Hi Legolas, can you revisit the above FLC? Thanks, [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 16:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Legolas, can you revisit the above FLC? Thanks, [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 16:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
== Thank you, question about Gaga updates ==
Dearest Legolas. thank you so much for all of your hard work, you deserve all of your awards and then some.
I'm new here and was dismayed about the Lady Gaga Wikipedia page, that has not been updated since the Sydney Town hall concert. There was no mention of Taiwan, MTV Japan AID, promotions at various talk and tv shows (the View, Jimmy Kimmel, SYTYCD), VMA performance as Calderone, winning the VMA awards You and I single released with video and fashion films, Cher ft Gaga duet, Tony Bennett ft Gaga, and on and on.
Don't know why it's so old and comparing to contemporary pop star Katy Perry (her page is updated to the release of her 6th single which was practiclaly yesterday), this is really old and lags WAY behind.
So was wondering what's going on and I wanted to see what can be done about updating? I'm afraid I'm too much of a little monster and so I'm going to be totally biased, so I may not be the best contributor, and I don't have your objective, clear, writing style. Also, the page is semiprotected.
Thanks for giving me any information. It really is upsetting to see the updates so old, even as Gaga has this huge fanbase...
Regarding W.E (film), I have the article on my watchlist due to the IP sock. However, regarding Kate Muir's review, the reference says, "The first notices are in... and most of them are not kind, to put it mildly. Kate Muir of our sister paper, The Times of London, reports that her romantic historical fantasy about the 'misunderstood' (as she put it at her press conference), Nazi-loving Duke and Dutchess of Windsor is 'screamingly, inadverdently funny in parts.'" The Wikipedia article says Muir "complimented some of the funny scenes of the film", but I think "complimented" is inaccurate in light of the context. The inadvertence needs to be more clear. What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that Kate Muir's review should belong in the negative part of the reception section. I see that her review is not accessible online, and I assume that's why the New York Post is used instead. I think I can access the review through my university database; going straight to the source may be better. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If its a whole out and out negative review, I have no problem in moving it. Erik it would be a great help if you can see whether your Univ database has it. By the way, how do you feel teh article is shaping up? Also, hi to you since we have never met before . :) — Legolas(talk2me)16:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to you too! :) The article appears well-rounded to me, although I have to admit, I'm not seeing the so-called historical hook for this film. :) Anyway, I found the review and pasted it at TinyPaste. It seems pretty negative in general, though it is positive about some things. Maybe we could just drop Muir for now? The film will get more reviews in December, and they'll probably be more professional than Muir's review. (One thing I dislike about negative reviews, critics often seem to have fun with their own vocabulary in bashing a film, rather than telling straight-up what's wrong with it.) If you still want to implement the review, the top of the TinyPaste page has reference wiki-code you can use. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey old one :P. Lol kidding, that was about the conversation we had on Nath's page, I was just kidding. Hehe. Can you check the discography again and if it's all good with the n-dashes give your vote and if it's not explain on which other place should we add them. Thank You :) ! Tomica1111 • Question Existing?18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Legolas I was wondering if you have a help article that would tell me what things do. Eg. " | [[. Things like that. I want to try and fix up an Australian Singles chart to make it appear like the Billboard Hot 100 so it is easier to read but I think I need more knowledge to do this. If you could post it here or on my talk page that would be great. Thank You :) Muthamonster (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not one to support fan cruft, which is why I wanted to approach the main editor of Lady Gaga's articles before I went forward with anything questionable. If you have some free time I'd like it if you took a look at my proposed article for the song Scheiße, and whether or not it should become an article. Clearly, the article would still require work done to it either way. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated your wonderful additions into the main article. Good job Bruce. If and when I will nominate it for GAN, you will be a co-nominator. — Legolas(talk2me)10:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not venturing into that mess tbqh. "Party" was sent to Urban, and its available as download. Radio singles do not exist nowadays and this is a single per the same consensus with Riri's "Raining Men" and "Man Down". — Legolas(talk2me)10:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Party" was over 500 spins at Urban. Are you even doubting that it was sent? Urban radio is a small portion of Hot 100 Airplay now (Thank God for that) and doesn't have much stations. Hence the low spin count. — Legolas(talk2me)10:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because it already reached number 40 on the US Hip Hop R&B chart without being a single. You can check. And finally on August 30, 2011, it was not sent. Jivesh • Talk2Me10:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Upgrade U" was never sent to radio. Yet, it peaked at number 11. And urban is surely a little. But it is enough to reach the top 75 on the Hot 100 chart based solely on airplay. Jivesh • Talk2Me10:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Upgrade U" was confirmed as a promotional single with a 12" disc released for this. Hence it charted. "Party" has already been added to the radio playlist. You should be knowing by now that RJs don't wait for record companies to release it exclusively. They play whatever they want. Add dates are just a custom, not a necessity. "Party" is still being played and downloaded as I write. — Legolas(talk2me)11:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was exactly my point. "Countdown" is also being played and downloaded but that does not mean it is a single. Radios in the US play whatever they want. Jivesh • Talk2Me11:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Legolas as i said before all those people in those forums including ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=80335&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15000 ca not be lying at the same time., They may not be good at writing articles like us but they know more than us about radio and iTunes. Jivesh • Talk2Me11:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jivesh, I made it very clear that I don't want to get involved in such stuff, so pejorative statements like "friends believe me" doesn't exactly ring my alarm. And frankly, I'm tired of such discussions and next time, please read my edit notice. — Legolas(talk2me)11:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down Avi. I just wrote that. I am not forcing you to get involved in that. That was not my intention. Take care. See you later. Enjoy your week-end. Jivesh • Talk2Me11:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better but not FLC quality. I still saw hardcoded website url names as well as inconsistency in reference for same publisher. And India Times is Times of India, not the other way round. — Legolas(talk2me)11:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yah. Thanks for that Legolas. I actually made it in purpose, 1. is for other users to see clearly was was being changed, 2. and I am tired. hehe. But that's fine, so that the page is mess free. Anyways, I've observed there's a lot of "shit" (sorry for the term) going on in GAN. Poor reviews and the "reciprocate" trend. --Efe (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Of course not, but what entered into my mind the first time I read your comment was indeed her. You know, sometimes I get too stupid. haha. --Efe (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi bud. It's been a while :). The article has come a long way, but to be completely honest, I think it's only about 70% ready. The prose is still rough in places, and a lot of info, especially in the chart performance section, needs to be sourced. Also, I'm looking to tweak/rearrange the "cultural impact" section etc. But, most importantly, I'm waiting a bit until the album's chart run has declined (it's still in the top 3 in the US, and 20+ weeks at #1 in a couple European countries). The album and its singles are still breaking records every week (yay), so information changes weekly. After a few months, I can actually write in a summary style and provide a comprehensive overview of the album and its performance/reception. Orane(talk)03:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are right. And if you take my suggestion, you have to wait until the Grammys are over as Adele is a sure-fire winner that night. Much content will be added after that I believe. — Legolas(talk2me)02:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Grammys may be too far. I think that the more important parts of the article are already there (production etc). Changing a few paragraphs when the Grammy's come around may not be that much to affect the article. Orane(talk)06:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen it. I don't think it will pass, though. And to be honest, I do not think it's ready. I compare it to "4 Minutes", and the latter is far more comprehensive. As is, the article lacks a lot of information about the actual song- how it was written, what the writing and recording processes were like, an analysis of the lyrics. All we get are two very small paragraphs, most of which consist of quotations. Orane(talk)03:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think my biggest concern is that there is a lot of she did this, she did that, she then, etc so parts of it don't appear as encyclopedic text and more like a story or something. Perhaps its unavoidable, but I do think the prose needs polishing. I'll see with Riley has to say. Other than that it would seem to meet requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is ready for GA as it will never be improved upon beyond what is there, unless Gaga and WEst both have the brilliant idea of starting it later. And of course the most interesting hook would be "... that the concert tour Fame Kills: Starring Kanye West and Lady Gaga was cancelled, following the mayhem surrounding West's actions at the 2009 MTV VMA." Or something along this line. — Legolas(talk2me)02:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about, but there's nothing in the article that explicitly states the tour was canceled due to the VMA outburst (and there was no official reason given) thus it's unusable. :/ I think I'll go with "... that Lady Gaga embarked on her 2009–11 The Monster Ball Tour early due to the cancellation of her Fame Kills tour with Kanye West?" –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Jivesh! Since I was just on this page and Legolas isn't on here yet I thought I might answer it (hope you don't mind!). Yes, promo singles can become FAs; a recent example would be this: Speechless (Michael Jackson song). So long as said article meets the criteria, any kind of article can have a shot at becoming a FA. Hope this helps! Crystal Clear x303:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Speechless" has deteriorated over the years. For "1+1", you need to satisfy each and every point of WP:WIAFA. Starting point, that ridiculously long lead section, a problem in most Beyonce articles, including its FAs. And I'm out of here. — Legolas(talk2me)16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the conversation regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)
I am new to this 'editing' for Wiki. But I liked what you had to say but also found the whole topic/concept of questioning what is right or wrong to have in a encyclopedia biography on Wiki.
I am assuming that Wiki does not have a "Template" of sorts with regard to the statistics section on the pages located on the right side for these entries rgarding demographic informnation (divorces/children)?
What I also wanted to point out was that the gentleman who was, for example, wanting "Queen of Pop" added, in my opinion, these are "descriptive" labels that a culture or society places onto a person, place or thing, correct? Would you agree with that? And if this preceeding sentance is more truthful a determination by a majority, then doesn't it seem that there would be a whole different "catagory" or section that was all about the person's influence over or within a culture/society? There, the facts could be objectively placed but under the auspices of cultural/societal inter-relationships. I do not like reading something where there are biases and descriptive words that have a different meaning or context, especially on a timeline in history, too.
Something like "She has been called/labled the Queen of Pop [source] by many people [source] in the 1980's music industry leaders and consumers/followers [source] as well as mainstream media (?) [source]" as opposed to "She is the Queen of Pop" or even "She has been known for being the Queen of Pop" or "She is the Queen of Pop who started women's pop music" - all of these I do not like and think they have biased natures.
I while back I gave you a few pointers on your Madonna articles. Care to take a look at a new article that I created yesterday and (if you can) make a comment or two? By the way, I see from your profile that you live in India. I live in the United States and I know very little about Indian culture. I can, however, tell you that I never get tired of looking at pictures of Madhuri Dixit and Aishwarya Rai! — Jimknut (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Legolas. Can you help me? Can you tell me the peak position of Toni Braxton's "Make My Heart" on the BB Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart? Novice7 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest Legolas. thank you so much for all of your hard work, you deserve all of your awards and then some.
I'm new here and was dismayed about the Lady Gaga Wikipedia page, that has not been updated since the Sydney Town hall concert. There was no mention of Taiwan, MTV Japan AID, promotions at various talk and tv shows (the View, Jimmy Kimmel, SYTYCD), VMA performance as Calderone, winning the VMA awards You and I single released with video and fashion films, Cher ft Gaga duet, Tony Bennett ft Gaga, and on and on.
Don't know why it's so old and comparing to contemporary pop star Katy Perry (her page is updated to the release of her 6th single which was practiclaly yesterday), this is really old and lags WAY behind.
So was wondering what's going on and I wanted to see what can be done about updating? I'm afraid I'm too much of a little monster and so I'm going to be totally biased, so I may not be the best contributor, and I don't have your objective, clear, writing style. Also, the page is semiprotected.
Thanks for giving me any information. It really is upsetting to see the updates so old, even as Gaga has this huge fanbase...
