User talk:Jogers

Capitalisation

I wasn't aware there was a standard capitalisation of the English language, but in consideration of the image on When the Sun Goes Down, shouldn't it be at When The Sun Goes Down as per the artist's choice? Dmn € Դմն 23:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be When the Sun Goes Down as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Jogers 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

mb20

Please stop incorrectly capitalising the band's name. The name is not capitalised, as per:
The Official 'Site
Last.FM
The mb20 Official Fan Club
The Naming Convention on Their Album Covers

Please stop and revert back your edits. Any more edits of this nature and i will warn you for vandalism, as you now know better. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 11:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits are in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. See also Talk:Matchbox Twenty#Requested move. I suggest that you take a closer look at Wikipedia:Vandalism before you warn me. Jogers 11:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Then surely the procedure then is to put a disclaimer on, which makes mention of the capitalisation being for technical reasons. Besides, the naming conventions refer to the article name, not how it is spelt in the article. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 11:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that the band name is sometimes typeset as "matchbox twenty" which is perfectly enough. Technical restrictions are not the case here. Jogers 11:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The naming convention is a technical restriction on wikipedia pages, and the article should state this, wikipedia is the only place, minus unofficial, amateur and non-expert 'sites, where i have seen the capitalisation. If i renamed Microsoft as Micro$oft and claimed it is sometimes typeset as Microsoft, would this work just as fine? in both cases the official spelling has been replaced with a wiki-friendly version and not explained as such. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 11:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most pages I found on Google refer to them as "Matchbox Twenty". Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) is another relevant guideline: follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment. Renaming Microsoft to Micro$oft would be a good example if the company officially used the second spelling. In that case the article should be named just Microsoft and possibly mention the stylized typography in the lead section. This would be more similar to this case when "official" capitalization is replaced with proper one. Jogers 12:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What most places do is irrelevant, the point i am trying to make here is that official sources spell it without capitalisation, as per here. Since mb20 is not trademarked, it doesn't come under the rules relating to trademarks. And whilst the band uses this spelling, would it, then, be correct to write mATCH bOX tWENTY? this is exactly the same spelling, is it not? Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 12:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What official sources do is less relevant than what secondary sources do. The proper capitalization in English language is "Matchbox Twenty". I'm not sure what is your point about "mATCH bOX tWENTY". Jogers 12:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i should have made it more clear what i meant. My point is, one cannot claim official and unofficial spellings of a name has a bearing on capitalisation. Capitalisation doesn't have an effect on a spelling of a name as per a point i thought you were making a while back. To get back to the point. Official literature/ websites of the band write the name in lowercase and although there are rules about capitalising in article titles and capitalising trademarks, i can see no rule which says one must replace correct representations of the band name with incorrect ones. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 12:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

According to what some folks say at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) the band name qualifies as trademark. Please, consider discussing your doubts there. Jogers 13:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That refers to none english characters. Think about the absurdity created here, rules exist- but rules have exceptions. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 13:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. WP:MOS-TM refers not only to special characters but also says to "capitalize trademarks, as with proper names" and "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". I find this perfectly clear. The issue of non-standard capitalization of band names has been discussed on several occasions and as far as I know the consensus was always in favor of standard English capitalization. I don't see a reason to make an exception in this case. Jogers 13:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i see what you're saying, but in my opinion the whole precedent is backwards, and in matters of capitalisation- the band's standard should be the adopted standard. I agree as with matters of the Prince logo and Korn, where its a character that is the problem, but when a band uses a particular case it should be the same here- even if only in the interest of accurate articles. The point is moot now anyway and we've kinda gone off topic but i will say this- in certain instances things need to evolve from simplistic rules and laws which do not take every eventuality. The rule of law states that in order to stay relevant rules must evolve- by using the artist's official capitalisation, we have a new precedent and the system works- otherwise too literal an interpretation, which granted- stops abuse and keeps everything to a similar standard, creates an absurdity. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 14:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no absurdity here but consider sharing your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). Consensus can change although I find it quite unlikely in this case. There is nothing special about this band name that would differentiate it from The Pillows or Kiss among many examples of articles that sparked extensive discussions about usage of non-standard capitalization of band names in Wikipedia articles. I'm sorry I wasn't more convincing. Jogers 14:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand why the groups KISS, matchbox twenty, or the pillows cannot be left in their correct typeset. I understand the limitations of the actual page name, but if I was the creator of the name of a band and it was used incorrectly, I would not be very happy. There are references all over the Internet, including official ones, which show that the capitalization is NOT corresponding to the standard of the English language, and in most cases this was done on purpose. It is not an accurate representation of the name ... I thought one of the things Wikipedia tried to strive for was accuracy. Firerescuelieut 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

black tape for a blue girl related articles

Why on EARTH have you killed the capitalisation on all of these? That is NOT what they are called- the band makes a point of not capitalising their own name, their album names and their song names. Why did you change them all? J Milburn 14:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization. Jogers 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So why capitalise them but not iPod, for instance, which is also a trademark? J Milburn 15:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

iPod is specifically discussed at WP:MOS-TM#Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter. Jogers 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, why is it any different? Surely, that also covers band, album and song names? J Milburn 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is different because the second letter is capitalized as explained in the guideline. Jogers 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you say so... J Milburn 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing covers from the chronology?

Why would you do that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Central_Cartel#Discography —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tasco 0 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for pointing out the right use of the album template to me Sorenw 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Buck-O-Nine

Please leave the Buck-O-Nine page alone, as you are breaking links.Buck09

giertych

so, finally someone saw my edit. hmm. gr8 work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.229.194 (talk • contribs)

"Get off"

What makes you say that "get off" is a phrasal verb? Like "get on", it's merely the verb "get" with a preposition of direction; there's no new meaning not derived from the meanings of the two elements. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's OK; I didn't mean to sound too aggressive about it, as the question of phrasal verbs is one that anybody can get mixed up about, and I've got it wrong about some verbs in the past. When I used to teach English as a foreign language, it was a topic that I dreaded having to explain. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AWB Feature Request: Track Listing

Hi, Can you confirm i've done this right - All instance of anything like "Track Listing" or "track listing" etc etc, need changing to "Track listing"

Like this diff

Cheers

Reedy Boy 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Date preferences"?

It seems that last January you edited a lot of files, including many which I created, to change references to "<year> in music" to simply send you to the "<year>" page. This is counterproductive, and I've been reversing these changes whenever I find them. But what puzzles me is your explanation, "allowing date preferences to work." Following the link, I see nothing which might be construed as a Wikipedia policy (that Wikipedia prefers plain dates to "<year> in <special category>" links?), and in fact I think that if there is anything that might resemble a policy it is to use the most specific link posible. I do not understand why you have done this, and your explanation gives no clue. I therefore will consider it my duty to reverse these changes whenever I find them, and I hope that you will desist in the future. -- BRG 20:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest

Dear Jogers,

Would you please skip over the Eurovision Song Contest article in your AWB editing. Thank you. EuroSong ^talk 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I would rather you not. If you wish to discuss this, please enter into a discussion on the article's talk page. In the meantime, I am disappointed that it looks like you wish to start an edit war, since you made changes directly yourself (not using AWB) after I asked you politely to stop. EuroSong ^talk 16:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus, you can see that the majority of uses of this song title include the capital "Of": hits. EuroSong ^talk 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said I own the article; and I'm quite familiar with that policy, thank you very much. I was simply pointing out to you that - since your edits were CLEARLY contested by myself - then the accepted course of action is for you to take your proposed edits to the article's talk page, instead of just deliberately re-doing them. I see you have now started a discussion on the page - thank you. That is the correct course of action. We shall leave it up to consensus to decide. EuroSong ^talk 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have just made no further comments right now because I've been quite busy. I intend to dispute the MoS: both the actual guidelines, and the extent to which these "rules" should apply to in-line text (as opposed to only article titles, which is what the MoS heading is primarily about). However, because it's probably going to be some time until I get around to that, I shall let your changes stand. No point in warring over this. EuroSong ^talk 14:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Keel - The Final Frontier.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Keel - The Final Frontier.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy says that the boilerplate text is not sufficient on its own to justify a fair-use rationale. Fair use rationales need to include an explanation of why that specific image needs to be in that specific article, and the image needs to be used for some sort of critical commentary - that is, the image needs to be discussed in the context of the article somewhere. I understand that this isn't the prevailing usage on Wikipedia right now, but that is pretty clearly what our policy states. This is an issue of Foundation policy regarding copyrights, not consensus, so I don't know what taking it to the Wikiproject's talk page would accomplish. I am not proposing anything new or doing anything but asking people to follow existing policy. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wilson_Pickett_-_The_Sound_of_Wilson_Pickett.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wilson_Pickett_-_The_Sound_of_Wilson_Pickett.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigrTex 22:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Nickel Creek!

Template:WikiProject Nickel Creek Invite I've seen by your edits that you might like Nickel Creek...I invented this WikiProject to help improve the articles, but I can't do it alone! Please consider! - Thamusemeantfan 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wilson_Pickett_-_The_Sound_of_Wilson_Pickett.jpg

I have tagged Image:Wilson_Pickett_-_The_Sound_of_Wilson_Pickett.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 17:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the rationales. They help the fair use experts determine if the given claim of fair use is appropriate. My understanding is that album covers on the pages about the albums are safe, but it's easier to require the rationales everywhere. ~ BigrTex 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What's with the colon?

On List5, you have the links with a colon e.g.

1. [[:A Journey Into Space]]

Does the colon do something special? I know it does with categories, but not sure what it means for an article. Just curious. --Fisherjs 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just the way the AWB saves lists of pages since recently. I don't know why. Jogers 15:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale example

It's not a bad fair-use rationale; I would prefer to see more inclusion of critical commentary about the cover but I can live without it. My issue is that I think we will see (as we already see from other WikiProjects) a bunch of copy-pasting without actually justifying an image's use in a particular article. The whole reason we have to have fair-use rationales is because it isn't enough just to copy-and-paste a boilerplate rationale. Don't panic - your images are alright; I just don't really think it's a good idea to have a generic rationale in that article. It might be better if we found some great examples of rationales (like Image:As Nasty As They Wanna Be cover.jpg) to link to for users to look at. Are you aware of any other really strong examples like that one? (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Films cap. offer

Many thanks for the offer!! I'd be glad to 'host' the list in my sub-userpage, where I already have a "toolbox" set up for easy reference User:SkierRMH/My Sandbox/Film toolbox. I'd be willing to accept a goodly number of false positives, as long as the net is wide enough to catch all of the real ones! I've been trying to fix them as I go (a basic arrgh to the Japanese titles) - this would be a great help! SkierRMH 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the link above ok? or is it better to put it in a separate subfolder? If the second is the case - feel free to create one under my username. Thanks. SkierRMH 09:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

THANKS!!! Just a question on deletion of the created redirect pages... is it ok to request a "speedy delete" of the incorrect capped pages? I'm not sure of the protocol on that. Thanks for any advice you can provide. SkierRMH 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, not only do I check for double redirects, I normally will go to the "what links here" and follow all of the article links, correcting the old names within those articles. Probably not necessary, but my obsessive-compulsive nature just doesn't like loose ends like that! SkierRMH 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

Hello Jogers, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg) was found at the following location: User talk:Jogers. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)