Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sia

Pointless wikiproject?

Extended content

I don't see the point of this Wikiproject. Most of the content will just be songs that she has co-written. Can someone send me the link were a nomination discussion was set up and where a majority of people voted in favour of this Wikiproject's creation please.  — Calvin999 23:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC) If this project is pointless to you, then don't participate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC) I take that as a no then. You know you shouldn't have created this, right? It hasn't been approved.  — Calvin999 23:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC) I didn't know permission was required to be bold and create a new project. Your time is much better spent creating and expanding content, not bothering with something like this. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC) I can't comment on whether you knew or not. But surely you knew that in order to have a Wikiproject, you actually need to have more than just one editor (yourself) apart of it in order for it to be a project, considering that Wikipedia is a collaborative force. I find it difficult to get around the fact that you've been an active editor for more than 8 years and have an edit count of more than 125,000 edits and you've never come across the Wikiproject Proposal system before. If you didn't know about the proposal system, then how did you manage to reply to my comment on the talk page there in less than 60 seconds? There is no Wikiproject here. Maybe your time would be better spent asking someone about the procedure first.  — Calvin999 23:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC) I have WikiProject Council on my watchlist and I knew there was an area designated for WikiProject proposals, but I assumed it was a place for help and not a requirement. I started a new project, let's move on. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC) So you think the proposal system doesn't apply to you? You've still created a Wikiproject without permission and knowingly so as you've just admitted. There is a system in place for a reason, and it applies to everyone. And it's not just for "help".  — Calvin999 23:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC) So, are you just complaining or is there something you want me to do? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Both? I'm complaining because this WP isn't approved by a majority consensus of editors and it shouldn't exist (and kind of doesn't because it's just you as a member). A WP is a team of editors who have already expressed interested and voted in favour. Either you close the WP indefinitely, of you close it temporarily and follow procedure like the rest of us have to and do it properly. The you will really find out whether or not there is support for it and if people will actually commit to being apart of it.  — Calvin999 23:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC) I have no plans to take either action, sorry. Again, let's spend our time being productive, yes? I won't engage in this discussion or the one at WikiProject Council any further, so you take whatever actions you feel are appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC) If you feel you're beyond what everyone else has to do, then that's your prerogative. I already spend my time creating and expanding articles and being productive thank you. I don't waste my time creating one-man-band Wikiproject's with no members in it.  — Calvin999 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC) OK, you don't, but I did. Please move on to something else. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've collapse the above discussion, which seems particularly needless now that someone else has signed up to participate in the project. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Three times I've asked you not to collapse this thread. It's rude, and there's no need to. This isn't your talk page. You are deliberately trying to be antagonistic and trying to create an edit war. I didn't post again here after you asked for me not to, then you go and provoke me again. A talk page is for discussing, but because you don't agree you keep slapping collapsible boxes here because you don't want others to see this conversation. Why? And attracting just one editor (that you asked) is also not a reason. There's still no Wikiproject here. You don't need a WP for just two people.  — Calvin999 09:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality assessment

Does someone know how to enable the quality assessment feature for Template:WikiProject Sia? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Low priority for songs written by Sia but performed by others?

I think all songs written by Sia, but performed by others, should be considered "low" priority on the assessment scale. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Two new articles

• "Cheap Thrills" (song)
• "Unstoppable" (Sia song)

Feel free to help expand! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Chandelier (Sia song) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Chandelier (Sia song) to be moved to Chandelier (song). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Chandelier (Sia song) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Chandelier (Sia song) to be moved to Chandelier (song). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

 Moved ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheap Thrills article is under-performing.

The introduction, the commercial performance and the critical reception are all underwhelming and full of contradicting, false information. There is even no single mention to the youtube views. Sad that such a hit is treated just like any other song by a pop star. make it more interesting!Estodiantes (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Estodiantes is clearly a sock of the de facto banned SalemHanna. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Estodiantes: the number of YouTube views is not considered to be a vital piece of information except in the case where a record is broken or some sort of milestone is reached, for example, in the case of Psy's "Gangnam Style". If you feel you can improve the article and "make it more interesting" with reliable, independent sources, please go ahead – after all, Wikipedia is free for anybody to edit, it's not up to somebody else to improve the article for your benefit. Exactly what parts are "underwhelming" and "full of false, contradicting information"? It includes a description of the song's composition, some critical reviews, a section on the accompanying promotional video, worldwide chart positions and certifications – there isn't very much missing as far as I can see. And there is no reason why this article should get special attention above "any other song by a pop star". Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120: thank you for taking the time to reply to me.

If you take a look at [[1]] for example, from the very first sentence it's false info.

The song hasn't hit number one ONLY in these countries, and the rest of this section is full of dated info that whenever a person tries to up-date it it get reverted, or simply no one would care to do, you can clearly see that in the article history.

And the song genre is definitely wrong. It's been for three weeks "pop rock" till the genre piece as a whole got removed. Not good.

How can someone add validate resources to both of these? Especially when the commercial performance section's obviously-validate resource is the charts sextion underneath? No need to mention the edit wars that occured on this very article.

And no I mean.. Take a look at the Sia's own Chandelier article or Rihanna's Diamonds' one for example. Both songs had achieved very similar success to Cheap Thrills, so by comparing te three articles you can clearly perceive how underwhelming and brief the Cheap Thrills article is. Estodiantes (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Estodiantes is clearly a sock of the de facto banned SalemHanna. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the false and dated information that you talk about is – can you give examples? The table of chart positions around the world only includes charts that can be properly sourced and that are considered to be good charts – for instance, the Croatian Airplay Chart has been discussed and it has been determined that its sourcing is unreliable, so that's why it was deleted... the link to the discussion is here. It's not a good idea to list all the countries where it has been number one in the lead section because this is meant to be a summary, not a list – a reader can see the chart positions in the table.

I rarely get involved in genre discussions – it's not something that is very important to me and it is a subjective view that varies from one person to another. So the only solution is to use a genre that has actually been quoted in a critical review. The "pop rock" source was valid, but unfortunately it was added by an already blocked editor. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"The Greatest"

Woop! "The Greatest". Improvements are welcome as press coverage arises. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pretty Hurts (song) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pretty Hurts (song) to be moved to Pretty Hurts. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

 Moved ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Coding help

Unresolved

Could someone help with coding for this WikiProject's template so it shows assessment levels? I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Sia/Assessment, but that doesn't seem to be enough for class rankings to display. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I created Category:Sia Furler articles by quality and its subcategories. Maybe this will help? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell :/ Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just created these. I think sometimes a day or two is needed for the system to catch up, but that's assuming the assessment setup is created correctly. It really should not be this hard to establish quality assessment for a WikiProject... Also, it seems some categories are "Sia"-related, while others are "Sia Furler"-related. Not sure how to fix this discrepancy. *sigh* ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Help_for_WikiProject_Sia.3F to see if anyone can come take a look. Feel free to add any other thoughts you may have there. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That should help. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The assessment class is not showing because it is set to use a custom mask, instead of the standard set of quality levels. The error on the pae even says so: "The QUALITY_SCALE parameter is set to "subpage" but there is no custom class mask held at /class. Therefore the quality scale has been switched off." Change |QUALITY_SCALE=subpage to |QUALITY_SCALE=standard and the class should display properly. Then you will need to create the categories for all of the quality classes. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@JimMillerJr: Thank you for taking a look. I hope this diff shows a correct change. I see there is now a list of Sia-related articles to create, like Category:FA-Class Sia articles, etc. Should I create all of these and then request the deletion of categories like Category:FA-Class Sia Furler articles, etc? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I would actually change the |ATTENTION_CAT and |ASSESSMENT_CAT parameters to match the existing Sia Furler categories. The categories should match the main article title, and Sia is a disambig page. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@JimMillerJr: Like so? Seems there are lots of new categories to create, so I guess I need to delete all of these I just need to create the FL, List, and N/A categories? This is very confusing, but I do appreciate your help. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Do these need to be deleted before the new importance categories with "Sia Furler" are created? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I believe that you can go ahead and create the new categories. The old ones can be brought up at CfD once they are all empty. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)