Talk:Bangerz/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nobody but the proponent is convinced that Bangerz (album) is now the primary meaning of Bangerz. There is already a DAB page at Bangers (disambiguation). At editorial discretion, the name Bangerz might be redirected to Bangers (disambiguation) instead of its current target. That was the recommendation of 76.65.128.222 but the others did not comment on that idea. Google hits suggest that 'banger' may be commonly used in the sense of "A slang term for a good high-energy, pumping, dance music song" which is one of the meanings listed in Banger (disambiguation). EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


Bangerz (album) → Bangerz – Currently, this title redirects to The Bangerz, which until Miley announced the name of her album, was not pulling in many page views. I don't think there would be an issue with the group retaining their current "The Bangerz" title and Miley being given the plain "Bangerz" naming, and adding a hatnote on both articles in case they were looking for the other page. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - a look at Google Books shows this has wide usage and is ambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Though there are only two subjects on Wikipedia that (appear) noteworthy enough to have articles written about them. Whether or not the move goes through, it would still refer readers to either the album or the group. Are you suggesting a disambiguation page be created? WikiRedactor (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose convert to disambiguation page (redirect to the Bangers disambiguation page, and put entries there) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

britney

on the track list it says one song will feature britney spears, but theres no reference to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.192.165 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Tracklist

I think I found the album's official tracklist [1]. If someone wants to work it into the article they are welcome to do so (unless this is not a reliable source). Jinkinson (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


1. "Adore You" 2. "We Can't Stop" 3. "SMS (Bangerz)" ft. Britney Spears 4. "4×4" feat. Nelly 5. "Stand By Me" ft. Future 6. "Wrecking Ball" 7. "Love, Money, Party" ft. Big Sean 8. "Get it Right" 9. "Drive" 10. "FU' feat. French Montana 11. "Do My Thang" 12. "Maybe You're Right" - please correct the spelling of the writer to "Camaron Ochs" - Thanks! 13. "Someone Else" 14. "On My Own" 15. "Rooting For My Baby" 16. "Hands In the Air" feat. Ludacris

R Miley Cyrus's 'Bangerz' Track List Leaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandox (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 October 2013

| title8 = #GETITRIGHT | writer8 = Williams | extra8 = | length8 = 4:24

Ejscanlan (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

  • That has been corrected, thank you for pointing that out! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Writer names mispelled

"Maybe You're Right" - Please correct the spelling of the writer, Camaron Ochs (Camaron is spelled with an 'a', not Cameron). Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmarias22 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

  • That has been corrected, thank you for noticing! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe You're Right - Add Tyler Sam Johnson (full name) instead of just 'Johnson'.

Maybe You're Right - Add Tyler Sam Johnson (full name) instead of just 'Johnson'. His name is listed correctly under his additional production credit. Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmarias22 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

  • That has been corrected, thanks for pointing that out! WikiRedactor (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Discounting the low-edit IP !votes (two in opposition, one in support), there is no clear consensus in favor of the proposed move, even after this discussion has stayed open for a month. bd2412 T 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Bangerz (album) → Bangerz – Yes, I am aware that a discussion was closed a little over a month ago, but my intention with this proposal is to have a better-populated discussion that just myself and the two additional editors we had last time. Anyways, as it stands, the plain title Bangerz redirects to The Bangerz, the logic behind which I question because they appear to be pretty obscure in comparison to a highly-anticipated project from a well-known mainstream celebrity. Miley's album has gotten 546,000 hits in the last three months, compared to a mere 3,300 for the group in the same time frame.

Responding to In ictu oculi's opposition the last time around, in which he felt that the term was ambiguous because it was used for various other purposes on Google Books, none of those other topics appear notable enough to have Wikipedia articles written on them, or they would likely already have been created. Not to mention, I did a quick search for "Blurred Lines" on Google Books, and not one result in the first three pages referenced the song, but we didn't have an issue establishing a primary topic here on Wikipedia, did we? Secondly, I disagree with the suggestion of redirecting the plain title to the disambiguation for Bangers, because the spelling with a "z" is used in only two articles on the English Wikipedia, and I doubt that anyone looking for one of the other results would be using the improper spelling to get where they need to be.

Long story short, I feel that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term, and should be given the plain title. A hatnote would be added to the page for the few that are looking for The Bangerz, and everyone wins. My intention is not to be a pain about the matter, I just feel that the current setup isn't the optimal setup for our readers. --Relisted. Red Slash 02:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) WikiRedactor (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks like the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to me, the page views has been consistently exponentially high for weeks, and unless it completely flops that is sure to remain consistently higher than The Bangerz for a long time. Their article does not imply that their name is or has ever been "Bangerz" either, so if anyone is searching "Bangerz" they are looking for this album, not the group known only as "The Bangerz".STATic message me! 21:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That is a band, and this is an album that is yet to be released in some territories. For now, I oppose this move. — Tomíca(T2ME) 00:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Even though Bangerz is going to chart well in multiple countries, the Bangerz still exists. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The name is correct as it is - removing "album" suffix is neither productive nor useful. It just adds ambiguity, confusion and makes the article title less clear and harder to find.


There is far more to renaming than just the subjective primary topic guidelines: the big one being the actual article title rules: Wikipedia:Article titles.

Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.


The title as it is inline with all of the rules regarding article titles: it's descriptive but concise, inline with other similar articles and is both recognisable and natural - the removal of the suffix brings it into breach of those rules, creates ambiguity and confusion and opens us up to the constant flood of name change requests to get the "album" suffix put back in, to bring it back into line with the rules. To have had 2 move discussions over the removal of a descriptive suffix is frankly absurd and stinks of childish "fandom" pushing, rather than Wikipedia's aims collaborative effort towards improvement. --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Only IP edit. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - We usually use the title of an album as the title of the article about that album unless it is ambiguous. "Bangerz" is not ambiguous - there is no other article for which "Bangerz" would be a suitable title, although there are other articles with similar titles (Bangers and The Bangerz). Using "Bangerz" as the title for this article is compliant with all the guidelines for article names: it is recognizable and natural (it is the title of the album, and the most recognizable and natural name for an album is indeed its title); it is precise, as no other articles would be correctly titled "Bangerz"; it is obviously more concise than "Bangerz (album)"; and it is consistent with other articles on albums, which use the album title alone unless the title is ambiguous.VoluntarySlave (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - the Miley article is more popular than the band, and the band is The Bangerz. I see no evidence the band ever called themselves just "Bangerz". Put a dablink on each one for the few who would go to the "wrong" page could find it. --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
There was previously a dablink; someone removed it.... --Rushton2010 (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per WP:AT quoted above. Differential by spelling is not much use if the reader doesn't know the correct spelling. And WP:Recent applies. And probably a few other guidelines too. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The oppose votes are curious. I don't see a single logical argument except those saying the album fails because it doesn't have primary topic not just for Bangerz but also Bangers, in which case Bangerz should redirect there instead of to some no-name band that barely could survive AfD. Whether or notthe album has been released is, surprisingly, not one of our WP:CRITERIA. 172.56.21.69 (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry 172.56.21.69 can you please identify your previous edit history, your first edits indicate an experienced Wikipedia editor, and this RM has already had sock edits removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Since we have only two articles that use the Z spelling, and no others without the definite article, the most logical solution is to move as proposed, including hatnotes to the Bangers dab both here and at The Bangerz. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current title helps Miley Cyrus fans know they have found what they are looking for. Bangerz is generic language for "Bangers" in hip-hop talk; Street Bangerz Vol.8, Classic Bangerz, The Bangerz, Bangerz goggles, Body Head Bangerz, Finger Bangerz. It's a common spelling variation/stylism for the plural of banger with the double meaning (according to a wealth of Google Book sources) of (a) hip hot banger record, smash hit, (b) a party-banger/rap crew-banger (c) a gang-banger/fighter. There should be at the very least a hat-note from this article to an article to where the Bangers dab page also leads "A gangbanger, A slang term for a good high-energy, pumping, dance music song." The fact that we don't have good content on this is simply a product of overproduction of album/song articles rather than spending time on encyclopaedic writing about music culture and actually covering hip hop and rap and dance properly. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. By any measure, this is the obvious primary topic among the two articles actually titled "Bangerz". Spelling changes and use of "the" are sufficient to distinguish the titles. There's no reason to leave "Bangerz" redirecting to the lesser known The Bangerz article, or to or to a dab page with a different spelling entirely. Hat notes are the better way to get readers where they want to go.--Cúchullain t/c 18:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Courts have rules that a widely publicized recently coined term can quickly establish primacy in the mind of the average reader of that term. bd2412 T 01:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Release date

The real release date is October 8 http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/5657600/miley-cyrus-reveals-bangerz-release-date User:Gohho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohho (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

See the article's release history section, the album was released in various countries on various dates, the first release date was October 4, which is why that is the date that appears in the infobox and lead. STATic message me! 20:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

the information displayed in the article is incorrect,

where it talks about the tour it should be 2014 not 2013 as it has already passed and it is in future tense. people need to check their work so this does not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD6A:8620:E17E:9BAA:B163:1C72 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

As of November 9, 2013 the third single off of Miley Cyrus' Bangerz album will be Bangerz featuring Britney Spears. No date has been set as to when the single will be released or a music video for the song. 76.236.43.37 (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

edit request - third single

Please add that the third single is "Adore You" - scheduled to be sent to U.S. radio stations in January 2014. Source.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

NEW RELEASE DATE FOR ADORE YOU AS A SINGLE

http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases allacess just announced that it will come out on radio Decemeber 17, 2013 not january 6, 2013. change that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.52.6.126 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Miley Cyrus WikiProject

Back in August, I proposed the creation of a Miley Cyrus WikiProject, and there hasn't been much of a response at the nomination since then. Feel free to stop by, support/oppose, or leave comments. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Note — I have relocated comments from Tomica (talk · contribs) and Prism (talk · contribs) from this section over to the nominations page. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. While there isn't overwhelming consensus for this move, there are essentially no reasons presented for why this move shouldn't occur. PRIMARYTOPIC has been demonstrated, but not refuted. -- tariqabjotu 03:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

– With the last requested move having almost reached a consensus to rename the article, I'd like to take the opportunity to discuss the guidelines provided by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and how they apply to Bangerz:

"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." – The disambiguation page for the properly-spelled Bangers had 7,406 visitors in the last three months, while the stylized Bangerz disambiguation page pulled in 16,514 views in the same time period. For a disambiguation page, the latter figure is quite high; taking a closer look at the articles listed on the page, this record pulled in 589,848 visits, compared to 74,086 for the tour, 39,013 for the song, and 2,430 for the unrelated group. With these numbers in mind, it becomes apparent that the primary topic currently belongs to one of Cyrus' articles; as the highly-discussed project that resulted in both the song and the tour, this album should be recognized as the more important/prominent of the three.

"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." – There is no doubt that Cyrus' article views are higher because of the publicity she has received in 2013. However, even putting all those controversies aside for a moment, a studio album from a popular mainstream artist is very likely to be more notable than a similarly, not identically, named DJ group whose page views appeared to have only spiked after the plain title Bangerz was redirected to The Bangerz before it became a disambiguation page.

Even when Bangerz's popularity begins to fade, there is no identically-titled article that would challenge the record as the primary topic; given Cyrus' notability in general, adding in the widespread attention this project has received, and topped off the the unique spelling that distinguishes it from a more "serious" topic covered by an article, it becomes clear that Bangerz is the primary topic of this title. Moving it over the the plain title would better service our readers, taking away the extra, inconvenient step in navigation that the disambiguation page has proven to be. With respect to WP:TWODABS, a hatnote guiding readers to The Bangerz and Bangerz (disambiguation) would be a better arrangement that the current disambiguation page in that it can be assumed that readers are looking for Cyrus' album. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose – the primaryname claim is flimsy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support--seriously? Seriously? I dare you to name me one article that has a legitimate claim to Bangerz other than this one, and then compare/contrast its claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by either criterion with this article's claim. Look at the disambiguation page. Holy cow. Did you even look at the disambiguation page? Red Slash 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As the primary topic, with no other articles having this title Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Per evidence by WikiRedactor and my comments in the previous RM. STATic message me! 18:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural Oppose – It's been less than 3 months since the previous RM was closed. That RM had the same nominator, who then archived the whole discussion after not prevailing and submitted it again. The RM before that was just a couple of months earlier, and again was submitted by the same nominator. That's not proper form. You shouldn't be able to prevail here by just repeatedly submitting the same request over and over until everyone else gets too tired to oppose the suggestion. I suggest to wait a year before resubmitting. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
BarrelProof, please, I implore you. Look at the disambiguation page. Then tell me to my face (well, in writing on this move discussion) that the album is not the primary topic. The process that this move requester undertook was unfortunate. But the substance is right there. This is so obvious it actually hurts. Red Slash 03:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'll admit that it seems a bit harder for me to oppose in terms of substance than procedure. I'm not so familiar with the alternative candidate topics. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the archiving, to be fair this move request is clearly marked as the third one. As for the time since the last RM, there's no requirement for how long it should be. Several months is plenty of time, especially when the last one closed as "no consensus" and there's plenty of strong evidence for the move. I'd hate to see a well reasoned article improvement be shot down only because the nominator didn't follow some unwritten bureaucratic process to the T.--Cúchullain t/c 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@BarrelProof and Red Slash: I just want to clarify that I'm not trying to "abuse the system" with this requested move. Just you you have an idea where I'm coming from, I felt that the results of the previous move requests was because I did not present a strong enough case, so my goal was to re-open a stronger, more compelling proposal this time around. In regards to the time between requests, I intentionally waited three months from the start of the last discussion, although I didn't take that fact that it closed a month later under consideration. My apologies for the inconvenience, and I appreciate your participation in the discussion. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like BarrelProof came in like a wrecking ball. Chortle. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just closed my eyes and swung. I never meant to start a war. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is one of the stranger examples of over-dabbing we've seen. There's nothing else with the exact title "Bangerz". Even bringing in The Bangerz, making it a WP:TWODABS argument, this is clearly the primary topic by any measure. And again, that article is located at The Bangerz; hat notes will better serve readers than sending them all to the dab page.--Cúchullain t/c 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose and request Speedy Close - this is just raking over the same ground again and again, with inadequate time left between move requests. --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Rushton2010: The last discussion ended in no consensus, not a consensus not to move and it has been two months since then. Also you make yourself seem foolish adding strong to your vote. Strength comes from one's argument, adding strong to your vote does not give it any more weight then anyone else's. STATic message me! 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, there's no minimum time for a fresh RM. It's actually been nearly 4 months since the previous RM was started. That's plenty of time, especially when the previous RM closed as no consensus rather than no move, and there's plenty of evidence the proposed title is preferable.--Cúchullain t/c 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think some editors have become entrenched in their positions more out of pride than the merits of the case, which clearly favor this move. The 3605 views of Bangerz last month were quite high for a dab. The main other article that could occupy this title (more as a redirect), had 573. Considering the group itself had over 3000 hits at the last request, when Bangerz redirected there, this paints a clear picture of readers seeking the album. With its 117,367 views last month, it looks like they're still finding it, even though we're throwing an unnecessary obstacle in their way. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Excessive archival?

Why was everything archived? The end of the year does not mark a breakpoint where everything should be archived. The last message was on 27 December, less than 4 days before the entire talk page was pushed to an archive. Clearly, there wasn't that much activity on this talk page, and why would you need to archive everything more than 4 days old for such a low activity page? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014

Add a platinum certification for the U.S. denoting 1,000,000+ copies being sold. 69.254.4.85 (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Already done. See the intro and #Commercial performance. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Miley Cyrus proposal

Just a reminder that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the potential creation of WikiProject Miley Cyrus. All comments are welcome and appreciated! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015

X 5. "Nightmare'" (which is better than My Darlin' ]]) Y 5. My Darlin’ feat. Future Please change X to Y because the entire song name is wrong. "Nightmare is a new song that will be released this year. [1] Anampenca (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Already done Vandalism fixed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bangerz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bangerz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bangerz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bangerz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://genius.com/Miley-cyrus-bangerz-annotated-tracklist-lyrics
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangerz/Archive_1&oldid=1136547552"