Talk:Luxurious

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Luxurious article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Luxurious has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Luxurious is part of the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 10, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 15, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
April 9, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
May 9, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
July 25, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
September 4, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 2, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
June 16, 2010	Featured topic removal candidate	Demoted
September 20, 2011	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
July 31, 2020	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Good article

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Gwen Stefani Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gwen Stefani, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gwen Stefani on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gwen StefaniWikipedia:WikiProject Gwen StefaniTemplate:WikiProject Gwen StefaniGwen Stefani
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in hip-hop, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Women in hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Women in hip-hopWomen in hip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yet another Gwen Stefani Commercial Advertisement?

Fresh from the featured advert for "Cool" we now have yet another free advert masquerading as a legitimate Wiki article. Please explain to me why you feel that in 100 years time someone will type the words "Luxurious" into our search engine expecting to see this article? Yes she should have a bio, but a track by track uncritical puff piece for each song? No. --HasBeen 14:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints

So far one complaint has been filed against User:Mel Etitis, with a second one currently in progress. If this continuous opposition to anything User:Anittas, User:OmegaWikipedia or myself continue, a final complaint will be going to HQ. Winnermario 23:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD debate link

This page has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please explain how this advert copied word for word from a press release is suitable for addition to any encylcopaedia other than one of advertising success? Is wiki just an extention of the commercial iterests of USA recording corporations? --HasBeen 14:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another AFD failed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxurious (song). Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I've placed this as a sample article at RfC (regarding disagreements over table formatting), and created a discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something about the song

The article is pretty good! I applaud the user who improved it. I will take the initative of completing it! –Cruz AFade ^{(Speak about it} | ^{How many?)} 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment by sockpuppet of Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs), the user who expanded this article. Extraordinary Machine 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free image

I've removed Image:Luxuriousscreencapwithslimthug1.jpg again, since we now have a free-licensed image that illustrates Slim Thug's participation in the song. Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." Extraordinary Machine 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luxurious (song) → Luxurious — I can understand that people might be looking for an article about luxuries, but it seems unlikely that luxurious would be used to describe the economic term luxury good, defined as "a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises". ShadowHalo 07:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Support. I understand the idea of wanting to redirect to real-world stuff as opposed to pop culture stuff in cases like this, but I think "Luxurious" is far enough away from "Luxury goods" to warrant a move. Recury 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Possibly with a dablink to Luxury at the top of the page. Saikokira 06:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unwilling support. Per Recury's reason about Luxury goods. If I find anything else notable called "Luxurious" to write an article about, I will, but I'm not having any luck. cab 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

oppose a reader searching for a topic might not know what it is "exactly" titled at so they will type in similar words like Luxurious. The concept of luxury/luxurious is far more primary then the song. 205.157.110.11 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The issue of people searching for luxury is a moot point. Luxury is a disambiguation page whose first article listed is Luxury good (this song doesn't even appear there). The question is whether or not people looking for the economic term Luxury good will use the search term luxurious. ShadowHalo 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA

Sorry for the late review, i can't see anything wrong with the article except this sentence -

It entered the top forty of most of the charts it entered but had only mediocre success overall and was less popular than the previous singles from L.A.M.B. I don't like the wording of the first part (It entered the top forty of most of the charts it entered, it entered twice in one sentence) perhaps something like, "It entered top forty charts worldwide, but had mediocre success blah blah". Also saying "only" is a bit POV (implying it's a poor performance). Anyway goodwork and gl with FLC. M3tal H3ad 05:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "It entered top forty charts" implies that the charts themselves are top forty (as opposed to the UK Top 75 singles, for example) so I changed it to "It entered the top forty worldwide" since it peaked at 27 on the world chart. Thanks for reviewing the article. ShadowHalo 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Luxurious/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and clean up! — R ² 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]