User talk:Lapadite

Welcome to Lapadite77's talk page

Lapadite77 (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Lapadite}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Music label

Hello, I'd lean towards that it doesn't deserve it's own article as I'd imagine it's just them releasing their own material. I haven't checked, but if there is information out there about the label, it could probably be fit into the Garbage article itself. Namely because it doesn't sound like the label would be outside the interest of anyone interested in the band, y'know? :)Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so only if the label started signing other artists would it be noteworthy. Thanks.--Lpdte77 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage

I know I didn't contribute much to the genre discussion (think arguments that big intimidate me, specially when I don't know what can I say!), but I see you've edited some articles by the band, including the albums that I've been regularly postponing to work before the GA process. Thus I wonder if you could take a look at The World Is Not Enough (song), see what needs a prose cleanup before I try featuring it on the main page (it was released 15 years ago, the star is on the article since 2007, it could have a chance!). igordebraga ≠ 18:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igordebraga, Hi, no worries. One just takes it one argument at a time I guess haha. I've copy edited and stopped at the Music Video section. Checked the sources, changed some of the syntax of the prose, and added some relevant inline tags with a reason for most of them. There are a few links that need to be updated, a few statements that need better sources, and a bit of a rewrite I believe is needed around a couple of tagged statements that are not strictly supported by its source. Get back to me after you review the edits I made. Great cleanup you did beforehand btw. --Lpdte77 (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit there was on the lead. What do you think? Do you think the begging should state "co-produced and performed by alternative rock group Garbage", since it's stated in the body that they produced and mixed the non-orchestral part of the track? --Lpdte77 (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put that in a separate sentence to not extend the opening phrase much longer. Even if it wasn't included here. igordebraga ≠ 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now (in those sections). You submitted it but I'll check the post-Music Video sections later. --Lpdte77 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igordebraga, Actually, the tagged statement (not in citation given) on the copyright section needs to be corrected. I will change it to reflect what the source says.--Lpdte77 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igordebraga, finished reviewing the whole article. Fixed the tagged statements. Everything looks good, deservedly awaiting main page-showcase. I think the Beautiful Garbage article should be submitted for review (for GA). Do you think it needs anything else?--Lpdte77 (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, unsourced phrases are a no-go. igordebraga ≠ 01:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article? Lpdte77 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every section after Track Listing! igordebraga ≠ 03:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, hah, well the Album release section isn't my forte much; I'd leave that to editors like Breakinguptheguy. However, the mixer, world tour, reception, & charts sections look well-sourced to me. Can you give a specific example of what in there needs sourcing? Lpdte77 (talk)

Last sentence of Commercial Performance, some lines in the tour one... and of course, checking what's already used shows problems. igordebraga ≠ 10:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dead links are fixed. The other ones highlighted are just redirects that are still working. Looks like everything but the tagged statement in Album release is fine. Lpdte77 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the album yet, but I hope the booklet isn't as incomplete as this! Better search a bit more... igordebraga ≠ 12:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igordebraga Yeah that can't be all, there's only 'special thanks', no mention of personnel/credits. I'd looked around a bit but didn't find anything. I'll add their respective main instruments until it can be found. Lapadite (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could be nice to improve those articles (which Breakinguptheguy made sure to provide some foundation), specially to maybe complete a full Garbage studio albums good topic this year. I just hope reviews don't take as long as my last attempt. igordebraga ≠ 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

igordebraga Breakinguptheguy has been awol. I tried contacting him in the past. The workload on the self-titled currently intimidates me, so I'll be starting on 2.0... finalizing the critical reception section. When I get around to it, rather. Pretty much every section of both articles needs improvement, along with as the references (e.g., [1]). Lapadite (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I want to apologise unreservedly for the unseemly tit-for-tat squabble we fell into on the Talk:Pop music page. Intelligence is such a rare commodity that those who have it should not waste it attacking each other - we both seek the same goal, after all: the improvement and refinement of this body of knowledge. I withdraw any accusations against you, whether deliberate or not, and I entirely recognise your right to disagree with my point of view and to express your opinion in any way you see fit. For my part, I take no personal offence at any comments you made about me and I hope we can continue to work together on this great project without ill feeling. Btljs (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. Things can get heated when people are strongly coming from different viewpoints, showing restraint can be difficult at times for all sides. I appreciate the apology, and I'd like to extend mine as well. :) Yes, and It's good we at least both agree the article needs improvement. I know my points are rather general not entirely helpful, but like I'd said before, I'm really not able to focus on it right now; I'll be revisiting the article/the issue at a later time, so I actually might be helpful then haha. Good luck in the meantime. Cheers. Lpdte77 (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Taylor Swift not considered a singer-songwriter to you?

You recently made various changes to Taylor Swift's page claiming she is not a singer-songwriter, why is that? I am interested in your opinion as she does write, compose, and perform many of her songs. She is not just a pop singer. Qwertyasdwek (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyasdwek: Hi, my edit summary stated per article singer-songwriter and the fact that there is no reliable music site (or music writer) source referring to/discussing her in the context of a singer-songwriter (as opposed to a singer and songwriter). The issue is with the usage of the particular term singer-songwriter, which does not traditionally refer to a pop singer that writes/co-writes their songs. There's a discussion on this on Adele's talk page; my views are stated there If you want to refer to that. There is also an older discussion on the talk page.Lpdte77 (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lapadite77: Taylor Swift does in fact play both acoustic guitar and piano. Many, if not most, of her songs do focus on personal messages, in her case, past relationships and loves, which she is the sole writer of. I see where you are coming from though as the term singer-songwriter used to refer to American folk music, but I believe it is time for the term to change, or it will go extinct. Qwertyasdwek (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyasdwek: It's not simply whether the singer plays an instrument or contributes to their songs, otherwise any recording artist that gets a writing credit would qualify, please read the article. It is a very particular term/category, akin to a genre, wherein artists are the singlehanded songwriters (compose and arrange the music, and lyrics) and instrumentally perform their music. It's not up to us to interpret or reinterpret the term as we wish, presuming the meaning of the term has evolved or should evolve - that is original research; it's up to the music writers, the sources used to back up encyclopedic content. It is not reliably sourced in her article that she belongs to the category of singer-songwriters; there is no music writer that appears to discuss her/her music in the context of a singer-songwriter; she is referred to as singer and songwriter or singer/songwriter, i.e. a singer who writes/co-writes (typically lyrics and perhaps some melody contribution) some of their songs.Lpdte77 (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lapadite77: So I'm curious, would you have considered her a singer-songwriter earlier in her career, before she was so famous when she wrote, composed, and performed her own songs about love? Qwertyasdwek (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qwertyasdwek Fame has nothing to do with it, and I'm not very familiar with her career. Looking through track listings for her earlier work there are other writers credited (which is not the only criteria if you will). Nevertheless, It comes down to whether a reliable source (a music site/writer) categorizes her as a singer-songwriter. Like I said before, our personal opinions or own interpretations (.e.g, WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:TE) should not factor in encyclopedic content. If a RS denotes her or discusses her as a singer-songwriter then she can be cited as such in her article, otherwise it's unsourced, original research, and technically misleading. Lpdte77 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ready, Steady, Go! (album)

Should the High School Nation Tour be mentioned in Ready, Steady, Go! (album)?http://www.highschoolnation.org/#!events/c1zy6 -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph Prasad: Sure, you can put it under a Tour heading, between Release and Critical reception sections. The dates he's playing or has played would be good to cite. Lapad (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. Source #2 talks about how many albums were sold in the first week, 2000 copies. How do I use a ref name, due to it already being used in the body of the article?

@Joseph Prasad: This article i linked is helpful for that.

On the opening/first < ref > of the original citation, use < ref name=a short name for source > (without spaces), and then wherever else you want to use that source just use that ref name but with a forward slash before the last >

so, you would use < ref name=short name for source/ > for all other citations from that source. I'll make the edit, and you can see the ref change I made.Lapad (talk)

Thanks! Figured out how to do it before you responded actually! -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit

Regarding a recent edit I made on The Maze Runner. A previous editor used a semi-colon incorrectly by having an independent clause coupled with a subordinate clause. A semi-colon connects two "independent" clauses. I hope that clears up the confusion. PNW Raven PNW Raven (talk)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE 2014 report

Guild of Copy Editors 2014 Annual Report

Our 2014 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page;
Review the election results;
Membership news;
Changes around the Guild's pages;
Plans for 2015.

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 8 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Not Your Kind of People page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/75.129.101.158

He/she is still added bare URL and probably quesionable sources on any albums and songs pages. Would you teach him/her how to properly cite templates and verified sources? 221.120.123.162 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

221.120.123.162, I see they have attempted to expand citations a couple times recently [2], [3], and they haven't edited since you left a message on their page, so wait to see how they carry on. Lapadite (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Breitbart (website)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Breitbart (website). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hurts Like Heaven

Hey there. As I pointed "pop" already stated from reliable sources are:

Pitchfork: "Coldplay‘s pure-pop ambitions"
Drowned in Sound: "all Eighties pop shimmer"

Do explicitly a pop song? 115.164.52.253 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]