User talk:Ericorbit/Archive27

Madonna singles discography

Eric, can you keep an eye on this? A deluded user is continuously removing ITG as a single from LAV, claiming that the song was never included in its tracklist. I have listed reliable sources like Allmusic, Billboard, Knots.Google, verifying the existence of the song on LAV, but the user is kind of deaf to everything, citing Amazon and stuff. I don't wanna have a 3RR on this silly thing, however, when someone blindly refuses to accept reliable sources and resorts to calling me names, I believe administrative interventions are required. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And omg! I'm a frothing adolescent. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems things have calmed down here, sorry I was mostly offline during Thanksgiving week. I see Explicit asked for the offending comments to be removed from his User Page. Is there still a dispute about the discography page? - eo (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Break My Heart (You Really)(song)

You deleted the Break My Heart (You Really)(song) article a couple of times, stating that it is a recreation of an article deleted previously, based on a deletion discussion. The article has been recreated a third time. Can you please direct me to the deletion discussion of which you are basing your G4 deletion? Thanks, Cindamuse (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Supremes

Eo, hi, see these two articles here,

This Is The Story: The Jean Terrell Years 1970–1973 (delete this one)

This Is the Story: The 70s Albums, Vol. 1 (1970–1973 – The Jean Terrell Years) (keep this one)

can you delete the first one, please, so there's only one article about this album instead of two? Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done - eo (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello, I have opened So Yesterday for a Peer Review. Please leave your comments here. Thank you. Novice7 Talk 14:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello. Please leave your comments here. Novice7 Talk 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

How can we confirm the position. In Billboard.biz Subscribed readers have access, but other users don't. Novice7 Talk 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If it charted, it will be in this book: http://www.recordresearch.com/rnb/hot_rnb_songs_42-10.php - eo (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In case you still like Beyonce

Take a look here. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Annie Lennox

I'm starting a stub on Tali Lennox, daughter of singer Annie Lennox. Tali has embarked on a modeling career, and she seems headed for stardom. Annie Lennox's entry is locked -- I'm sure for good reason. Would you be in position to provide a link from mother to daughter when I'm done?

Thanks so much! Miss Ivonne (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, although Annie's page is only semi-protected so you should not have a problem editing it. If you have issues you can also put a request on the article's talk page, in case I'm not around. - eo (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC courtesy notice - succession boxes

As someone who has taken part in previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums, I'd like to notify you of a request for comment that is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. It would be nice to finally come to a resolution on this. If you have already participated in this RFC, then please disregard this notice. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediabase charts?

Mediabase Pop 100 Airplay Number 1's of 2010. Any thoughts? Do we need another list like this? The information here seems a bit trivial but I guess it can be sourced, although none are included at the moment. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not notable, and to my knowledge, there have been lists like this (mediabase) that have been deleted in the past. I would submit it to WP:AfD. Let me know if you do, I'll chime in. Everything about the article is wrong, the title is formatted badly, I have no idea what "unofficial number ones" means, the headers are formatted wrong, I have no idea why there is also a huge list of top 20 singles. Ugh. More, I went to the article for Mediabase and it's written so poorly, the entire thing needs to be redone. A total mess. I think there were quite enough (if not too many) of these lists for Billboard charts alone. - eo (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Lists of number ones

Just another question to pass along to you. I apologize for the number of messages I've sent to you today, but as lists for number ones are being created for 2011 charts now, I was wondering if you have an opinion on what the format of titles for these lists should be. My thinking is if it is the name of a specific chart, it should be List of <<name of chart>> number-one singles of <<year>> (e.g. List of Dutch Top 40 number-one singles of 2010, List of Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks number-one singles of 2010), while for more general use of genre, it would be List of number-one <<name of genre>> singles of <<year>> (e.g. List of number-one country singles of 2010 (U.S.), List of number-one dance singles of 2010 (U.S.) with disambiguation by country a necessity. I mention this because of the inconsistency of lists such as List of number-one Billboard Hot Tropical Songs of 2010 and List of Mainstream Top 40 number-one hits of 2010 (U.S.). The latter also showing the inconsistent use of hits vs. singles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, a specific chart name shouldnt need a country disambig, but a more "descriptive" term (country, dance, rock, etc.) does. I just can't believe how many of these there are. I've been tempted in the past to create some number-ones lists but stopped myself, thinking "nah this chart is way too marginal." But I guess it doesn't matter now. Sheesh. - eo (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

take that

I know the source doesn't reflect the information im adding but common sense has to come into play here. For instance the never forger collection turned 3x platinum 5 years ago and has updated itself since, so surely if u add 5 years worth of sales the figure of 2,000,000 which has been confirmed by Music Week seems entirely likely. Also The Flood has been confirmed to have sold 150k in the first 2 weeks, 45k last week and has also had 1 more week inside the top 10 and 2 weeks inside the top 15 so surely it has reached Silver status. Just because BPI is not up to date and accurate why should the figures and common sense provided be wrong?Yids2010 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I take it that your refusal to answer my question is due to the fact that you agree with me and that common sense should prevail as it is backed up with the obvious figures from BPI week on week, if they are added these it leaves the albums and singles in question certified as Silver or higher, regardless if the reference provided hasn't kept its site up to date. Yids2010 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I just hadn't answered yet. Common sense does play into it, but again it is not up to us as editors to assume a certain number of sales, or to do our own math, or to think "surely the BPI has certified such and such by now". Forums and message boards cannot be used as a reliable source. BPI certs should be sourced with a link to BPI... the same goes for RIAA in the US. - eo (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Born This Way

What do you think of the contributions of PinkFunhouse13 (talk · contribs)? There have been borderline fancruft additions, moving pages without consensus like the one above, reverting other's additions as well as innumerable poo edits. Warnings fall to deaf ears it seems. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of borderline edits, but they generally tend to stay just barely on the good side of the border.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kww here. All I am certain of is that the article is gonna be a pain in the ass until the damn thing is released. - eo (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I will be monitoring the user's edits though, and *putting vandal fighting armour* for defending the article. Legolas is here, lol. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I will too. I did not like how the article was moved from incubator with no discussion, and to the wrong article name, and how my note on PF13's talk page was basically ignored. Not good. - eo (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that notes and warnings are always unresponded in the user's page. but ya, he/she kind of escapes the block by being borderline on the safe side. Don't worry Eric, I will keep a strong lookout through its contributions. Oh yeah, Happy Holidays! Which party are you going to go? :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and same to you! Big family parties first, am leaving in about an hour to drive to parents' house 6+ hours away, with my big dog in the back seat! Then back to BOS for new years - no idea where I'll end up yet. I'm sure I'll be online sporadically over the weekend. I never go anywhere without my macbook :-) - eo (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to know that. I'm sure your watchlists exceeds 500, no? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha, yes - 857 at the moment. But I'm constantly adding/removing. - eo (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Humphh. 11,822 articles on my watchlist. How about I give you 5000 of mine?—Kww(talk) 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you need to go thru and trim them down every so often, ya big dummy! You can't police everything or you'll drive yourself crazy. After a while I have to let articles go, especially if they aren't "current" anymore and the activity slows way down. - eo (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit kevin!!! Are you mad? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting copy of deleted articles

Hi. I need a favor. I need a copy of deleted articles Ricardo Fort and Kohana (Web Framework). I will improve them and re-create them if they meet the criteria. I'll appreciate if you can place them in my userspace. Neo139/Ricardo_Fort and Neo139/Koahana (Web Framework). Thanks --Neo139 (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks^^ --Neo139 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! And oops Im sorry I didnt name the subpages with the titles you specified, somehow I missed that part. Hope you got enough to work with. - eo (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Trina discography

This discography has to be protected, it's been repeatedly vandalized by the same IP Vandal almost daily, look at the history. Please put a semi-protection on it, thanks. Hometown Kid (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - eo (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Account for user blocked indefinitely.—Kww(talk) 04:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Another user by the name of Trinafan92 has been vandalizing this page numerous amount of times. This user has done the same exact disruptive edits to the discography, and I have warned that user that if the vandalism continues that he or she will be reported and yet that user still continues. Please give that user a warning. Hometown Kid (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like obvious block evasion to me. I placed a block and tagged. - eo (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Madonna albums discography

Eric, a protection is needed for the article. Too much of vandalism and IP poo addition going on. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - eo (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Eric, as a matter of fact would you take a look at "Just Dance" and The Fame? I'm getting tired of all the IP activities, the continuous reversions and the fancruft addition going on. Both are GA articles and such reversions will lead to the instability of the articles. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Lady Gaga songs

What to do with this? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Zap! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lady Gaga songs - eo (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol, poor Flowless1234 (talk · contribs). — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Believe (Cher album)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand this edit.

• You removed the "citation needed" tags from the second column. I believe these tags are justified since no source was given for all those figures?
• You removed sourced information from the sales column. There is a source on top of the column, showing how a certification can be translated to a sales figure. So every sourced certification also sources a sales figure. That's what the "+" is for.

It's not that I care too much for this edit, I just use this page as an example for a project I'm working on (have a look if you are curious). I just want to understand the reasoning. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed them from the second column because I think there is an overkill on the citation tags in that one table. There are many many articles with peak positions that are not sourced, and I'm not saying that's a good thing, but as the other columns had citation tags on practically every single row, I felt it more important that the sales and certifications were sourced first, and that's where the cleanup focus should be. Also, one cannot and should not derive a sales figure based upon its certification. In many cases they are not even related. Most times, certifications are based on the number of units shipped, not sold. More, record labels have to apply and pay for such certifications (for example to the RIAA) to receive the award. If a reliable source exists that Title A sold a million copies then that's great, use it - but it does not mean that it has been certified platinum, for example. And since labels and artist management have a bad habit of inflating sales figures to make their clients appear more popular than they really are, I don't think it's a smart idea to assume that because an album is Gold that it has sold 500,000 copies. Most of the time, it has sold far less. - eo (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and P.S. I have a big problem with the '+' symbol being placed after a sales figure. As editors, we should source a sales figure and insert it into an article as such. It is not up to us to assume that, "oh by now, it's sold more copies than this" and add a '+'. As sales increase, and new sources are published verifying the sales figure then by all means, update the article. But a '+' is confusing at best and meaningless at worst. - eo (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well, Although the + is quite common, it goes out the window. However, it is an extremely standard procedure to base sales on certifications only. I'd hazard a guess and say 99% of sales figures on Wikipedia are based on certifications alone. Are you suggesting these should all be removed? I'm going to raise a suggestion on WP:SONG WP:ALBUMS soon on how to format certifications. I propose to use this figure, but with a proper caveat, e.g. what I currently use at this example. What do you think?

I don't agree about the chart positions not requiring any tags, but I do agree it was a bit overdone. I think this could be handled by a general section tag rather than a tag on each and every table figure. --Muhandes (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Born This Way again

I believe a consensus is being reached by editors that the articke must be moved to the incubator. Also, Eric can you protect Who's That Girl World Tour? Complete vandalism. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

WTG Tour done. I'll keep an eye on the BTW discussion, will let it ride for a bit more before moving. - eo (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

cover version combining - How Soon is Now?

Hey eo - Thanks so much for your edits, you are clearly a HUGE asset to wikipedia. Respectfully, however, I'm going to roll back one of your edits, and I wanted to let you know. After merging t.a.t.u.'s version of How Soon is Now with the original Smith's version, others have stepped in and swelled t.a.t.u.'s portion of the page to >22%. This is a disproportionate value placed on this cover. While I imagine that the cover combination effort you've taken on is very useful to wikipedia, there is clearly a risk to the work, when follow-on shaping of the combined article isn't also a part of the project. As I've spent a good deal of time trying to make sure I'm not way out of line, might I also request that when you combine cover versions, you 1 - link to the manual of style entry that supports the mandate that covers shouldn't have a separate page (Though I'm sure it exists, I spent 30 mins trying to find it, and couldn't) and 2 - spend 45 seconds on the discussion page supporting your change. There is a great deal of discussion on the How Soon is Now discussion page, and only one brief comment is supportive of your edit; everyone else is most certainly opposed. All due respect to your work, I just found the subsequent results of your edit to be troubling. JGray (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added to the discussion on the article talk page. - eo (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RE:Jordin Sparks discography

Oops, sorry about that but next time I will (: ozurbanmusic (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga‎

Eric can you please semi the above article? Its been losing its state to IP vand, IP fancruft from a longtime, and now another is continuously adding broken codes and magazine lists to the article, which is unacceptabe. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh and full-protect List of Special Honors recieved by Lady Gaga. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. - eo (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You have no right deleting my contribution to the additional milestones section on the Billboard 200

You deleted my contribution to the additional milestones section of the Billboard 200 article.

1.) DMX is indeed the ONLY artist in history to have all of his first five albums debut at number one on the Billboard 200 charts.

That's different from the next milestone of having five consecutive albums debut at number one which is a feat that multiple artists have accomplished. As a matter of fact that leads me to number 2.

2.) The previously existing milestone stated that the only artists to have 5 consecutive albums debut at number one are Dave Matthews Band, Jay Z, DMX and Mettalica, actually other artists have done it and off the top off my head Eminem comes to mind. He recently accomplished it with his run from Marshall Mathers LP to Recovery.

So I repeat, Wikipedia is for everyone and you don't own it so don't delete my valid contributions.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.28.106 (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I reverted it once as well, believing that it was redundant. I was going to ask Ericorbit here if he knew anything about it. I think you need a source for this. A first album debuting at #1? Not simply reaching #1? What's the source? The Eminem matter has been vetted on the article's Talk Page - soundtracks and compilations don't count here. Sensei48 (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it for the same exact reasons. Its redundant. And last time I checked, I do have "the right" to edit that article, as does anyone else. - eo (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop 100

The Pop 100 had chart listings on billboard.biz for one year following the final printed edition in June 2009. The charts are not identical to what is posted for the mainstream pop chart plus have 100 positions, so what I saw was definitely different. Maybe you can explain this: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/chart-search-results/singles/3120852. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I wonder why they did this, especially after releasing a statement saying it was "discontinued"? I'm wondering also if we should add all of those remaining #1s to the table in the article. What do you think? - eo (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering. Using .biz as a reference is the only way to provide an online source to any of the songs now anyway, so I don't think anyone's going to argue if it's added. It seems meaningless though, and I'm not sure if I'd want to put in the effort. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Let's leave it be, it's been in the same condition for well over a year with no issues. Why Billboard continued it for so long is anyone's guess. They're weird sometimes. - eo (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way

Eric, the fancruft has started madly. Just now I redirected "You and I (Lady Gaga song)". I do think you should full-protect it or salt it. Its going to be a mad year I'm sure at Gagadom. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you beat me to the punch, I was just typing up an AfD nomination for it. - eo (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the song had enough national news coverage to warrant its own article. I will re-read the song notability requirements. Will the article at least be resurrected as it last appeared when and if the notability threshold is reached? (And for the record, I have not even heard the song so "fancruft" isn't my thing :p) --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would say at this point, any text about its live performance could be placed into a "promotion" section in the Born This Way article (obviously she's singing new songs to help promote the upcoming album). If and when the song is released as a single and/or if it gets a music video and charts on a few national surveys, then I'd say it will be notable. - eo (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My my, another mopping for you. Born This Way (Single). — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me why the re-direct that I just created for "Scheiße (song)" was deleted? I am just honestly not understanding the requirements for starting an article page. In my opinion, the article I started for "You and I" was justified given the number of reliable sources I used (and the article will only expand as we approach the album's release). Then, assuming that my work would just be deleted if I attempted to write an actual article stub, I created an article for "Scheiße" that re-directed to the album article until more information about the song emerged. I am absolutely not questioning your role as an administrator, but would you mind providing a link to guidelines about re-directs or notability requirements or something so that I know what is appropriate and what is not. I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with notability requirements, but I just don't see the problem with starting articles once enough reliable sources mention a particular subject. Thank you for any assistance or explanation you may be able to provide. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is just no need for it and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it is only going to be a redirect, why is it being created in the first place? More, the song itself is not even in the article for Born This Way, since it doesn't have a reliable source backing up the claim that a) the title is correct and b) it will be on the album. So aside from taking up space with the hope that maybe someday it might be notable enough for a stand-alone article, what is the purpose of it? - eo (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about two different song articles here. 1. "You and I": I don't see the purpose of deleting the article, as it had enough media coverage in reliable sources to hold its own. I have seen plenty of stubs here with far less text and referencing that have survived. If the song is already receiving significant coverage, no crystal balling is taking place. 2. "Scheiße": In this case, I understand the argument of crystal ball, which is exactly why I did not create a stub, but rather a re-direct. The purpose? To re-direct people searching for the song to the album. Surely thousands of people per day are searching for the latest Lady Gaga news (I maintain that I am not a Gaga-obsessed fanatic; I am an experienced editor trying to help the Wikipedia community and assist with article organization). Once there is enough coverage, the re-direct can be converted to a proper song article. I insist that I am not questioning your judgment, but rather trying to understand the process. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100

I changed the reference on the Billboard 100, since the reference you provided didn't have the correct link. Thank you WereWolf (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I fixed the link on the number-ones list page also. - eo (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue discography

Earlier a consensus was reached about splitting the discography. But, you redirected them back. If, the discog. is split again, and the main discography page is edited to have links to both albums and singles discogs, is it okay? Novice7 | Talk 11:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that. I merged them back together? When did I do that? It had to have been a long time ago. - eo (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Red & Blue (Lady Gaga EP)

Get your Kleenux ready. Deleted article recreation. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User: Within a dream

You may wish to review (and extend?) your block in light of the comments he/she has made on their talk page. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kanye West discography

This IP Vandal, 82.22.150.220 has vandalized this page. He keeps changing the updated sourced sales for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy please put a semi-protection on that page because the user will continue, thanks. Hometown Kid (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Done - eo (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)