weird; what does he care about us in the grand scheme of things? I have had enough of these vague rationales such as revert because it looks like "crap", etc.. I'm sorry, but your opinion does not rule over every article that you edit. We have guidelines and they must be followed. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no guideline that said that we must follow this template over another, this is like saying that we must write everything using American English or using American dates. And please read WP:ALL CAPS: Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to "start case". For example, replace "WAR BEGINS TODAY" with "War Begins Today". (This is what The New York Times does when transcribing its historical collection) Is the same with the dashes, we are supposed to correct the references and not just type how is presented on the webpages. Frcm1988 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely, absolutely, not. You should never represent a source as having said something in a way it did not.—Kww(talk) 14:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- To expand, things like WP:ALL CAPS applies to article bodies, article titles, etc. A citation is supposed to be a representation of what the source said, not what we wrote about it.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Where does it said that this is not for references and only for the article body? Frcm1988 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- No one is forcing Legolas to use the template, we are attempting to force him to list reference titles correctly. The template lists them correctly automatically, which is why he believes it is "crap". His personal beliefs on formatting go against how the title is actually written. He wants to come up with his own title so it looks nicer. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Probably no one is forcing him to do it, but I have a problem with this: No Wikiproject should be encouraging the use of the manual table format. based on what, why is this superior? And he's not coming up with a title, he's not changing the meaning or inventing the letters, he's correcting the dashes and the capitalization. Frcm1988 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- He isn't "correcting" things, he's just adjusting them to a different style. WP:Manual of Style (record charts) says not to revert articles that have been changed to template format to manual format. That was the compromise between those that wanted to mandate its use and those that did not. Finally, doing so will leave the articles more vulnerable to vandalism. I'm most of the way to being able to automatically generate what the singlechart calls should contain ( http://www.pinkbeachproperties.com/chartsearcher/index.php has a beta version which is ugly, slightly buggy and missing some charts ... its UK data is a week stale, as well). Once that's done, it's easy to make the next step to automatically verifying the contents of an article's chart information, and from there, the next step is to automatically watch over all articles using {{singlechart}} to automatically detect all chart vandalism. I should have a verification tool ready in a couple of months, and the bot will follow based on success of the verification tool. By using a manual chart, the articles will be left more open to vandalism and harder to verify than ones using templates. This has never been about formatting: discouraging vandalism and ensuring sourcing has always been the primary goal.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Where is this compromise, I only see that user Jay008 added that to the page, but who proposed it? Ok so was the page vandalized? If there wasn't a problem in the first place, why change it? Frcm1988 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- It was changed because the intent is to make all singles eventually use the template, and thus be able to be protected by a bot. The reason to not have people revert it is so that they don't get in the way of eventually having a system where all articles about singles are automatically protected from vandalism. The protection bot is coming, but having the protection available is useless if there aren't articles to protect, and there is no advantage to the manual system. It's just vague, error-prone, subject to individual editors' whims, and stands in the way of having a consistent appearance.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- And why we should have that appearance and use that template, who imposed that? there are multiple styles for citation templates, is like someone forcing others to use the Harvard style for citations. We are not requiered to use one style just because an user placed a note on the page. And Im still waiting to see that compromise, because Im sure that there are some people that don't support making them mandatory Frcm1988 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- The template it not about appearance. It's about vandalism prevention and accuracy, and there is no reason for an editor to choose to make an article more subject to vandalism or less accurate. No is is forcing anyone to use the template, we are simply asking that people not revert uses of the template when no reasons exists to do so. I haven't asked Legolas2186 to use the template. I honestly don't care if he ever does. But when other editors do use the template, Legolas2186 has no right at all, none whatsoever, to revert that usage based on his personal preference. Especially not using a false edit summary, as he did here, as there are no orphaned references in the version he is reverting away from.—Kww(talk) 23:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- And why that user replaced the references with that template, the page was not vandalaized, was this based on his/her personal preferences? so everyone has the right to replace the manual formats with that template, but we have no right to replace the template with the other format? Who imposed this? You? Because you still haven't show me the page where this was decided. Frcm1988 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- " ... not yet vandalized ...", with "yet" being a very important word. The editor that made the change used an accurate edit summary, and in the process of his edits corrected incorrect titles in the citations. The first time it came up, Legolas2186 made false statements in edit summaries to justify it. The second time, he made false statements in instructional comments to attempt to preserve his version, after having used a summary that implied multiple references had been destroyed. No, Legolas2186 has no right or justification to do those things. Can you provide a reason for reverting other than a desire have incorrect titles in the references?—Kww(talk) 01:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- You mean other than the MOS violations that the template generates that I already listed before? Frcm1988 (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- You'll just have to accept the fact that you are wrong about that. Accuracy in citations is paramount, and every other commenting editor in this discussion has agreed with my stance on that issue. Even if you refuse to accept that, how about citing acharts.us, an anonymous unlicensed website? Or retitling a page that returns a title of "australian-charts.com - Lady GaGa - Just Dance" into "Just Dance in the world charts", as he did for http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Lady+GaGa&titel=Just+Dance&cat=s ? He's not just adjusting hyphens and capitalizations, he is completely making titles up. His citations are just plain inaccurate, and reverting singlechart templates in order to restore imaginary titles is disruptive.—Kww(talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes everyone like Explicit and Aaroncrick, and how Im wrong with the MOS when you clearly can read what is written there, it will be very pointless to include a guideline for capitalization for headlines that only apply to an article's body considering that there are nearly zero articles than mention newspapers headlines on prose. And if it so bad to have acharts as a reference, why you haven't removed them from the sourcing guide? Isn't that contradictory? Frcm1988 (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- WP:GOODCHARTS explicitly marks licensed archives, and states "Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links". Explicit made no comment on the MOS issue, nor did Aaroncrick. Please answer my question: how can you justify retitling a page titled "australian-charts.com - Lady GaGa - Just Dance" as "Just Dance in the world charts"? If you can justify that, how can you get excited over the issue of preserving capitalization, or hyphens vs. dashes?—Kww(talk) 05:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes everyone like Explicit and Aaroncrick, and how Im wrong with the MOS when you clearly can read what is written there, it will be very pointless to include a guideline for capitalization for headlines that only apply to an article's body considering that there are nearly zero articles than mention newspapers headlines on prose. And if it so bad to have acharts as a reference, why you haven't removed them from the sourcing guide? Isn't that contradictory? Frcm1988 (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- You'll just have to accept the fact that you are wrong about that. Accuracy in citations is paramount, and every other commenting editor in this discussion has agreed with my stance on that issue. Even if you refuse to accept that, how about citing acharts.us, an anonymous unlicensed website? Or retitling a page that returns a title of "australian-charts.com - Lady GaGa - Just Dance" into "Just Dance in the world charts", as he did for http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Lady+GaGa&titel=Just+Dance&cat=s ? He's not just adjusting hyphens and capitalizations, he is completely making titles up. His citations are just plain inaccurate, and reverting singlechart templates in order to restore imaginary titles is disruptive.—Kww(talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- You mean other than the MOS violations that the template generates that I already listed before? Frcm1988 (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- " ... not yet vandalized ...", with "yet" being a very important word. The editor that made the change used an accurate edit summary, and in the process of his edits corrected incorrect titles in the citations. The first time it came up, Legolas2186 made false statements in edit summaries to justify it. The second time, he made false statements in instructional comments to attempt to preserve his version, after having used a summary that implied multiple references had been destroyed. No, Legolas2186 has no right or justification to do those things. Can you provide a reason for reverting other than a desire have incorrect titles in the references?—Kww(talk) 01:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- And why that user replaced the references with that template, the page was not vandalaized, was this based on his/her personal preferences? so everyone has the right to replace the manual formats with that template, but we have no right to replace the template with the other format? Who imposed this? You? Because you still haven't show me the page where this was decided. Frcm1988 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- The template it not about appearance. It's about vandalism prevention and accuracy, and there is no reason for an editor to choose to make an article more subject to vandalism or less accurate. No is is forcing anyone to use the template, we are simply asking that people not revert uses of the template when no reasons exists to do so. I haven't asked Legolas2186 to use the template. I honestly don't care if he ever does. But when other editors do use the template, Legolas2186 has no right at all, none whatsoever, to revert that usage based on his personal preference. Especially not using a false edit summary, as he did here, as there are no orphaned references in the version he is reverting away from.—Kww(talk) 23:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- And why we should have that appearance and use that template, who imposed that? there are multiple styles for citation templates, is like someone forcing others to use the Harvard style for citations. We are not requiered to use one style just because an user placed a note on the page. And Im still waiting to see that compromise, because Im sure that there are some people that don't support making them mandatory Frcm1988 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- It was changed because the intent is to make all singles eventually use the template, and thus be able to be protected by a bot. The reason to not have people revert it is so that they don't get in the way of eventually having a system where all articles about singles are automatically protected from vandalism. The protection bot is coming, but having the protection available is useless if there aren't articles to protect, and there is no advantage to the manual system. It's just vague, error-prone, subject to individual editors' whims, and stands in the way of having a consistent appearance.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Where is this compromise, I only see that user Jay008 added that to the page, but who proposed it? Ok so was the page vandalized? If there wasn't a problem in the first place, why change it? Frcm1988 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- He isn't "correcting" things, he's just adjusting them to a different style. WP:Manual of Style (record charts) says not to revert articles that have been changed to template format to manual format. That was the compromise between those that wanted to mandate its use and those that did not. Finally, doing so will leave the articles more vulnerable to vandalism. I'm most of the way to being able to automatically generate what the singlechart calls should contain ( http://www.pinkbeachproperties.com/chartsearcher/index.php has a beta version which is ugly, slightly buggy and missing some charts ... its UK data is a week stale, as well). Once that's done, it's easy to make the next step to automatically verifying the contents of an article's chart information, and from there, the next step is to automatically watch over all articles using {{singlechart}} to automatically detect all chart vandalism. I should have a verification tool ready in a couple of months, and the bot will follow based on success of the verification tool. By using a manual chart, the articles will be left more open to vandalism and harder to verify than ones using templates. This has never been about formatting: discouraging vandalism and ensuring sourcing has always been the primary goal.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Probably no one is forcing him to do it, but I have a problem with this: No Wikiproject should be encouraging the use of the manual table format. based on what, why is this superior? And he's not coming up with a title, he's not changing the meaning or inventing the letters, he's correcting the dashes and the capitalization. Frcm1988 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no guideline that said that we must follow this template over another, this is like saying that we must write everything using American English or using American dates. And please read WP:ALL CAPS: Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to "start case". For example, replace "WAR BEGINS TODAY" with "War Begins Today". (This is what The New York Times does when transcribing its historical collection) Is the same with the dashes, we are supposed to correct the references and not just type how is presented on the webpages. Frcm1988 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I take it half of Wikipedia has this talk page on their watchlist? lol. I have to agree 100% with Kevin here. Though it may not look pretty, a reference must list the information from the source in the way that they present it. We can't expect Steffan Hung to abide by the Wiki MOS just because a user from Wikipedia likes a certain type of dash or thinks all capital letters looks weird; what does he care about us in the grand scheme of things? I have had enough of these vague rationales such as revert because it looks like "crap", etc.. I'm sorry, but your opinion does not rule over every article that you edit. We have guidelines and they must be followed. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I know they didn't commented about that so I was wondering how can you say every other commenting editor in this discussion has agreed with my stance. And the practice of having just one reference to replace a dozen of references for other charts is very common in FA or GA, as many users believe is redundant to have one per country, other users will clearly know that if they are involved in content editing of songs and album articles. If you think that those FA or GA have a problem with the references then make a reassesment and see if it succeds. Just see "We are the World" a featured article that appeared on the Main Page this year even though and I quote you "contain huge numbers of misformatted citations". And I couldn't care less about how the template generates the reference, I won't be using it anyway, but I have a problem with users saying what format we have to use or what template we can't revert, basically making up rules supposedly based on an compromise that I have yet to see. Frcm1988 (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "say I take an article to FAC, where reviewers will point out why a particular dash was being used differently. And then what?" Your answer is very simple and direct. "It's a citation. A citation must follow the source, and the material in the citation is an exact replica of the source". If you find a problem where the material presented isn't an exact representation of the source, let me know, and I will fix the template.—Kww(talk) 14:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't confimred me a single bit that the template is any better than the sourcing that is already present. australian-charts.com - Lady GaGa - Just Dance is a redundant title as teh work or th epublisher parameter will them selves contain the chart and the governing body name. You are simply accusing me and making things up. I stand by my views that articles where the sourcing is properly present, singleschart template is redundant, untill the templates are themselves structured in a proper way. You ar frankly pressurizing others to use this template. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are missing three points completely, the first more important than the others:
- The 'title' field is not a place for creative writing, it is a part of the citation. Whether you use the templates or not, the value you use for the title field has to reflect the source. I agree there's some fuzz when the source uses a format like "Just Dance - Copyright 2009 - So and So Media" as to whether "Copyright 2009 - So and So Media" is a part of the title or not, but you can't just make up your own text to make it look prettier. That is unacceptable.
- No one is forcing you to use the templates. What I am asking is for you to stop reverting them when other editors have inserted them. Multiple editors have inserted them on multiple occasions, and you have reverted them. You have no right to do so without valid reason, and so far the reasons you have provided have been false (the reference to "orphaned references" in the edit summary, for example, had no basis in truth whatsoever ... it wasn't just a disagreement, it was blatantly false) and apparently a desire to preserve your ability to write your own titles without reference to the source material.
- Multiple discussions have centered around the correct formatting of the templates. They are on forums you monitor, and you have been invited to them. There has never been a consensus reached that the formatting of the templates is improper, and no consensus has ever been reached that any other format would be superior. I will honor any such consensus if reached. Calling them "crap" and "shit" is not conducive to consensus building, and does not provide anything for me to correct to make them better.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gaga just won VMAs, sorry Kevin I'm kinda drunk. And no, I'm not trying to make the titles pretty, just MoS issues were what I was pointing out. You are taking offence to the word crap, but fine I won't call the templates crap, maybe incomplete? That's better I guess. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are missing three points completely, the first more important than the others:
- You haven't confimred me a single bit that the template is any better than the sourcing that is already present. australian-charts.com - Lady GaGa - Just Dance is a redundant title as teh work or th epublisher parameter will them selves contain the chart and the governing body name. You are simply accusing me and making things up. I stand by my views that articles where the sourcing is properly present, singleschart template is redundant, untill the templates are themselves structured in a proper way. You ar frankly pressurizing others to use this template. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Whos that girl cartoon.jpg[edit]
You forgot to add a justification in the "purpose for use" field in File:Whos that girl cartoon.jpg that you uploaded recently. ww2censor (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Holiday albums at WP:ALBUM[edit]
Could you please participate in the discussion pertaining to how holiday albums should be formatted? The discussion is held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Holiday albums. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
FLC[edit]
Hey Legolas, just letting you know I'm back, so feel free to start the review at your convenience. Thanks--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 16:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
lady gaga albums sales change[edit]
i change the albums sales to 13 million i was in the concert when she first heard about it http://dwimarni.com/celebs/2047/lady-gaga-album-13-million-copies-sold.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bar17 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
hay , there is a proble in lady gaga page someone always change the albums sales to 15 million i put a video that shows that lady gaga sold 13 miilion albums [ from her concert ] and someone always change that please try to find out who did it here is the video from the concert to see that im right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwZcbPRyma4 the label gave it to gaga , they know how many she sold --Bar17 (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC) --Bar17 (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Legolas[edit]
Just to say hi and also sorry for the long testament up on your page, this should have been discussed elesewhere lol. And yay for Gaga sweeping the VMAs, tottally deserved every award, and Katy's face every time Gaga won something was priceless. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I just read it. Here in India we see it late, hence I will be watching it in VH1 tonight. Its 9am in teh morning and I'm drunk :) — Legolas (talk2me) 03:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ha ha I thought that you are supposed to be at work lol. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Says who? Anyways its an Indian holiday here. And thank god I had decided to check my mails, where I learned about the VMAs. You guys are lucky. And Gaga simply looked amazing. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lucky, why? because of the time zone? You really didn't miss that much, it was kinda meh, last year was much more interesting, I don't know why MTV didn't make Gaga perform at least "Bad Romance". I don't remember all of her costumes, just the meat one. PETA is going to be really mad :D
- If Im not wrong, was she channeling her Vanity Fair cover in her looks? And who were those millitary guys with her? Something related to "Alejandro"? Dying to see the show. And yeah, I did read in news that it was a snoozefest. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think she said that they were gay people that were discharged from the US armed forces because of that policy of 'Don't ask, don't tell'. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Damn! B**** is really going for the Lady Gaga as gay icon article! — Legolas (talk2me) 04:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think she said that they were gay people that were discharged from the US armed forces because of that policy of 'Don't ask, don't tell'. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- If Im not wrong, was she channeling her Vanity Fair cover in her looks? And who were those millitary guys with her? Something related to "Alejandro"? Dying to see the show. And yeah, I did read in news that it was a snoozefest. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lucky, why? because of the time zone? You really didn't miss that much, it was kinda meh, last year was much more interesting, I don't know why MTV didn't make Gaga perform at least "Bad Romance". I don't remember all of her costumes, just the meat one. PETA is going to be really mad :D
- Says who? Anyways its an Indian holiday here. And thank god I had decided to check my mails, where I learned about the VMAs. You guys are lucky. And Gaga simply looked amazing. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ha ha I thought that you are supposed to be at work lol. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: VMAs[edit]
What an epic show! 8 awards! :)
Fans are already eager to create the Born This Way article. lol. –Chase (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lol. They were Born This Way. Wanna have a vodka?? — Legolas (talk2me) 03:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Email? I don't have one linked to my account at this time. I'll look into that sometime later today. Too tired right now honestly, and I have school in about an hour. :P –Chase (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Only Girl[edit]
THANK YOU! such a good song! And it wasnt an image that was making me LOL. It was a number of editors pissing me off and pissing off an admin and Lil_℧niquℇ №1 was making fun of me cause im going to have my work cut out on that article. Got himself blocked for three months =S. It was this discussion that was making me lol. Particularly this, leaving a comment to an admin because he got warned for edit warring he said, "what? I can't hear you!". Are you joking? your going to leave someone a comment like that when your in the wrong, your just asking for a block. Normally i would be sympathetic but its his 6th block. Did you hear Gaga new album title? Its called "Born This Way", she sang part of the song at the awards. Sounds really good. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. Ri-ri rocks. As for Vitoven, he was anyways close to getting himself blocked for good, so glad to know that its done. I did not see the VMAs since in India, it is telecast late. (Its 12noon Monday here). But I did get drunk hearing the 8 VMA win
. And I have to admit, Born This Way sounds a little lame for a title. Can't wait to hear the song though. Heard that she looked goddess like in the show. But then again, this was a lame ass VMA show. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness i know, she cleaned up. Bummed Ke$ha didnt win, OR preform. Only reason i watched it was to see her, i dont generally like awards shows, there like 10 min of awards 30 min of performance(which i like), hour of commercials and the rest is filler. And Gaga changed outfits like 6 times. Everytime the camera went to her she was in a different outfit lol. The song will be good, im not sure how its going to be done cause its very 1980's sounding, will sound amazing with one of her dance-ish backgrounds though. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- This show needed Gaga's performance. That Florence and the machine performance was so lame. It was neither theatrical nor .... Oh yeah, Ke$ha should have won the BNA, but better she didnt. You know how the artists that win BNA goes down later... Beiber is doomed. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I dont mind Bieber. I actually dont think hes going anywhere for a long long time, i think he'll experience the same success that Usher has experienced. He may have millions of haters but his fans are insane, he seems to be getting more and more famous by the day. The only performaces i loved tonight was Ushers. The rest were okay. That Florence and the machine i muted, i think shes very annoying and "The Dog Days Are Over" WTF does that even mean? What do we live in Cat Days now or....?WTF So confused lol. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, was out for lunch..... ahhhh had a good dosage of Chinese. As my weddings drawing near, I'm eating more and more. Lol. As for Beiber, even I don't mind him, and I appreciate his commercial success and the crazy fanbase he has amassed, but I do believe he should have more cards on his sleeve, as very soon this fanbase will grow up and their music taste will change. Then Beiber won't be appealing to them. Look at what happened to Miley with Can't Be Tamed. Overcalculation spelled doom. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I dont mind Bieber. I actually dont think hes going anywhere for a long long time, i think he'll experience the same success that Usher has experienced. He may have millions of haters but his fans are insane, he seems to be getting more and more famous by the day. The only performaces i loved tonight was Ushers. The rest were okay. That Florence and the machine i muted, i think shes very annoying and "The Dog Days Are Over" WTF does that even mean? What do we live in Cat Days now or....?WTF So confused lol. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- This show needed Gaga's performance. That Florence and the machine performance was so lame. It was neither theatrical nor .... Oh yeah, Ke$ha should have won the BNA, but better she didnt. You know how the artists that win BNA goes down later... Beiber is doomed. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness i know, she cleaned up. Bummed Ke$ha didnt win, OR preform. Only reason i watched it was to see her, i dont generally like awards shows, there like 10 min of awards 30 min of performance(which i like), hour of commercials and the rest is filler. And Gaga changed outfits like 6 times. Everytime the camera went to her she was in a different outfit lol. The song will be good, im not sure how its going to be done cause its very 1980's sounding, will sound amazing with one of her dance-ish backgrounds though. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
When Love Takes Over[edit]
Hey Legolas. Thank you for doing the review. I've done everything which was pointed out in the review. Please check the article against the review and let me know if there is anything else which needs changing. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- p.S. Gaga hoovered up at the VMAs though Chelsea Handler left a lot to be desired. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- EEK! Thank you =) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Seperate thing.
Hi I've noticed that you've taken quite a few articles to FA status and in particular you've written some FL song articles. Could you please tell me if either "When Love Takes Over" or "Commander" stand a chance of reaching FA status? Also is rap-up considered a bad source? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in here Unique, but I just like to say something. Firstly, Rap-Up is a reliable source, from what I know and have heard, and I use it frequently. Also, I've only glanced, but if the rest of the article is as good as the beginning I would definitely vote Support for both, they look great. Good job! :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- thanks peter! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Rap-Up is quite a reliable source. I do remember there was a discussion at WP:RSN regarding this. Rap-Up is a Devin Lazarrine publication, which was then deemed reliable. As for the articles, I believe "Commander" is in a better state (since it is mostly devoid of charts, no pun). Go through PR at least twice and then go to FAC. "When Love Takes Over" will take some time still . — Legolas (talk2me) 03:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I thought it might be the other way round lol. So what kinda of improvements need to be made for "When Love Takes Over"? (i'll nom. Commander for peer review ... =) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- FAC 1a comes to mind. The prose, which I reviewed was fine and I tweaked wherever I could, but is yet to achieve the professional standard for FA. For GA it was fine, but some places it lacked cohesion and had a proseline effect. This can be pointed out in the PR, or you can ask the guild of Copyeditors of Wikipedia to have a look through. I could have done that, but since I am leaving WP, won;t have time to commit to it. As for "Commander", it is in a much better shape. Some minor reference correction and prose tweak should be enough. One thing, as per my discussion with Kevin above, using the {{singleschart}} template might cause some raised eye at the FAC, due to formatting issues. You need to deal with that too. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for that! You're leaving wiki? *looks round to see if anyone's looking before shedding a few tears* -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- FAC 1a comes to mind. The prose, which I reviewed was fine and I tweaked wherever I could, but is yet to achieve the professional standard for FA. For GA it was fine, but some places it lacked cohesion and had a proseline effect. This can be pointed out in the PR, or you can ask the guild of Copyeditors of Wikipedia to have a look through. I could have done that, but since I am leaving WP, won;t have time to commit to it. As for "Commander", it is in a much better shape. Some minor reference correction and prose tweak should be enough. One thing, as per my discussion with Kevin above, using the {{singleschart}} template might cause some raised eye at the FAC, due to formatting issues. You need to deal with that too. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I thought it might be the other way round lol. So what kinda of improvements need to be made for "When Love Takes Over"? (i'll nom. Commander for peer review ... =) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Rap-Up is quite a reliable source. I do remember there was a discussion at WP:RSN regarding this. Rap-Up is a Devin Lazarrine publication, which was then deemed reliable. As for the articles, I believe "Commander" is in a better state (since it is mostly devoid of charts, no pun). Go through PR at least twice and then go to FAC. "When Love Takes Over" will take some time still . — Legolas (talk2me) 03:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- thanks peter! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in here Unique, but I just like to say something. Firstly, Rap-Up is a reliable source, from what I know and have heard, and I use it frequently. Also, I've only glanced, but if the rest of the article is as good as the beginning I would definitely vote Support for both, they look great. Good job! :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Pre-Madonna[edit]
Can you keep an eye on this? If reverted to the fancruft version, can you nominate it for deletion? My Twinkle is malfunctioning badly. :( — Legolas (talk2me) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course I can watch it, but I could not nominate it at AFD (only CSD and PROD), I do not like to do it. TbhotchTalk C. 03:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus crap?? He is really angry, Hotch, you should be berry berry afraid. My research returned a Billboard link, but it said to call a hotline 1-800-XXX to order the album. It also clearly mentions that it is a bootleg. Lol. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I too am watching it... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Video Collection 93:99[edit]
The article The Video Collection 93:99 you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:The Video Collection 93:99 for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
We have a problem[edit]
So, there appears to be a problem regarding some of your book sourcing, so I would like to address it with you personally and see what the issue is. It seems to revolve around the same thing I was accused of, but I'm going to give you the courtesy I was not given, and approach you privately. I have sitting in front of me, a hard copy of "Madonna: An Intimate Biography," by J. Randy Taraborrelli. Now, first of all, the ISBN you provided on Madonna albums discography does not match the book, and the ISBN you provided does not match anything in any librarian system around the world. Aside from that, let's take a look at reference #43 where you used a reference from page. 168 to source "Like a Prayer's" worldwide sales at 13 million, and US sales at 4 million. That seems to be right on as it is in the book in Chapter "Like a Prayer: The Album". Now you source a bunch (like 10) sales on page # 145, such as the sales of Erotica, Bedtime Stories, Who's That Girl, I'm Breathless and Evita (Just to name a few of many). Now on Page #145, nothing on sales is listed, nothing at all. In fact, I don't believe the book mentions other sales at all. Please comment regarding this issue.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Those book references are wrong I believe. A single source cannot point to all the album sales. While I do remember the album sales being present in the book, I do believe that I made an erroneous addition of the same page reference. I will look this up in my book, which is the 2002 version. As for the isbn, this is what the book as well as google provides. Which version are you seeing? There is a recent one released in 2008. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I've told you before, I understand, especially with using book sources, that things like that can happen. I know your a very valuable editor, and I always assume good faith, it could very well just have been a mistake. Thanks btw for the GA information. So, the book I have is ISBN#=0-7432-2709-3, the front cover is a flattering photo of Madonna's face, upclose, with golding wavy hair, and her face resting on her right hand. he back is her as a young child. The book says its from 2001. It is 382 pages long. So, I doubt the books are very different, considering in reference #43, you wrote "Like a Prayer"s sales at 13 million and 4 in the US, on page 168, in the book I have, this is exactly right. So the books cannot be different. So are you going to remove the wrong sales?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am removing those erroneous additions while substituting with online sources. Thats better. Merry Christmas might take a little time, as I have two other reviews before it, so just hold on. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perfect. Don't worry, I am patient, I'm just happy someone finally took a pledge to do it! :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well even you are also reviewing aren't you? That impressed me and I could see how your editing has been improving. The GAN backlog is just too much. Good luck with the FLCs though, I might chip in if things get tough. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you :). Yes I also am trying to assist, because if we want our articles to eventually get reviewed, we gotta help get some of those GA noms out of the way. Thanks, yes this time around they are looking much better! Thanks, your comments and views would be greatly appreciated! :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 05:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well even you are also reviewing aren't you? That impressed me and I could see how your editing has been improving. The GAN backlog is just too much. Good luck with the FLCs though, I might chip in if things get tough. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perfect. Don't worry, I am patient, I'm just happy someone finally took a pledge to do it! :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am removing those erroneous additions while substituting with online sources. Thats better. Merry Christmas might take a little time, as I have two other reviews before it, so just hold on. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I've told you before, I understand, especially with using book sources, that things like that can happen. I know your a very valuable editor, and I always assume good faith, it could very well just have been a mistake. Thanks btw for the GA information. So, the book I have is ISBN#=0-7432-2709-3, the front cover is a flattering photo of Madonna's face, upclose, with golding wavy hair, and her face resting on her right hand. he back is her as a young child. The book says its from 2001. It is 382 pages long. So, I doubt the books are very different, considering in reference #43, you wrote "Like a Prayer"s sales at 13 million and 4 in the US, on page 168, in the book I have, this is exactly right. So the books cannot be different. So are you going to remove the wrong sales?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've already been blocked![edit]
Thanks for the warning though, mister. --72.20.28.76 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Recent sourcing[edit]
Hi Legolas. So some of your recent sourcing doesn't seem to be up to par with FL article criteria. I see a few things and errors I would like to bring to your attention. In Madonna's album discography, reference #35 is a book source, but has no ISBN or info on the book at the bottom of the page. The way it is, we have no info on the book whatsoever. The same goes for reference #72, the book has no ISBN or info. Also, this source which you used twice does not say anything more than 2 tiny paragraphs, and is clearly not reliable or usable for an FA article. Additionally reference #70 uses the same article, just with different sourcing and formatting. That source can't be used. Additionally, reference #46 does not say anything regarding sales either, so that can't be used either. Basically, there is a whole bunch of sales and references that need to be removed. I'll give you the courtesy to respond before I remove anything. Also Legolas, you again have mis-sourced Taraborelli. For reference #67, you wrote "Who's that Girl" sold 6 million worldwide, Taraborelli says 5, and you wrote 1.5 in the US, he writes 1. Also, that same reference says nothing about "You Can Dance" selling 1,265,000 copies in the US. Please fix all these issues, or I'll ask for the articles re-assessment. Thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 20:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ya its my fault, I forgot to add the book after updating it. As for the You Can Dance reference, I did not change it to 6, must be someone else. I might have overlooked it. As for You Can Dance, the source is the combined sale of the NS + Pre-Soundscan sales as per Paul Grein. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- And highbeam archives documents. There is more than those two paras that you see. You need to subscribe to the archives. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so first of all, can you please place all the book info from Shuker to the bottom, where all the other references are, because there still isn't allot of needed info on the book. Also, I don't believe Highbeam to be reliable for FL article, epecially if its not even readily available, we have to register? I don't agree.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- You have to subscribe, not register. That means a payment. And highbeam is no different than using Newsbank or Pqasb archives. If you have an issue with using archives, take it to WP:RSN noticeboard. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to comment here Legolas, Im your stalker now :D Why is this source not reliable? just because you can't see the complete article dosen't mean is not reliable, you have to buy it or go to a library with an archive and see it. The article comes from the Dayton Daily News a newspaper from Ohio, owned by Cox Enterprises. So how is that not reliable? The same with reference 70 the New Straits Times, the biggest and oldest newspaper of Malaysia is not reliable? And reference 46 why is not reliable? The Chicago Sun Times, written by Jim DeRogatis, he is a very well known critic that even have his own radio show, why can this be used? Im curious to know what is your criterion for saying which sources are reliable and which not. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lol. Thanks Frcm. I think what Peter wants is that a source to be fully online. Believe me Peter, such a belief of yours is actually baseless, because the core of the FAs of Wikipedia would perish, if we only used online sources. As I said, you take it to WP:RSN. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well then I'm not seeing the same thing your seeing, because all I see is highbeam.com, with no proof it has any association or anything to do with those newspapers. Additionally, I don't believe in using a source that you have to subscribe to some bogus site to read, I just don't buy it, besides the fact that I don't see any proof that there are any connections to these newspapers. I would like to see the same thing your seeing, but I'm not. I'm not saying those newspapers aren't reliable, I'm saying Highbeam.com is not reliable, and there is no way to prove they are quoting or are associated with these papers. And I didn't say that they have to be online, because we use book sources, just don't agree with having to subscribe to bogus sites, besides the fact that the site isn't even known or heard of, so how are we to believe it really associated with these papers?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lol. Thanks Frcm. I think what Peter wants is that a source to be fully online. Believe me Peter, such a belief of yours is actually baseless, because the core of the FAs of Wikipedia would perish, if we only used online sources. As I said, you take it to WP:RSN. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to comment here Legolas, Im your stalker now :D Why is this source not reliable? just because you can't see the complete article dosen't mean is not reliable, you have to buy it or go to a library with an archive and see it. The article comes from the Dayton Daily News a newspaper from Ohio, owned by Cox Enterprises. So how is that not reliable? The same with reference 70 the New Straits Times, the biggest and oldest newspaper of Malaysia is not reliable? And reference 46 why is not reliable? The Chicago Sun Times, written by Jim DeRogatis, he is a very well known critic that even have his own radio show, why can this be used? Im curious to know what is your criterion for saying which sources are reliable and which not. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- You have to subscribe, not register. That means a payment. And highbeam is no different than using Newsbank or Pqasb archives. If you have an issue with using archives, take it to WP:RSN noticeboard. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so first of all, can you please place all the book info from Shuker to the bottom, where all the other references are, because there still isn't allot of needed info on the book. Also, I don't believe Highbeam to be reliable for FL article, epecially if its not even readily available, we have to register? I don't agree.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I do Legolas, but before I do I'd like to remind you of something. Do you realize that they require credit card information to view the articles? Who the hell would submit credit info to a site like that and pay to view it, let alone the dangers of getting your info hacked. So honestly, its not even about subscribing, its about the whole credit card thing. Also, please remember to place the book info I asked for on Shuker.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- See this article from the Chicago Tribune [1] is the same that Bookkeeper posted on the Mariah Carey talk page in the Legacy discussion, the fourth one, it requieres payment too. You have to read WP:PAYWALL: The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think he got it. Well lets all chop up to our business. So many GAs to review :( — Legolas (talk2me) 04:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- But for example, Bookkeeper's point is written right there. I don't have to pay to read the "Queen of Pop" claim. If I had to pay to see it I would definitely say the same thing for that source as well.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway guys, good night, just please provide the Shuker info Legolas, I don't see any info on the book. Good night.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- But for example, Bookkeeper's point is written right there. I don't have to pay to read the "Queen of Pop" claim. If I had to pay to see it I would definitely say the same thing for that source as well.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think he got it. Well lets all chop up to our business. So many GAs to review :( — Legolas (talk2me) 04:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
RE:Goodies GAN[edit]
Doneeee!! Btw, could you give quick input here......lol. Haha! Thanks in advance. Candyo32 06:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Gaga[edit]
I left you a comment on my page, also, little miss Gaga is getting a big head.
"The album is my absolute greatest work I’ve ever done and I’m so excited about it. The message, the melodies, the direction, the meaning, what it will mean to my fans and what it will mean in my own life - it’s utter liberation. "I knew I had an ability to change the world when I started to receive letters from fans: ‘You saved my life…’ ‘I’m gay and my parents threw me out.’ My fans have related to me as a human being and as a non-human being - as a super-human person that I truly am." "Everyone tells me I’m arrogant but my music’s the only thing I’ve got, so you’ll have to let me be confident about one thing. I suppose that’s what you can expect from the album: a lot of hit records that will piss people off. "Beyoncé said: ‘Where the f**k do you get these ideas from?’ And I was like: ‘I don’t know Bee, it was just the way I was born'."....
I think it may be time to come back down to earth. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- She's high, I'm definite these are the cocaine moments. Btw, where did you get this? — Legolas (talk2me) 06:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- It was a quote from an interview, Aol Radio and theres a bunch more info on a billboard mino cover story thing here. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- And here at digital spy - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
So, Kesha needs to release this song and video and a single. She looks stunning, dropping the drunk image and turning into an artist. Animal Video. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Katy Perry album cover debate[edit]
It would be really helpful if you could give your opinion here. thanks. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Mariah Carey singles discography FLC[edit]
Hi Legolas, I have re-written the lead and fixed about 90% of the issues you listed. There is 1 that I wrote "Help" for, that I've tried to fix but don't know how, please help me with that one. Then there are around 3-4 that I wrote a ?, meaning I need you to explain, because I don't see the problem. Thanks and let me know if the article is looking better.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 15:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I left Peter a message on how to correct the issued that he didnt understand. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the advice Lakeshade, it helped allot! :)
- Well Legolas, I'm ready for you again, I believe I drastically fixed everything to the T. Please take a look again and re-assess. Thanks :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 13:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Glad to know. I will be there in a moment. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Legolas, when you get the chance, can you take a look at the FLC and re-assess your opinion? Thanks allot!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, I am back again. I have fixed all of the "En-Dash" issues as you asked. I also fixed the "printed media" problem and provided a page number. I believe this fixes all your issues, I also re-read and copy-edited the lead. Please check back Legolas?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Legolas, when you get the chance, can you take a look at the FLC and re-assess your opinion? Thanks allot!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Glad to know. I will be there in a moment. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty, let hope this is the last time you gotta visit the nom page :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Who's That Girl (film)[edit]
| On 17 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Who's That Girl (film), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Rehabmusicvideo.JPG[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Rehabmusicvideo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Gaga[edit]
You beat me to it Mr. offline 
— Legolas (talk2me) 05:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- lol, I've "been" offline a week. TbhotchTalk C. 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and as they see that I'm not online they get confuse and do not vandalize my space ;D. No, the real thing is that I forget to update it :s. TbhotchTalk C. 05:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
NP> Looks like Who's That Girl (soundtrack) will take a long time to get reviewed. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Madonna's musical production[edit]
I found this interesting article about Madonna's musical production on Google books. If you have time to read it, you may find some helpful stuff to put into here. :) 182.239.164.50 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Kesha discography[edit]
Try to replace the Chartstats links from the article with those from OCC. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I dont like OCC. Im going to remove the Kesha sources and replace them with Chart Stat, im going to do this because OCC never updates her, it still lists Your Love peaking at 65, it peaked at 65 over two months ago, Take It Off is 15, and there to mention in OCC. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh really? I did not knew that. Was just formatting some of the references thats it. No offence. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- No offense? There was no offense so dont worry lol. Thanks for making some fixes BTW :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Glad to be of some help for Gode$ha. Btw, did ya hear the rumour that Ke$ha, Katy Perry, Rihanna and Nicki Minaj are the new 4 Mean Girls? — Legolas (talk2me) 03:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- LOL! What? I hadnt heard that rumor, i heard that they may be doing a single all together, since they are 4 of the biggest names in pop and are all dominating the charts. Also, i think Ke$ha is on RiRi's new album (please lol). - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh Ke$ha is in Riri's album? Any new song? "Who's that Chick" was so disappointing. Somewhere Madonna's cracking up hearing that song. Can't wait for LOUD though. What's up with the Animal re-release and the sophomore album? — Legolas (talk2me) 03:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know the name of the song, they said a long long time ago they were going to do something together. And Animal Re-release comes out Decemeber with the lead single October and her sophomore album(which ive already written alot of) comes out August/September 2011 and will experiment with a more "Animal (track) sound". - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. New single in October?? Can't wait. And its good to hear that she's moving sonically in a better direction. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yepp Yepp, im excited. It better have an amazing balled like Dancing With Tears In My Eyes or Animal and it better get released as a single to show she has depth and shut the critics up. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. New single in October?? Can't wait. And its good to hear that she's moving sonically in a better direction. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know the name of the song, they said a long long time ago they were going to do something together. And Animal Re-release comes out Decemeber with the lead single October and her sophomore album(which ive already written alot of) comes out August/September 2011 and will experiment with a more "Animal (track) sound". - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh Ke$ha is in Riri's album? Any new song? "Who's that Chick" was so disappointing. Somewhere Madonna's cracking up hearing that song. Can't wait for LOUD though. What's up with the Animal re-release and the sophomore album? — Legolas (talk2me) 03:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- LOL! What? I hadnt heard that rumor, i heard that they may be doing a single all together, since they are 4 of the biggest names in pop and are all dominating the charts. Also, i think Ke$ha is on RiRi's new album (please lol). - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh really? I did not knew that. Was just formatting some of the references thats it. No offence. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Reverted edit?[edit]
Would you explain this revert please? Rjwilmsi 19:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- The bot does some changes which results in wrong formatting. For eg, for online sources like MTV and Allmusic the work parameter is formatted as work=''Allmusic''. The bot removes all these formatting. Hence I reverted the bots addition. If you can correct the bot as to not touch the work parameter, then its fine. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm unclear why this formatting is needed when the
|work=field is automatically italicised by the {{cite web}} template. The explicit formatting then breaks this, and makes this article's citations inconsistent with others. Is this what you want? Rjwilmsi 07:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)- The explicit formatting is not desired since as per MoS, online sources shouldnot be italicized, while printed media should be. Since the work parameter automatically italicizes everything, adding a separate work=''XXXXX'' around the name, overcomes that italicization for online source, and makes them appear as non-italicized in the expanded reference. However, your bot removes the italics wherever they are given in the work parameter, hence rendering them in the wrong format. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've applied just the page range fix manually so the bot won't visit the pages again as they stand. There are a number of opinions on the
|work=field as shown by the discussion at Template_talk:Cite_web#.22Work.22_vs_.22Publisher.22_parameters so I'm not going to discuss that with you here. Rjwilmsi 12:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've applied just the page range fix manually so the bot won't visit the pages again as they stand. There are a number of opinions on the
- The explicit formatting is not desired since as per MoS, online sources shouldnot be italicized, while printed media should be. Since the work parameter automatically italicizes everything, adding a separate work=''XXXXX'' around the name, overcomes that italicization for online source, and makes them appear as non-italicized in the expanded reference. However, your bot removes the italics wherever they are given in the work parameter, hence rendering them in the wrong format. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm unclear why this formatting is needed when the
Me Against the Music[edit]
I just started working on it on this sandbox. I would love if you could help. Xwomanizerx (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Will add what I can. Meanwhile, search all the reviews to see about the composition of the song. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
South Africa charts[edit]
Hi, Legolas ! Is this website allowed ? Pixelyoshi (discuter) 12:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- There's no reason I see that this chart should be allowed. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
LDLHA[edit]
Here ya go: [2] - eo (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- 6 April 1996 — 101
- 13 April 1996 — 105
- 20 April 1996 — 91
- 27 April 1996 — 87
- 4 May 1996 — 79
- 11 May 1996 — 79
- 18 May 1996 — 78
- 25 May 1996 — 89
- 1 June 1996 — 91
- 8 June 1996 — 100 - eo (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Love Don't Live Here Anymore"[edit]
You're strange request was my command, my good friend. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome for the review. Yes, I've been keeping a close eye on the new format. I gotta say that I like it, no more the reviewer doing everything, a bot does it for you, easy work that I'm not complaining about. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for not replying yesterday or on September 24, I was working on this episode article, kinda put my focus on that... SORRY... I snapped out of it. Yes, I am excited for Maroon 5 having a number one album, I mean their first single is HOT, so it makes sense. :) Do you have interest in getting "Misery" to GA? If so, maybe I should un-retire from music. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Legolas, I corrected the example at WP:YEAR to show the different century. It previously stated "...or three digits (1881–886)..." which is within the same century. That was the cause of my misunderstanding. I took it that either the shortened two digit end year or the full digit end year could be used within the same century.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Had to edit it further to disallow two digit use between centuries as two digit 86 would be misunderstood as 1886, where it really means 1986. Just as the single digit 1881-6 would be misunderstood as 1881-1886 instead of 1986
"In such case the full closing year is given, as abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or two digits 1881–86) or three digits (1881–986) are not acceptable.."—Iknow23 (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it was correct to do for the two digits as a range like that implicitly implies that its within the same decade or century. A person looking at (1881–86) will understand it as 1881–1886 and not 1881–1986. I think before removing we should discuss it at the MOS talk page. What do you think? — Legolas (talk2me) 05:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, my point exactly. The single digit would be misunderstood which was listed. The two digit which we agree would also be misunderstood was missing (not mentioned) and we wouldn't want that used. So for clarity I boldly added it. I have no problem with discussing it at the talk page if you desire.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Italicized an addition to first post for clarity.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Unsure if you are aware but the discussion is on at MOS Talk.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Featured list candidates/Ciara discography[edit]
Hi Sparky,
Just wondered if you could weigh in on the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ciara discography/archive2. It seems that the progress of the discography has become slightly stale because of a disagreement. The experience of a user who's handled several of these such discussions would be insightful if you could spare a few moments. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
NVPI[edit]
Hi Legolas, do you know what happened to the official site for Holland's certifications? The site went dead like a month ago, and never re-surfaced. Do you know whats up?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- (talking while untangling and folding parachute) Peter, what do you mean, "dead"? The page listed as a source for NL certs at WP:GOODCHARTS is active for me right now. Do you not see it? Of course, it still provides certs only up to 2006, but it still works for me. Or do you mean another page? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hehe hey John. Nope, for me no matter what comp I use or where, it comes up as a dead link :s. I don't understand why, its been like that for a few weeks.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey John, Nathan. The site doesnot work for me too. John, which connection are you using? — Legolas (talk2me) 03:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Um, what do you mean "which connection"? I'm going to the URL behind the link I gave above to "the page listed as a source". I have to guess you guys are trying to hit some other page. Er, right? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I meant which provider. Yeah, I'm using the same link only. But alas! — Legolas (talk2me) 07:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Well, it's Bluewin, in Switzerland. Probably not the one you and Nathan are using, but I don't know where that gets us. Do you suspect your provider of blocking the site? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I meant which provider. Yeah, I'm using the same link only. But alas! — Legolas (talk2me) 07:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Um, what do you mean "which connection"? I'm going to the URL behind the link I gave above to "the page listed as a source". I have to guess you guys are trying to hit some other page. Er, right? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey John, Nathan. The site doesnot work for me too. John, which connection are you using? — Legolas (talk2me) 03:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hehe hey John. Nope, for me no matter what comp I use or where, it comes up as a dead link :s. I don't understand why, its been like that for a few weeks.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Book Scan/Singer-songwriter[edit]
Do you have a scan of the amended Guiness World Records that says Madonna sold 260 million records instead of 275 million albums? Did not find much online. Also, I just visited Beyoncé's article and the lead says "singer-songwriter". She does not write any more than Madonna. Everyone knows that and it's a fact. Beyoncé co-writes most her song and probably focuses on lyrics, like Madonna. There are even claims Beyoncé receives tons of undue credit but those claims are unfounded.
What do you think of adding "lyricist", right after "recording artist, in Madonna's lead? Madonna basically writes all her lyrics -most her first 2 albums and basically everything as of True Blue-. The lead should let readers know she wrote the vast majority of her lyrics. Israell (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- The infobox already says so, I don't see why is it necessary to sass up the lead. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but most readers don't pay attention to it. It's the lead that catches their attention and it fails to mention the fact Madonna basically writes all her lyrics, what "singer-songwriter" or "lyricist" would imply. Anyway, I rest my case. If others agree with me, they'll add their 2 cents. Israell (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Involving you in a discussion[edit]
Hey Legolas, so while I know your probably very busy getting Merry Christmas done 
, I have come to ask for your reasoning/explanation/input here. Thanks--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Re:Where Are You?[edit]
Sorry for the late reply, but yes. I just took a look at it. That is funny, yet pretty crazy at the time time. Gotta love Dance-pop! Hahaha. • вяαdcяochat 23:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Discog[edit]
Frankly, not sure if it matters. All that's needed is a picture of her. Not sure how a picture of her performing is anymore relevant than a picture of her at the CES is to a discography. Plus, the CES image is of high quality. –Chase (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)