User talk:CycloneGU: Difference between revisions

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

MBisanz Good luck, and have fun. --MBisanz ^talk 06:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bk spanishharlem.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Bk spanishharlem.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been addressed. I forgot to note it as an album cover and have since updated the information. CycloneGU (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me Live In Your Life

I don't think so, however you could ask User:Cobaltbluetony who added the tag, or ask at WP:ALBUMS. Rich Farmbrough, 06:46 3 April 2008 (GMT).

Cheers for the Category Update

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia. To answer your questions:

In general, check out the WP:ALBUM project page, which gives you pretty much everything you need to know to write a great article about an album.
The infobox is not standard if "type" equals something other than the codes listed at Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes.
If an article is tagged with unref it means you need to cite your sources. See Wikipedia:Footnotes or one of the many fine album articles created by User:Moonriddengirl

Thanks for your contributions. --Fisherjs (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for updating the infoboxes - obviously, I didn't know the "Type" category identified the infobox, I guess that's the part that messed it up. I was looking at the type of album, which is a classic LP, and was going to mark later ones as "CD". I now know that studio albums are simply "studio" and not the media itself...lesson learned. =)

Cyclone CycloneGU (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Mahood

I took out the followup info, like you said, because it's not related to the album. You can add it to her page if you'd like, which could always use more information.

I saw her perform with Lace at the Canada Day Jam in Toronto a couple of years ago, but I never got the chance to meet her. Eric444 (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Songs In My Pocket

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of I Have Songs In My Pocket, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://payplay.fm/susserking. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error on my part while creating a new page and forgetting to change to the new text. Issue is resolved. CycloneGU (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 12:54 22 September 2008 (UTC).

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to The Best of Kenny Rogers has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. otherlleft (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Kenny Rogers

Your second edit had an edit summary, which was enough to give me pause - it looked like a removal for no reason the first time. Thanks for that.--otherlleft (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kenny Rogers discography

First see, MOS:DISCOG; also this links: allmusic & Kenny Rogers. I suggest you enjoy the concept, but not be based or claim things like "the discography of this artist have..." Find out if, Kenny Rogers have books published, that can help you on the search for information. Canniba loki 04:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country music

My God, are you for real? There's a tasklist on my user page (the big bold blue link), and you can help out by writing about any of the red links on my page. You can also help by finding pictures and expanding short articles. Some articles need a total rewrite, like Brooks & Dunn, Alabama (band), etc. are way too short. Alabama should definitely be GA quality, but seemingly no one wants to ever help me. 74 members in that damn project, and not a GA-class writer among them (well, I got Diamond Rio to GA). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, each Alabama album needs the full writers' names and producers (they weren't produced by Harold Shedd after the late 80s). The last writer to touch those album pages only put the writers' last names. I've already gotten a couple, like Cheap Seats. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've got tonight

I'd move it, yeah, so long as you change the links, it seems non-controversial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! There is only one song which lends its name to everything else. Everybody knows the song, but not necessarily other sources. There really wasn't much wrong with the way things were, because anyone typing in the name is looking for the song, which allows for the choice of disambiguation and links and gives directon to the artists who performed it. The point you make is valid, that many people might not know that it is a Bob Seger song, which makes it more confusing to now actually rename it that way, when it is the origin for everything else. What really needs done is the Kenny Rogers information fully added to the song article. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I placed my reply on your talk page. Please carry on the discussion there, I'll keep it open during the discussion. =)

CycloneGU (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you

You have made a bit of a mess of this. You did not move the page properly. You cut and pasted the information to a new page and converted the existing page to a redirect and left the talk page behind. That is not how it should be done. You also missed a lot of links that now redirect to the disambiguation page. When more than one artist records the same song, and have a hit with it, an infobox should be added to the article for each version. See Mr. Tambourine Man and Black Magic Woman for examples of well known songs, where the cover version was more successful and an album bore the same name as the song. I am going to revert the page to fix it up and, if there is still a need, we can move it properly after that. I'll let you know when things are cleaned up a bit and you can see what I have done to the article. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added infoboxes to We've Got Tonight and edited the talk page to remove the request tags. I think it needs some more work, but most of the content is now there. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I didn't consider the talk page. Ooopsie. =\

Okie, mental note for future; if a page needs to be moved, ask someone to rename it and provide reasons. Check, I got that for the future. Sorry about that!

I decided to click a random article yesterday after the discussions then and my random click landed on Kevin McCarthy (actor). I clicked the link to other people named Kevin McCarthy to get the page listing the seven people named Kevin McCarthy. The title of the page? "Kevin McCarthy". Interestingly, the page with the actual name lists all of them, not designating the page to a single person named Kevin McCarthy.

The entire We've Got Tonight thing should follow the same principle, as should any popular song. On the title page, list the disambiguations and let the user decide what (s)he wants to view (the song, the album, etc.). My edits to the We've Got Tonight (disambiguation) page still referenced Bob Seger as the songwriter and provided the link to his page at the header (an oversight I corrected later, as I had put Kenny's album first before). I say rename the disambiguation page to be "We've Got Tonight" and the current title page (as reverted) to include "(Bob Seger song)" in the title, as I proposed. This would then resemble the example above. Or are the rules different for proper persons compared to those of titles? (Maybe this is my lone opinion, I just think it's better to list them all together and link correctly to the correct page for each instance in the different cases.)

Thanks again for catching my oversight on how I did it, though. I'll keep the talk page in mind for future situations as I intend to work on many artists still after Kenny. =)

CycloneGU (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an example of a person with a similar entry, you don't need to look any further than Kenny Rogers. There is a hatnote that points to Kenny Rogers (baseball)], but you have read the article to find a reference to the self titled Kenny Rogers (1977 album), which only the Kenny Rogers discography actually links to. Here there is only one meaning for "We've got tonight", which is the song that everything else is derived from. The article has a link to a disambiguation page, just like Kenny. Disambiguation is not required for the song article name as all notable versions and performers are noted and linked. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okie, point made about the baseballer. I actually added the (1977 album) link myself, and have to do that for 2001 and 2007 as well as those are self-titled compilations. Mind, the albums preceding and following it also link to the 1977 album. I just felt that the title page should be the disambiguation page, which is why I originally asked TPH whether I should make the changes.

As for disambiguations between albums of the same name, I haven't gotten to that yet as I haven't put those two albums in yet. Once I put them in, I might put more links in on all three pages.

CycloneGU (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. In this case the song article acts like a disambiguation page.-Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When you want to move a page, let me know and I can walk you throught it. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timepiece

Very interesting. Anyone searching for "timepiece" would not expect the prime entry to be a Kenny Rogers album. There are many uses of the word in Wikipedia and they all refer to "a measuring instrument or device for keeping time". Even though there is not another article with that exact title, the KR album name is a reference to the device, not the other way around, and I would still tend to use "Timepiece (album)" or something. There is another album called Time Pieces: Best of Eric Clapton which is a redirect for time pieces. Timepiece should be a disambiguation page for clock, watch, stopwatch, chronograph, Cox's timepiece, Banjo clock, albums, etc. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a Nice Source

Hey, thanks for the tip. I'll check the library for that book, although my local library's pretty small and they might not have it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

To move a page, you click the "move" tab at the top. I moved the Glen Campbell album, you can fix the links left behind so they point to the Glen album. Then when you've done that and made the page for the Kenny album I'll make a dab for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab = disambiguation page. It's since been done. By the way, please use the full names of the writers in all pages you make; see WP:ALBUM for formatting information. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click on each song title and it'll give you the full name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. When you're on Allmusic, just click the song's title on the Allmusic page and you'll get the full name. I hate when people don't include the full names. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always include the full name in the first instance, and just the last name every subsequent time. For instance, if there are three songs written by John Smith, put "John Smith" the first time, and just "Smith" every time after that. But if there's a song written by Mike Smith as well, you'd use "J. Smith" for the second and third songs by John Smith. Also, if the writer has a page, link to it by all means. See It's What I Do, which I just created, for an example. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All albums use the same guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need to cite personal research. Most writers are verifiable through either the liner notes or through the ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc. libraries, and I've never seen anyone tag a writer's credit with {{fact}}. Just go ahead and put the full names in. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hard coding spaces

I'll reply re: WAY where it's due (when you're done!), but I wanted to share a trick with you. To hard code spaces—so that editors can both see and C&P them—try using this code [ ] (check your edit screen between those brackets, you'll see it there). That translates into a hard space that's both invisible to the reader, as well as visible to the editor. Check out "Mortal Coil" where it's implemented as part of {{infobox Television episode}} (which is where I found it in the first place!). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heehee, I've seen NBSP used before in other applications. I didn't know it worked on Wikipedia as well. =)

Let's see here. I'll apply a break tag, then have some fun.
And now the indent after the break.

That'll give my fingers a break, thanks for the tip! I'm done editing on the reply now, BTW, but I will go back and edit the NBSPs into my comment after you've replied. CycloneGU (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also see what you're doing there, using the line breaks and hard spaces to keep everything lined up, yes? My friend the graphic designer and webmaster will kill me if he finds out about this: I use paragraph breaks. less-than-p-greather-than, if you will, since showing it uses it.

For example, I use it here to keep my next paragraph aligned properly under the one before it. It works with numbering as well:

This is a numbered item
and here's the item I want listed & properly indented immediately underneath.

It's a gross violation of HTML, I know; but it seems to work just fine here within the confines of Wikipedia for what I want. Lemme know what sin I'm committing here if you'd like, every once in a while I worry that by doing this that somewhere down the road it's going to screw up something royally! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BR tag has the same effect. Sample:

This is your numbered item
and here's your next line.
This is my numbered item
and here's my next line.
This is my numbered item
and here's my next line after some NBSPs.

The difference? Look at the amount of space between the two lines in each case. Mine uses less. I'll stick with my line breaks and add NBSPs instead of trying to hardcode spaces now, it works well with Wikipedia.

Album question

Which album is it? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes?

I've seen your post on my page.

I do not think dashes are bad (well, I did...) but ever since TenPoundHammer starting putting dashes on discographies, I really support the idea. However there is a concern. Originally the blank spaces have 3 meanings:

releases that did not chart (e.g. only released to certain format or country)
unknown peaks (and we will never find out, but the single did chart)
the chart doesn't exist when the single was released (e.g. Canadian Hot 100)

We denifitely need some "marks" to clarify those situations. Well, EnDaLeCoMpLeX just put dashes all over the tables, filled out every blanks. Um... Does that really tell you something? I don't see the difference between all blank or all dashed. I think the dashes only means "released that did not chart", and only covers situation #1. Dashes should denefitely cross-over to #2 because that does not make sense. So when I saw it I just reverted it. Really I don't know what to do with that... Langdon (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

I know what you're saying, there are different meanings for everything on Wikipedia and the thing that needs to be done is that everyone finds a common ground. There are several methods that are all correct in their own way, but everyone will use their own method. I am currently chatting with someone about another page where he is contemplating a tracklist format modification and he seems to like my formatting method, so he's considering doing it. It doesn't mean the others are wrong; it just means I think mine looks nicer. *LOL*

As for the dashes, I always assume that a dash means the information is unknown or does not exist (which may mean the album did not chart). If I see a dash, it means to me that someone hasn't checked the charts for it yet, or it didn't chart (I automatically run dashes along a bargain bin album if I post it, they don't chart). Further, it keeps the table looking nice and clean; empty space on a table looks bad and makes the table look incomplete; we want to maintain a complete look. Everyone has their own opinion, that's just mine. =) CycloneGU (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Back Home Again.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Back Home Again.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Looks like I flubbed the article name in the rationale details. CycloneGU (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Timepiece.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Timepiece.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I screwed up again. CycloneGU (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Cyclone, thanks for your message - I've replied on my Talk Page (or at least I'm about to!). Hope this is correct. Cheers AndreaUKA (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on my page, Cyclone - cheers AndreaUKA (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonce Knowles

Hi. Thanks for dropping by. I am currently working an article so I am sorry to say that I cannot trace those edits of mine, as of now. However, if you would so kind, could you please provide me some diffs? Thanks a lot in advance. --Efe (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlackHawk

Wow. Okay, yeah, I need to fix that. I was finding sources such as Allmusic that were listing their name as BlackHawk, but their website says it's indeed Blackhawk. If you want to page-swap it, go to the redirect and tag it with {{db-move}} so it can be moved to Blackhawk (band). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Tyler

Allmusic isn't always complete for some reason, and sometimes they list albums wrongly (singles or compos under studio albums, studio albums under compos, etc.). I'll take a look at it. I blanked my talk page on purpose because it wouldn't archive. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a few things. You don't need a header before the intro, and the times are supposed to be separated by an en dash, like so:

"Name of Song" (Full Name of First Writer, Full Name of Second Writer) – 3:39

Notice I said full name. Just a last name won't do. Also, the personnel should be listed like so:

Brent Mason – electric guitar

WP:ALBUM has a whole MOS on how to do album articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the "en dash" interesting. A few months ago, I recall custom was to put the times in square brackets, as such:

Title (Writer) [8:88]

I guess this has been changed? And if so, how are we supposed to type that thing? Some use a longer dash than the regular dash and the keyboard only types the regular one easily.

Also, regarding names: I recall this discussion with you as well in the past. If the same writer writes multiple songs, it's only needed on the first occurrence. I've made a further addition to this: the writers of eight songs on that album are the producers. I thus only used last names because their full names are listed as producers. Tracks 2 and 4 I used full names (even though I only had an initial for one).

I'll check the thing out - I still like the square brackets, so I might bring up a discussion on that on the talk page. Also like my way of doing personnel better, might discuss that too.

I sure know AllMusic is incorrect at times; they still haven't made any changes to Kenny Rogers' Short Stories album despite two messages from me giving them the correct info. Idiots...=) CycloneGU (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by to say the Bonnie Tyler page looks amazing! Puckeylut (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 20 Great Love Songs

I have nominated 20 Great Love Songs, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20 Great Love Songs. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Original Gold (Kenny Rogers album)

I have nominated Original Gold (Kenny Rogers album), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original Gold (Kenny Rogers album). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of For the Good Times (Kenny Rogers)

I have nominated For the Good Times (Kenny Rogers), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For the Good Times (Kenny Rogers). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision

Who's this "we" you speak of? Do you mean the hammer-wielding otters who don't have admin tools? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, one general rule of thumb that I follow for compilation albums is, if it's on a red link label or a label that the artist himself was never signed to officially (e.g. Disky for Kenny Rogers), it's probably not notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hey

Hi - i know what you were doing last night and i have no issues. I was just trying to stem the onslaught of IP edits but no worries =D lordmwa (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page needs protecting. I think it also needs to be done for other big events, for examplr before the champions league final etc lordmwa (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Files:Six jpg images)

Thanks for uploading images. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterblue

I can understand your point. You might want to mention that at WP:ALBUMS though, since their MoS suggests otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SYTYCD

Hello, thank you for contributing to the So You Think You Can Dance (season 5) page; however, please realize the elimination background is |bgcolor="palegoldenrod" | '''Elim''', as opposed to a gray background. This is because it has been this way for the previous four season pages. Thanks, IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 02:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I just used what I found on the Season 5 page when I first got there and wanted to make sure that the fake results posted at the time were removed (someone edited results before they were announced, and one was wrong). I copied the gray colour from that. Guess I should've realized that the person who did THAT had the wrong colour; I didn't look at the first four seasons before making the correction and moving the names rightfully to the bottom of the placing list. *LOL* CycloneGU (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compilations

I usually go with the ones that have ratings and/or are on major labels. By that standard, everything before "Love Collection" is good, and from there just skip the ones without star ratings and the CBS ones. I've checked and found that most of the ones without ratings turn up virtually no hits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best

Hmm. They most likely are the same album. I'd say play it safe and merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Collection

The Love Collection doesn't seem to be a notable album. It was put out by a non-notable label even though it's bigger than the Definitive album. Given that you can't find any sources, I'd say take it to AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that does is verify the track list. There's no non-trivial coverage for this album, as it was on an el cheapo label. I'm going to AFD it if you don't mind. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes originals

Hmm. I would say no, since they're not notable enough for their own listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say don't include the iTunes albums unless they prove individual notability (which I would guess is almost never). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fame

I'd best stay out of this. Content disputes are not my forte. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to have a discussion about this with you, but the thing is that the new tracks will be released on their own, without those from The Fame. It is essentially a brand new album. That is why it makes no sense to have it stuffed into a section on The Fame. Besides this disc also being included as part of a deluxe edition, it will be sold completely separate as a standalone album. That is what my sources, which also include her label Interscope and the New York Post state. It's not just a bonus disc as it was originally planned to be. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, if you can prove that it's a standalone album, I don't see why it can't be its own article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into some very stubborn editors and there is a past AfD that complicates things. The AfD for the page about the re-release is being used a reason to delete the page about the new album and no one seems to realize the difference between the two. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement. If you can prove the standalone album and cite it, we'll be inclined to agree. AllMusic has no such note ATM, however. I'm going to be looking at Lady Gaga's site for something else this evening, though, so maybe I'll find the info myself. CycloneGU (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what you may find, here is what I have compiled since yesterday: MTV [1], Interscope [2], and the New York Post [3]. People need to remember that there is more than one version. There is a re-release of The Fame with the extra songs (tho that might change according to NY Post) and there is also the separate disc release. Sure there will be sources for the re-release because there are plans for that in addition to the single disc release of the new album. Those re-release sources do not cast aside the sources about the separate album because they aren't talking about the album, they are talking about the re-release. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie, this is a tricky one. I found a page on Lady Gaga's official site [4] that confirms the single CD. However - and this is a big however - it doesn't list the tracks there. Neither do any of your three links. To be honest, I don't think we can list the separate page UNTIL the track listing is published separately. I'm sure it'll appear on AllMusic or something in the future, but until it does appear independently with the tracklist, I'm wondering if we're better to leave it merged for now.

What I do know; even when the single disc version page can be sourced, we're still going to have The Fame Monster referenced on The Fame. It does, after all, use the same first disc as the original The Fame. It will simply reference both albums with the Wikilink to the second page. A similar section will appear on the new album's page. That is my suspicion. So until it's decreed what to do with it, let's leave it alone until the tracklist appears independently (probably next few days). At that point, you can source it and create the page and know that this time, it'll be verifiable. It may be that the Deluxe Edition bit will leave The Fame and go to the new page, or just get a blurb on the page that Wikilinks to the second album. We'll see what comes about, I guess! =D CycloneGU (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, inmusic.ca might be your break to recreate the page. Just make sure when you introduce the album as a single-disc album that you reference that, then reference this for the tracklist: [5] When better sources become available, they can be linked to. CycloneGU (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Hi, can I ask a question of you? Wouldn't you agree that the Pop Songs chart is acceptable on articles on songs? Candyo32 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment since you are still on my watchlist ;) Generally yes, the pop songs chart is acceptable. However, if there is already another chart for the same country, only the more substantial should be there. For instance, if a song charted on both the Pop Songs chart and the Hot 100, include only the Hot 100 since it is the larger and more substantial chart. There is no need for multiple charts for the same country. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy with dishes, so you beat me to it. *LOL*

Yes, the Hot 100 is a more acceptable chart. Sometimes articles will include, say, the Hot 100 and the Country Charts, though (Kenny Rogers albums commonly do this, I've worked on these myself...and Bonnie Tyler has a couple of these too in her early career) - I guess it depends on whether the charts measure the same thing and which is more notable. Is the Pop Songs chart from Billboard? If so, it might be worth noting the Hot 100 first and the Pop Songs chart second...but in a table of countries, only use the Hot 100. Something along those lines. You CAN use tables spanning multiple charts if some songs chart, say, on Adult Contemporary and others, say, on country, and in select cases you can use a digital chart (i.e. non-singles, radio airplay just done). CycloneGU (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fame Monster

Some people here are just rushing with adding some information and trying too hard to change some things they think are correct (on the controversial issues). Everyone should just come down and wait and everything will show up and clarify. --PlatinumFire 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that my rewrite of the lead was more to address grammatical issues - I did not visit any additional sources and was primarily getting it to read in English. If someone could review it to ensure I have understood/represented it correctly that would be great. Orderinchaos 00:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The re-release

I'm extremely sorry. In the midst of all the discussions regarding whether Mister should be a separate release, I completely forgot that you had asked me something. Well, it seems you can easily add the tracklist in The Fame. Don't need to source it. :) And why do you think that I'm disrupting The Fame Mosnter? I was only putting back the information in the LEAD, which were deleted by Grk, instead of re-wording the grammar. You should see my work in the other Gaga articles to know that I do conform to a specific structure which makes articles more or less GA worthy. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. now we can all behave like Wiki-adults :) But seriously? Monster has leaked?? Woohoo, Christmas came early today. Have you heard all the tracks? Which is your favourite? I love "Alejandro" ar present. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we can write anything we can as long its our user talk pages. So you can shoot anything you want! :) I was going for the deluxe one with Gaga's hair but oh well. I'm not filthy rich though... But I think releasing "Telephone" so soon will hurt "Bad Romance's" chance of hitting no. 1 in US though. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: hey

The song is digital bonus track, but i don't know where actually. The source has Zing. The song built on the same structure as Britney Spears's "Quicksand". Charmed36 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fame Monster

I removed 'No Way', because actually owning the album and seeing it's digital tracklisting proves it is not a Bonus Track. The reference you provided just offers the album as a free download (which is illegal so probably isn't a valid reference).

There is no valid reference saying 'No Way' is in fact a bonus track, and until one does come up I think it should be omitted from the tracklisting to remove any confusion about it's official tracks.--TheRevolution7 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 344: / Line 344: @@
 The song is digital bonus track, but i don't know where actually.  The source has Zing.  The song built on the same structure as Britney Spears's "Quicksand".  [[User:Charmed36|Charmed36]] ([[User talk:Charmed36|talk]]) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
+== The Fame Monster ==
+I removed 'No Way', because actually owning the album and seeing it's digital tracklisting proves it is not a Bonus Track. The reference you provided just offers the album as a free download (which is illegal so probably isn't a valid reference).
+There is no valid reference saying 'No Way' is in fact a bonus track, and until one does come up I think it should be omitted from the tracklisting to remove any confusion about it's official tracks.--[[User:TheRevolution7|TheRevolution7]] ([[User talk:TheRevolution7|talk]]) 04:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)