User talk:Rm w a vu/Archives/2007/May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Re: Track listings -> Track listing
I should have thought of this. I'm not going to change anything like "Tracklists", "Tracklistings" etc. to "Track listings" because the plural form is very often used inappropriately. I'd prefer to leave plurals altogether for manual inspection instead. Thank you for your suggestions. Jogers (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Your rating thingy
Hey linca. My username is an acronym of my name. About the template, personally I prefer text-only labels, but we should probably ask everyone else what they prefer. I suggest we propose the graphical variants at WP:ALBUM's talk page. There are a few problems with the graphical variants though, that should probably be fixed before they are proposed as a viable alternative. Firstly, the hm* variants use tables, which is problematic. As you probably noticed (since you added a <br>), they wrap to a second line, because tables are block objects as opposed to inline objects (in HTML terms). So that won't work for their intended use. Secondly, they take up slightly more than a normal line of text, which I suspect will make the professional reviews section look worse. As for the bomb symbol, I checked what is currently used on album pages, and found 
and this. I rather like the last one as it is the one actually used by Christgau (at least online), which makes it easier to recognize for those who have read his reviews before, and also explains this on the image page itself (which the user will be transferred to if they click the image). It has slightly wrong background color (as do your table templates BTW) but could be converted to a transparent background. I reverted the main template to the text-only variants for now. I have however added your suggestions to the template as alternatives. --PEJL 10:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hey. Well, that's fine. I like the idea of using images and, since stars are the implied matter, that's why I loaded it to have the stars to be the same as the current ones. As to using the begin row tag in the table, I didn't. All I did was make an embedded table and began a new row within that. As to the usage of the table, you can see whether a template is in use by clicking on the "What links here" link in the toolbar on the left (or "alt" + "J"). In the case of the template, it's not in use at the moment according to that. As to the images, I didn't realise there was an imagethe same as RC's on Wikipedia, so I've also substituted that image also.
- Begin row: Do you mean <br>? You did add a <br> for the dud variant to make all four variants wrap to a second line, but I removed it to illustrate the block problem with the three table variants.
- Using graphical stars assumes that they really are stars. At least on Christgau's web site they are asterisks. Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 13#Rating templates, we should not misrepresent one symbol for another. If we knew that they were represented as graphical stars rather than asterisks in print we could probably conclude that they are actually stars and that the asterisks on the web site are just a representation of those stars, but otherwise I'm not sure we can do that. --PEJL 09:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- The site you're referencing isn't Christgou's official site (it's actually a fan site) and in printed media, he uses stars almost identical to those I used in the templates (this is the case moreso in articles in the last 10 years or so). On another note, what about the other ratings he includes, such as{{F}}, which you didn't mention in your entry. --lincalinca 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia claims it's his official site, and it sure looks like his official site, with posts claiming to be by him and so on. Why do you think it's a fan site?
- It's not his. He doesn't have his own site. He doesn't refute this site, but he also has never ackowledged it from what I can tell. The site is not owned by him, the village voice or any other organisation I can affiliate with him.
- I'm glad you could verify the situation in printed media, that clears up that problem. I think we can conclude that either star symbols or asterisks would be acceptable representations for the honorable mention ratings.
- If by {{F}} you refer to the letter grade, I explained my reasoning for not including letter grades in my most recent message here. Actually I think F is the only letter grade Christgau doesn't give, at least according to the official/fan site he only gives A-E.
- Are you making any progress on the non-table formatting of the graphical hm* ratings? I experimented with this myself, but gave up. The only way I can think of generating the current formatting is using display:inline-block, but that doesn't work reliably in all of the major browsers. Perhaps we need to consider alternate formatting. How are the honorable mention ratings formatted in print? Perhaps a formatting similar to that could be used. (Difficult for me to judge, never having seen it.) --PEJL 09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- It'd be too busy making it like in print, (which I only found by searching his name and I found some pdfs of his articles). I could make it look just as it does now using a little svg file. I'm at home at, so I can make something tonight, so as an image, it doesn't have any tablenating or formatting constraints. The only trouble with that is that we'd need to comfortably agree on a size. The "F" I put was because I couldn't remember what he put for failure albums, but it was TU for turkeys. As to the turkeys, he's put actual little things that look more like roosters in print. I'm sure if you google his name you'll find something fitting of what I'm talking about. --lincalinca 10:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not official site: I see, good to know, but I don't think that makes a difference for this template. I tried Googling for a while but surprisingly couldn't find any PDF or JPG of a review of his in print. I did however find that excerpts from his book are available on Amazon. From this page it seems honorable mention ratings are presented as one, two or three black stars, about the height of a lowercase letters, choice cuts as a cut of meat, neither as a white N in a black circle, duds as bomb symbols and turkeys as turkey symbols as you say. We cannot use the exact symbols used in print because they are copyrighted. We probably cannot use the symbols from the website either because they are most likely copyrighted as well (although possibly not by Christgau if it's not his site). I propose we use symbols similar but different from the symbols used in print, i.e. black stars at the same relative size, a bomb symbol, a turkey symbol (if we can find one) and so on. Since it doesn't seem to be possible to link images anywhere other than the image page, I suggest we use dedicated images for each rating, and explain on each rating page that it is a Christgau rating and what it means. That way we may be able to just include the symbols without any text. Either that or just use purely textual labels in parentheses as we do now. --PEJL 11:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just wanted to mention that I went ahead and created the symbols I proposed. The problem (as you noted) is making them look legible and not too cluttered at such small sizes. I experimented a bit with an image for a cut of meat, but it wasn't very comprehensible at that size, so I simplified it to a pair of scissors. I think they look alright. What do you think? --PEJL 18:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Praxis
No worries, actually your etymological approach for "practice" is correct (as noted in my edit summary - see here both entries for practice and praxis). However, the habitual connotations of "practice" are not that strong in "praxis". The Greek equivalent for "practice" would be "praktiki"/πρακτική, which derives from the same root. Cheers! NikoSilver 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
PS. I haven't ever seen a WP redirect for a userpage, such as yours (User:Lincalinca). I think you better check it out with an admin because there are conflicting namespaces (Wikipedia: and User:). Best. NikoSilver 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know what you mean... :-) Do check it, though. It's better to bring it forward yourself than to receive a not-so-polite warning by someone. NikoSilver 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Powderfinger Related Edits
~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 04:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Jars of Clay RIAA Certification
Ummm... I got what you said regarding offshore/overseas sales. However, the question of their debut album being classified as 3x platinum is still unverifiable fact. I mean, even if there were offshore sales which contributed to the album becoming 3x platinum, we need to find that info in some verifiable source, right? You've got me scratching ma head now.... Any assistance would be useful! Ajcfreak 14:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Got that! Okay, so shouldn't it be changed to 2x? I mean, the table after all says "RIAA Certification" ? And RIAA certification is given only for 'certified' sales, right? So mebbe we could add a comment about the other sales Ajcfreak 11:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay... Understood. So I guess I'll add a citation needed link to the 3x thingy. Thanks.... You've been pretty patient! Ajcfreak 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
IFD for XXLmagRating*.gif
Hi, Lincalinca! I see that you listed these images for IfD. I'm all for that -- but I can't find the discussion pages. I don't see anything for XXL images at the regular IfD pages, and the image pages don't list any IfD pages in their "what links here" report. Was the IfD nomination incomplete? Or broken somehow? -- Mikeblas 12:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Powderfinger category
Hey there. I saw you just changed an edit of mine, so I thought I'd explain what I'm doing. I'm putting the band members in Category:Powderfinger members, which means they shouldn't remain in Category:Powderfinger. Plus, I'm taking the songs and albums out of that category, because they're already in subcategories of the main Powderfinger category. If you'll look at other categories of bands, you'll see that's how it's done. Make sense?--Mike Selinker 12:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I really used underscores because all infoboxes do use them. --Andersmusician $ 03:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Citing WP:ALBUM
Hey linca. Regarding this change to OK Computer, note that only the change of "Album" to "studio" is actually in line with the current text on WP:ALBUM. I have been meaning to ask you to propose that the use of {{Singles}} actually be mentioned on WP:ALBUM (probably at WP:ALBUM#Misc). Perhaps it should be renamed "Extra singles" for consistency with the other "Extra ..." templates mentioned there. I don't really know what naming conventions apply for templates and sub-templates, or why those were named as they were, so I don't know what name would be most appropriate. I assume a proposal to recommend the use of {{Singles}} would be accepted, but I think this should be discussed first. (I also don't think using boldface is appropriate, per WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface. I'll change the article to use parentheses instead.) --PEJL 10:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- With the singles template, I created it and pushed it, but anythng done to it lately hasn't been by me, it's been by people who know more about the use of the parser functions and esoteric scripting than I do. As to the design, the use of quotation marks is the standard way of displaying singles and songs (which is in WP:ALBUMS and WP:SINGLES). As to the template being renamed, I think it'd be superfluous. As per WP:MOS and WP:NAME, articles should be the simplest and most descriptive term usable. With a template, it's even more important to keep it simple, mostly because the description of the template is given within. I'm all for putting the Singles template onto the standard use and noting it on WP:ALBUMS as well as putting its synopsis into the {{Infobox Album}} template. I tried to propose it when I first created it, but not enough pages had included it by then, but now we have all of Pearl Jam, U2, Powderfinger, Tatu, John Mayer and many others that have it now included, so I think there's certainly enough concensus that it's a useful tool.
- That's if what I read of what you said was right. Anyway, Ciao! —Preceding unsigned comment added by lincalinca (talk • contribs)
- I wasn't questioning the use of quotes at all, in fact I was the one who suggested the template be changed to use them. :-) You're probably right about the renaming. I just realized that the "Extra" part refers to the fact that it's a secondary album cover or chronology, so using it for singles would be inappropriate. I guess I can propose {{Singles}} for WP:ALBUM. Feel free to step in and explain its virtues though. I just thought of some possible issues with this template, which I'll mention at WT:ALBUM. --PEJL 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Rating-Christgau/*
Template:Rating-Christgau/dud, Template:Rating-Christgau/hm1, Template:Rating-Christgau/hm2 and Template:Rating-Christgau/hm3 have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — PEJL 13:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For your continuous work on everything Powderfinger, you receive this barnstar. Use it well! G1ggy! 01:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
Template:John Mayer
Hello linca! I know you are good with article templates. Is there anything you can do to improve the ones for John Mayer? I saw that you have tinkered with them, but I think they could really use some design help. Have any ideas?--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I worked on it a lot. You might see some ways to clean up the code some.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies, critique and for briefing me on the history of the template. The template you made in the past to me looked good, I remember it, and I remember that you are pretty good with templates, from seeing your work in other areas (like Studio 60). I guess I'll hold my breath, and plan not to fight too much, b/c I made the first error when I made the changes, and that's not to read the talk page first. But most templates are low on controversy, so I didn't even bother until later when I looked up and choked - LOL! Thanks again.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Image:Lifehouse-first-time.jpg
Hey detective, you really out-did yourself by coming to an erroneous conclusion about the Lifehouse picture being "photoshopped", didn't you? Care to validate your absurd claim with actual proof? No? Is that beyond you? Well, that may be the case, but I'm here to help; I'll show you how to back-up your actions/words with substantial evidence:
If you don't believe me that the artwork is valid, follow these steps:
Step 1: Open up iTunes
Step 2: Click on "iTunes Store"
Step 3: Search for "Lifehouse"
Step 4: Click on "First Time - Single"
Step 5: Lay your eyes upon the same artwork, vertical in all its glory.
Still want to prove your frivolous claim? Well, then I must apologise, seeing as you're clearly above Apple Inc. and their industry links. For all I know, you just might be IN the band itself, and look what I've gone and done! Oh no. -Yosh 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Powderfinger Collaboration
You may have noticed that the project recently began its first collaboration, and this is just a friendly reminder that we would love your help in bringing Dream Days at the Hotel Existence to the highest possible standard. Hope to see some great editing! G1ggy! 01:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Darth Maul's bloodspray
This is proof that Darth Maul's bloodspray was in the ORIGINAL theatrical release of The Phantom Menace. Here's the link, courtesy of Google Groups:
Richiekim 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)