FuriousFreddy (talk | contribs) re: ref secton |
FuriousFreddy (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
A hurricane just flew over our city, and we have no internet at home. I'll see if I have time to do it at work on my lunch break or something. --[[User:FuriousFreddy|FuriousFreddy]] 12:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC) |
A hurricane just flew over our city, and we have no internet at home. I'll see if I have time to do it at work on my lunch break or something. --[[User:FuriousFreddy|FuriousFreddy]] 12:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
:I finished the reference reformat. --[[User:FuriousFreddy|FuriousFreddy]] 18:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:00, 25 October 2005
No problem
Yeah, I asked him if he'd do it. He said yes, but also that he's sort of busy now, so I dont know when he'll do it though. Hmm, it seems logical to use the Canadian Singles Chart for A Moment Like This, Low, Breakway, and MI, and the official airplay chart for BTHE (since there was no commercial single). But why not use the official airplay chart for Since U Been Gone and Because of You? And if BTHE does use the airplay chart, can we edit it that to reflect that (instead of it saying the Canadian Singles Chart)? OmegaWikipedia 15:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- We can most certainly use the airplay chart for BTHE if you want to, and with the other two singles? I guess it would be fare to for SYBG, but for some reason I feel reluctant on BoY. Winnermario 21:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm a bit confused. Is the airplay chart the official BDS one? You said you used an unofficial chart for BOY. Is there a way to get the official airplay stats for that song and the rest of them? OmegaWikipedia 17:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Behind These Hazel Eyes"'s peak of number four is the BDS chart peak. I made a huge error early, my true apologies. The BOY chart trajectory is unofficial—it has not charted on the Canadian Singles Chart or the BDS Chart. And the SUBG chart is MuchMusic—do you want to get the BDS chart for SUBG since it was unable to chart on the Singles Chart? And I'm not sure if there is, for BoY, that is. Winnermario 18:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- No problem, yeah, I think it would be better to use BDS for SUBG. But why hasnt BOY charted on BDS though? And what exactly is this unofficial airplay chart? Who runs it? If there was a US equivelance what would it be? We should definitely establish some sort of system here for the Canadian Singles since its harder to classify them now. So would you say the Canadian Singles Chart (sales) comes first, followed by BDS Airplay if there no single, followed by MuchMusic, followed by this unofficial chart? The idea of using an "unofficial airplay" chart for BOY seems a little weird, I agree, but if there is no other chart, I guess thats it. Or should we wait till it charts on BDS? OmegaWikipedia 18:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, from sales, to airplay, to MuchMusic. This "unofficial" chart is just something that is run in my city of Saskatchewan—we do not need to use it, but I only used it because it has yet to chart on any other chart. This is probably due to the fact that its music video hasn't been released yet. Winnermario 18:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, so for the Canadian Singles Chart, we're going to be using A Moment Like This, Miss Independent, Low, Breakaway....BDS will be BTHE and SUBG.....and BOY (for now will be that unofficial chart, but when it does chart it will be BDS or if it doesnt chart on BDS, MuchMusic. Does that sound good? We should probably change the trjajectory titles for BTHE and SUBG to reflect that too. OmegaWikipedia 18:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- That is correct! And yes, we will do that with BoY. Winnermario 01:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
About Mel
You think that Mel is being annoying to you? Think again! See my talkpage and see what he did to Battle of Vaslui, talk:Battle of Vaslui. He's here to pick on people - not to help them. He, and his friend, reverted many of my pages, including my own personal talk-page and user-page. If you got any suggestions on how to deal with this plague, I'm all ears. --Annittas 09:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- It happens the same with me... What cen we do? --N0thingness 05:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- This is what happens when kids are spoiled with money and good education, without having to do any honest work, and be 'taught' by their parents to be kind, philanthropic, and humble. It's also shameful that the people who have seen these violations occur, chose to stay quiet, or even worse - take his side. Is it a lack of civil courage, or are they saving their credit points to spend in case they need them for themselves? I don't know the answer, because this Wiki community makes no sense to me, but we shouldn't waste braincells on this nihilistic snob.
- However, in case you want to, we could try to collaborate and make a formal complaint. You could email me (see my user-page), in case you want to give it a try. --Annittas 04:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to take up that often on making a formal complaint. Mel's about blown my whistle. Winnermario 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey Mario
It's OW. Thanks for voting to keep "Do You Know Where You're Going To". I was wondering if you'd also consider voting to also keep
These are important in the Mariah Carey singles chronology and if they're merged, it would look messy,so I hope we can hope them the way they are. Please help us save them. Thank you. OmegaWikipedia 16:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair-use image
I'm afraid that I had to remove a fair-use image from your User page; the "fair use" status only applies to certain articles (generally, just the article on the album, single, book, etc., concerned). If it makes you feel better, I've just been discovered making the same mistake on my own User and Talk pages. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I understand this issue, so thank you for pointing it out. However, I would muchly appreciate it if you stopped stalking me around this site. For you to have realized I had an image like that on my user page clearly indicates you've been following me. I ask you kindly to halt your actions before crossing any barrier. Thank you. Winnermario 19:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have your Talk page on my Watchlist, as I've noticed that the lttle heel-drumming "it's so unfair" cabal that follows me around has been posting on it (as above). Your User page thus shows up too. I advise you to read up on stalking before making that kind of accusation. As Anittas and OmegaWikipedia have both genuinely stalked my edits – the former on articles, the latter on AfD pages – you might want to have a word with them first (unless you think that it's only wrong when it's not your friends). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Mel, please stop stalking us. Thank you. --Anittas 12:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Dates
Adding commas in dates does nothing (see:
The presence of the commas depends upon the reader's preferences. I normally delete them if I'm making other edits (to save an infinitesimal drain on Wikipedia), but it doesn't matter either way to be honest. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Re:Template issue
The "Recorded" field was present in the original single infobox that I based the new template on (and that many, many articles use), so it would be inconsistent to remove that field. If you're not sure what to insert into a field, just leave it blank with — (enter edit mode to see the code I typed for that dash to appear) for somebody else to fill in later on down the line. Also, a lot of albums nowadays include specific recording locations for different tracks in their liner notes, though not all do, so I can see where you're coming from. Extraordinary Machine 18:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. Winnermario 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Peer review
Good luck with your peer review for Spice Girls, but please in the future follow the directions for renominating an article given at the top of the page ("how to resubmit a request") -- don't overwrite the old content, but rather move it to an archive page. Thanks! Christopher Parham (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
"Fixing" charts
Hello, I see that in this edit ("Fixed the charts"), you have split a single table into two tables, "U.S. Billboard" and "World", and have added a column, "Single". (You also seem to have added one row.) I'm puzzled by (i) your splitting of the table into "U.S. Billboard" and "World", where "World" has no obvious meaning, and (ii) your addition of a column that results in the same cell being inserted over and over again, with no exception. The former seems merely strange, the latter strange and also a waste of bytes. Could you please explain, either here or on the article's talk page? Thanks. -- Hoary 02:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: Questions about Spice Girls article
Since you peer reviewed my request, I would like to ask you a few questions.
- For a long time I have been searching for sources that claim the Spice Girls as the biggest-selling girl group in the world. Believe it or not, this search has come up unsuccessful, even on numerous fansites.
- Geri Halliwell was extremely shocked about Playboy publishing nude photographs of her. I've also found this search quite difficult, as there is no particular source that actually describes her anger—I only heard this news on the television back when the Spice Girls were, the only thing people wanted to socialize about. Is it possible for something to slide without a reference?
- Finally, I can't reword the part in the "The beginning" section. I understand what you mean by it sounding like someone was living with the five girls, but it's difficult to fix the sentence.
Could you help me with these three issues? --Winnermario 13:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- 1 - It sounds like the line "it is claimed that they are the biggest-selling girl group of all time" needs to be removed from the intro, since it isn't supportable from your research. Better might be a less-controversial statement like "They are among the best-selling girl-groups of all time."
- 2 - Even simple attributing it to "television reports at the time" would be an improvement. So long as we're not mind-reading.
- 3 - Why is it difficult, exactly? What's the source for this information? (If there isn't one, then, yes, it's very difficult to fix, and some of the section should probably be removed or edited down to a few words.) I would explicitly say "according to X," or even quote them a little bit to make it clear where the information comes from.
- Hope that helps a little. It's not a bad article; I'm just trying to point out the kind of sourcing that is expected in the best Wikipedia articles. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Those charts.
First....your sarcasm is not appreciated.
Second, in reference to Mariah Carey, there is no point in mentioning positions on the rock chart. The Pop 100 chart could be seen as notible, but it was just created this year and was not on my mind when I said that. It's not a bias; it's a proposal for controlling excessive amounts of statistical information that are of little use to a common reader. Articles on songs should not have a third or more of its legnth dedicated to tables, charts, and analyses of such. --FuriousFreddy 22:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- My sarcasm doesn't have to be appreciated. I'll still speak my mind.
- Rock is as notable as R&B. You just appear to have a prefence in music. And unfortunately, I disagree with you. Strongly. I also disagree with you boldly. --Winnermario 22:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- In reference to Mariah Carey, an R&B singer, rock chart positions are not neccessary. That is not a preference or a bias; you are misreading. If this were in reference to a rock band, then, yes, rock chart positions are notable. --FuriousFreddy 22:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh? Then explain the R&B, dance, and AC charts only? --Winnermario 23:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- R&B, dance, AC, and, of course, the main national chart (Hot 100, UK singles, etc). Those are, in reference to R&B artists like Mariah Carey, the four most frequently referenced ones in scholarly music writing (although most strip it all the way down to national chart and R&B chart, and some--especially when dealing with 1990s and 2000s artists--simply eschew the R&B chart altogether). It's simply in the interest of brevity and readability. Billboard publishes dozens of charts each week, and while a song's performance of each is verifiable fact, there has to be some filtering as far as what is included and not included in an encyclopedia article. The result is long tables with nearly a dozen chart positions for the United States alone. This depreciates the article instead of making it better, especially when the statistical information is also covered in the prose as well. See Wikipedia:Embedded list. Wikipedia: WikiProject Songs only calls for national charts. There's nothing wrong with a few additional ones, but more than about six for one country is too many. And only the main compiled charts, and not any components (Hot 100 Airplay, Hot 100 Sales,etc.) are neccessary. If a single sold well but never got any radio play, or was radio only, then the text should reflect that without the need for the includion of an extra statistic in the table. --FuriousFreddy 23:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Where is the POV in that? The charts you would want ot site changes when talking about a hip hop artist (hot 100, nternational R&B, and rap singles) or a country artist. These are the important ones for an R&B artist. Where is the non-neutral point-of-view? --FuriousFreddy 00:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Civility
Civility is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. You do not have to like FuriousFreddy in order to be civil to him. Telling him to "shut up", as you did, is uncivil. Please don't do that again. I have not been involved in this ongoing dispute, and so what I do notice is who appears to be reasonable. Please don't make me conclude that you are being unreasonable. Robert McClenon 21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. As mentioned above, it is important, and especially so in an RfC, to remember to display good "Wiki-quette". I am writing this in response to this edit, after seeing this edit, and this edit, neither of which are models of assuming good faith or working towards a resolution. Jkelly 02:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
RfC: Pop music issues
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues. --FuriousFreddy 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you insist on vandalising the RfC? Do you have no regard for the norms of the community? Why are you so contemptuous of your fellow editors? Guettarda 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you continue to vandalise the RFC I will block you for vandalism. Guettarda 01:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- You are seriously threatening me for telling you to abide by the rules? Don't be ridiculous. Guettarda 02:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I've restored the standard sections. You are free to address it as an affected party, if you consider this an RfC against you, or you can reply in the "Outside View" section. You can also add an alternative statement of the dispute - I have added a section for you do to that. It's up to you. You cannot modify the statement of complaint, since it is signed by Freddy. Guettarda 02:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
So long as you do the references formatting, this article should certainly make it to FA status. Despite whatever disagreements we've had in the past, I'd like to say that the article is very well written, encyclopediaic, comprehensive, isn't solely or primarily made up of statistical information, and is easy to read. It should definitely make it. --FuriousFreddy 19:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- No reason to be speechless. My concerns and such have never been with personal issues, only with article quality and following policy. --FuriousFreddy 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
re: your comment
"Yesterday" made it to FAC a long time ago. The rules got more stringent as time went on. It's not that big a deal to do the reference formatting; it helps people know what kind of reference it is and lends verifiability to the article. --FuriousFreddy 00:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- If I have time, I will. --FuriousFreddy 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
re: mutual support
Done.Ricardo the Texan 20:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
more mutual support
Check again. I have received a warning - one of the nincompoops threatens he's going to block me from editing. The vote should have gotten through, though. Note that it is the only objective vote of the lot. I absolutely disdain popular songs, including that particular song. However, that affects neither your effort nor the merits of the article. It (the article) is indeed excellent, meets every criterium, and is absolutely worth featuring.Ricardo the Texan 21:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Texas rules!
Any time, chief. I wish you had administrative powers. I wish I had administrative powers, for that matter.
Re: "Cool" information
Honestly? Because I think it's a very good article that is, in my eyes, almost featured article quality. I don't want to make enemies, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. I dislike your attitude towards Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but I wouldn't say I "loathed" you in any sense of the word. Extraordinary Machine 00:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Don't give up hope yet. The objections raised won't be too tricky to remedy. Extraordinary Machine 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
re: ref secton
A hurricane just flew over our city, and we have no internet at home. I'll see if I have time to do it at work on my lunch break or something. --FuriousFreddy 12:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- I finished the reference reformat. --FuriousFreddy 18:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)