Jump to content

User talk:Lil-unique1/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

edits

i have no problem with any tracklist format. if it looks good i'll leave it the way it is. but the problem with you is you have such a high screen resolution that when you make edits you dont realize how bad for all the users with a 1024x768 resolution. if you would change your screen resolution to 1024x768 while editing you would notice how bad it looks.

for mario, you removed songs under the RECORDED SONGS section which had references. it makes no sense to only include songs verified by online news sites rather than his twitter because i know for a fact songs like "emergency room" wont even be on the final album despite being listed in a news article.


14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In Love & War

No where on the In Love & War page does it state that the list of songs there is an official tracklist. It simply is a list of songs recorded for the album, as states the title of the section. If it makes one feel better, can you please change the numerical listing to one of bullets? Everything you said in your notes, I have. The wiki page contains, 2 singles that are sourced, a US release date that is sourced, and actual information on the page that is sourced. An album cover has yet to be revealed yet. To warrant a page, you stated I needed two of the following, and I quote:

"04:03, 25 July 2009 Lil-unique1 (talk | contribs) (21 bytes) (there is not enough information to warrant a page. you need two from the following: cover art, track-listing, first single, press release etc. see WP:crystal or WP:verifiability) (undo)"

A press release is referenced and the album already has a first single released with a second one on the way with both being sourced in the wiki. I don't think there should be anymore issues regarding the page and redirecting it to Amerie's main page right? --Stephen1108 (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Doll Domination

I will not accept your allegations that my edits are disruptive. You're additional information provided NOTHING new or worthwhile and made no sense in the context of Doll Domination: The Mini Collection. I have checked your latest revision and decided that I will leave it only because you added in information which made sense. I still do NOT see why you put this information after the Mini Collection when it belongs with the main tracklist since it adds to the main tracklist and does not add to the Mini Collection tracklist. If you do not fix this I will report you. Just so you know. Cazxiro (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree albums should be ordered chronologically but these are not albums these are versions of release. Only a re-release that is significantly different should be listed separately as the other editions could and should be placed under the main tracklist in order to present a more organized and less confusing read (i.e. listing the songs and detailing which edition they come from). The headlines mean nothing because that section itself has way too many listings which repeat information. It should really only be broken up into three sections: one for the original and deluxe, one for the mini and 2.0 and one for 3.0. You might think that placing them in order of release is organized but it isn't when it lacks suffice information. You simply placed the additional tracks starting at #17 DIRECTLY after the Mini Collection without even a description. A separate heading means nothing without any proper explanation. Cazxiro (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw that already, thanks for pointlessly pointing it out. The deal is this, there's way too much stuff going on and it looks like a mess. If you want to see how a proper tracklist should look like go and take a look at Rihanna's Good Girl Gone Bad page. That is more precise, detailed and organized. Cazxiro (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pussycat Dolls Timeline

The point of the timeline is to show what the Group has done and how it has changed member wise. it's a fact that PCD have had many membership changes, and that is what Wikipedia is for, to present facts and information. Sorry if it offends you that their members keep changing, but wikipedia is supposed to be neutral,or opinions have no place in altering Wikipedia articles. DO NOT DELETE THE TIMELINE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofelixdacat (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Destiny's Child, Spice Girls, and Sugarbabes all have timelines. it's not only to show the membership changes, it's also to show the major accomplishments that group made for that year, including album releases, when the group formed or disbanded,or when the group reunited.it makes perfect sense to make a timeline representing the groups history and progress. DONT DELETE THE TIMELINE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofelixdacat (talk • contribs) 00:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Flirt (album). Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Thank you. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, you don't OWN the article and it is improper for you to try and impose your will on the community by personally overriding previous consensus because "you are right." The previous consensus was to keep the article. A new one very well might form, but until it does the default position is to keep it. You can't unilaterally go in and change it to a redirect over and over again like you were doing before I told you to stop.
Far from being "inappropriate" my behavior was exactly as it should have been as I was the one enforcing the established consensus and you were the one insisting your own opinion was best. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. It is of course within your rights to request a new AfD, but I personally don't think it will be necessary. The proposed merger discussion should be able to resolve this on its own in a timely manner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pocketbook (song) and notes about your edits

I removed the prod to Pocketbook (song) because with a Billboard review of the song, some might see it as passing WP:MUSIC. It would be better to take this to AfD to have a permanent solution.

A side note about a couple of concerns I have with some of your recent edits. After adding the prod to Pocketbook (song), you have notified the original authors and/or significant contributors to the article as expressed on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Also, your asking for my 3rd opinion on my talk page for Flirt (album) could be seen as canvassing as I have never made an edit to the article. Having an appearance of canvassing can sometimes hurt your case for deletion/retention. Aspects (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Masquerade - Single (album)

Hello Lil-unique1, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Masquerade - Single (album) - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Rokstarr

Hello Lil-unique1, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Rokstarr - a page you tagged - because: even if this were a recreation, the other article has been deleted as WP:PROD and as such, a recreation is to be considered contesting the PROD, which means it should be taken to WP:AFD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 07:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jordin Sparks edits and date formatting

I just thought I would leave you a note about some problems I had with some edits you made today. You reverted another editor who changed sales numbers with a reliable source back to last week's numbers without edit summaries, [1], [2] and [3]. I also had a problem with this edit, [4]. For one thing it should not have been marked as a minor edit. Secondly, WP:Albums actually says the proper date formatting is what was used before, not the start date template. I have fixed these edits, but I thought I would tell you here why I made them. Aspects (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk Page

I hardly think those edits merited a colossal rant on my talk page. One edit for two pages does not qualify as "edit-warring", and your condescension is rather vain too. The tag for Fashion (Heidi Montag song) is {{fact}}. And Amazon is not a reliable source for any material, especially unreleased material. See WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Is Amazon.com a reliable source? and WP:RSN#Is Amazon.com a reliable source for this sentence?. PopMusicBuff talk 16:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Might I also suggest that you look at User talk:Lil-unique1#Cool down? PopMusicBuff talk 16:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to give the impression that I was looking down on you. And with the link to "Cool down" I was just referring to "I just stumbled across your comments on User talk:Cubfan789. . . Did he do some insufficiently edits? Perhaps. To leap from that to giving a "Stop this is going to be your first and last warning" is severely out of scale and tone. Instead of assuming good faith and seeking to be helpful and encouraging, you went right into squish mode.". And to sum up the Amazon links, they basically say that Amazon should not be use unless no other first-hand source is available, in this case information from the Official Website, or the Record Label Website, which will be available shortly. Also, I've been browsing Wikipedia for years, and I've never seen a tag such as {{when}}, {{who}}, {{where}}, etc. it's always been {{fact}} if there was no reference. PopMusicBuff talk 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

New Amazon.com discussion

See, and feel free to discuss, at WP:RSN#Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material PopMusicBuff talk 17:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This Is Us (Backstreet Boys album)

The track, "She's A Dream," is confirmed in the second paragraph in the newswire article. So, please don't remove it. Cougars2012 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Leona Lewis

Hi. Leona actually has two signings and they are both involved in the production of her album. She has A&R personnel directly involved in the project at both syco and J, and the album drops on both labels to meet contractual agreements with both labels. J isn't merely a licensee of her album, they play a pivotal part in the production of the album through A&R and other activities, and therefore J is an original label as well. Had J merely been a US licensee of the content with no involvement in the production, only then would Syco alone be appropriate. Imperatore (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A note about critical reception

Hi there. I love the work you've been doing. You've worked hard on many music-related articles, and I appreciate it. I have a few pointers, however, on how you can improve some of the articles.

  • My main issue is your habit of lifting entire texts/paragraphs from a review and pasting it into your articles. Please don't. Try not to take more than a paragraph from any review. Try to synthesize the material (sometimes in your own words), and cite the reviews, rather than copy and paste the entire review onto Wikipedia. See featured articles as examples on how to do this. Use them as guides. (For example, see critical section of Love. Angel. Music. Baby..) Please, if you have the time, read the critical reception for Blood Sugar Sex Magik. Look at how the writer summarized the reviews with general statements (see the first sentence in the 2nd paragraph from each of the links I gave you). This is how it's done. Engage your sources. Read, contrast and compare your sources beforehand to try and account for any trends, consensus among critics, or place them against each other ("x said the song was a 'return to form', but y cited the song as "the worst on the album" etc). Don't just copy and paste. Believe me, it makes for a far more cohesive work. I've said it before, and I don't mean to insult your work, but copying and pasting is poor writing, and it makes the article overly long, dreary, choppy, and unprofessional.
  • My one other minor concern is including "magazine" as a part of the name of the work, when it's not supposed to be. It's "Rolling Stone magazine", and not "Rolling Stone Magazine". Unless the name "magazine" is a part of the publication title (like "Slant Magazine"), don't treat it as a proper noun.

That's all. Take it from someone who knows it, and who has written a couple featured articles. I come to you because I know you're a good writer, and you do great work. On your userpage, you said your aim was to "improve quality of wikipedia articles". This is a way to start. If you have any questions, please let me know. Orane (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I Look to You

The way you edited the track listing right now is not a Wikipedia quality standard! writers & prodicers should be separated in 2 columns! Just check all Madonna albums on Wikipedia! There is a very credible source 4 all my edits! www.swisscharts.com search 4 I Look to You. regarding the reviews Wikipedia does not say that there should be a limit!(only in the infobox there should be 10) I only used credible sources (ex music magazines) with references. FYI : just because you started the page does not mean that you get to decide what stays & what goes! others get to edit too! (MariAna Mimi 07:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the names of the producers , where do you get that from?? Template:Tracklist clearly states that the full name is provided!! and nowhere @ Wikipedia:albums does that "rule" appear!!
I think for Canada in the release history it's fair to also include "Sony Music", alongside Arista, as releases are distributed by Sony Music Canada and not directly from the frontline- Arista/J. Any thoughts? Imperatore (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't wanna get psych up in the details, but going with that logic, non-US and UK (non frontline) should all just be just "Sony Music", or in Canada's case "sony music, arista" and for europe, "sony music, rca" (as european sony music companies, i believe, will use the UK licensed catalogue). Just wanna keep a consistent logic here, although I've realized that us and canada, or sometimes denoted as north america, are usually bundled together anyway in the release history. Imperatore (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the general guideline should be label only for frontline territories, such as the US and UK, and Sony Music only for all the rest. Also Sony Music Japan and Sony/ATV were recently named at a Sony shareholders event as being moved into Sony Music Entertainment to create one comprehensive business unit. Therefore Sony Music Japan will be under Sony Music for the first time, hence there won't even be a reason to differentiate Japan very soon (I noticed their site is under construction in many areas, probably to reflect the new structure). Imperatore (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There's another issue that could use your input originally posted here. Imperatore (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
{Reponse to above post} I didn't quite realize that the release date is not harmonized between the major digital retailers like iTunes and Amazon. Arguably, the store that makes the debut is the release date, should we be forced to indicate a single digital release day. Also the UK release date does not surprise me at all. (Sony Music UK's) RCA Label Group is in direct partnership with RCA&Zomba for cross promotion. Hence an RCA Group or Zomba Group artist is subject to a reciprocal legal obligation to RCA Label Group for direct promotion. Whitney has indicated that due to her heavy North American comeback promo, obligated work for RCA UK would need to be pushed back until October, and hence the release got pushed back to synch with her promotional activities. All other territories in the Sony Music network are not bind to such frontline label obligations, hence picking up an album from the US and UK frontline label catalogues is generally up to their discretion- they can release it (physically) at their convenience. Imperatore (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Radio release

What more sources do I need? It's very hard to find a release date in the Netherlands. It has charted in the national chart. RichV 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Memoirs track listing

MariahDaily.com it's a fansite, but they always have confirmed sources for everything from labels and/or Mariah herself. (MariAna Mimi 17:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Broken-Hearted Girl

Hi, u said when the song charts, the page should be unproctected.....it has been officially released in Australia and it charted at number 37 at the Australian ARIA Singles Chart.....it deseres its own article...can u request an unprotection? Teammelarky (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, can you please tell me how can i nominate a user to be blocked/banned from Wiki? As u could see i had some trouble with some users earlier 2day with the track listing format. Thanx :-) (MariAna Mimi 17:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Ok thanx!

The Fame

Are you sure that the album was only a joint venture between Kon Live and Cherrytree? Most definetly her signing is a 4way between kon live/cherrytree/interscope/streamline, but where exactly did you see that the album release is limited to those two frontline labels? Imperatore (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"a joint production from KonLive Distribution and Cherrytree Records" has to do with production, seems like the project was commissioned/delivered to those two labels of hers for first formal approval, and "in association with Streamline Music Productions" means that streamline's production company had a hand in production as well. And of course since a handful of labels have claims to gaga, one of which is not under interscope (kon live is with geffen for distribution), the project had to have some kind of licensing to a single distributor..."with exclusive lisense to and distribution rights with Interscope Records". So all in all, these excerpts are strictly about production and distribution rights and other legalities (which are generally of no concern to wikipedia, at least with regards to labeling). It does NOT mean these four parties are not all "labels" of the album. I think it would be very hard to argue that not its not contained on all four labels, since all reliable sources list them. Imperatore (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I Am... Sasha Fierce

When did I add covers? I'm aware of the rules Jayy008 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone nominated the covers for deletion and when the images were deleted the captions stayed there along with the citation, so I deleted the captions etc as the people who nominate the pics don't bother :) Jayy008 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

BMG Japan

I didn't read the BMG article, I just went by what the source said. So I wasn't to know :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest with you I'd rather avoid retail sources altogether, but they're useful if there's nothing else available. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez "lolä" featuring Pitbull

I saw that u were searching for a source......here you go.......i found this "Rolling Stone" article that mentions the song.....[5]

Nopassengersonmyplane (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jive Epic

The French music market loves their "labels". Even though the big four have consolidated operations much like in any other European country (ie Sony Music France), official charts, industry websites and even radio websites usually differentiate the labels. For example, they refer to artists as being signed to Sony Music France, or the "maison du disque" (house of discs/records), and then specifically call out the "label". That being said, label teams at the big 4 in France are big differentiators, even at the retail/branding level. The strange "Jive Epic" combo actually has a very logical explanation. What (most likely) happened was that in 2004 when Sony and BMG merged globally, Sony and BMG in each country had to (physically) reorganize under one operations. So the Sony Fr and BMG fr offices became one office as well. Therefore, BMG fr's "Jive" team met Sony fr's "Epic" team, and in the name of merging/consolidation, these two teams decided to work together within the new "sony bmg france", and thus were brought together to form none other than "Jive Epic". I'm not surprised why such a peculiarity would happen in France, as aforementioned, France music industry has a tradition of differentiating "house of discs" and their associated "labels". Even though the labels aren't truly frontline (truly frontline labels-like in the US-are standalone operations, whereas french labels are actually teams operating directly under sony music france, etc). Imperatore (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, there appears to be no frontline "epic records" operation in Australia. Imperatore (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Echo

Dear -, If you took the time to check you would find that the "Sony Music Australia" site redirects to the "Bandit Fm" site. Bandit Fm is the new Official website for Sony Music Australia. This can also be evidenced at the bottom of the Bandit Fm page which states "copyright of Sony Music Australia". Also, the "OFFICIAL LEONA LEWIS WEBSITE for Australia" has likely copied and pasted from the UK site. You may go ahead and report me as it is you who is in the wrong. Another example of this is the "Spain" release date reference, "Sony Music Spain" redirects to "click2music.es" because it is the new official site.--Beautiful&Dying (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you are not so quick to reply when it is you who is in the wrong. I would like an apology and for you to acknowledge that you where wrong.--Beautiful&Dying (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Jess.jpg and File:Keri Hilson - In a Perfect World.jpg

Just to let you know that I uploaded a new version of this image (from the Amazon.co.uk site) at both File:Jess.jpg & File:Keri Hilson - In a Perfect World.jpg the it rendered correctly on "Keri Hilson", but not on "Jess" - strange! I had used a second browser to check this, as it appeared that there was a caching problem in Firefox, as they rendered identically in Chrome. As they're identical, I deleted Jess & kept Keri. I'm also putting up the "generic" image on Jess, as the file name is too generic. Thanks! Skier Dude (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Brian Littrell vampire.png

I uploaded the image to the article Straight Through My Heart because it does give the readers a better understanding of the music video, and therefore does not violate WP:NFCC#8. It also gives a better understanding of the music video than most of the other Backstreet Boys. Please remove the template. Thanks. Cougars2012 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

But it's easier to fill out the reference template yourself at the time of adding a single reference to a page. Then you can make sure the information is correct, as Reflinks does make mistakes sometimes :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Whitney Houston

Allmusic is incorrect in its reviewings. They consistently put compilation albums under the studio albums section, so don't count on them for reliability. They are by definition are "specialty albums," or in other words holiday albums. They could never be studio albums, and I wouldn't be making this up just to fulfill my own needs. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Now where do you think Billboard gets its sources from? Allmusic, they source their biographies from there too. There's no way they factual information about her albums, again not a good place to claim it as one of your sources. Take a look at many discographies, Jewel discography, Faith Hill discography. They all include this same format. It's been perfectly acknowledged and used in country music I don't understand why it seems so risky to do for an R&B artist. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not my opinion it's fact, I'm not making this up, wow. Do you even pay attention to featured discographies on Wikipedia? Just for once take your eyes off the R&B artists, and look elsewhere omg. Look at the Diamond Rio discography or the Alice in Chains discography (even though the font is slightly bigger, but that doesn't matter). Those are FEATURED WIKI DISCOGRAPHIES and that is the format, not those discographies. Those are poorly-rated. Look here, I just came to fix the discography because it had stated on the tag, "This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template." I didn't want to remove the tag so I revamped it to the normal format. This is the required format and for one thing the shape the discography was in before my revisions were pretty pathetic. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I assume you understand the circumstances regarding the revamping of the page. It's 10:30 PM on the US east coast, if I were you, I would get off the net and head off to sleep. I've got this under control. Sure, you can open your own discussion tomorrow, but it's still a separate album, and if anything it's a compilation album because it is considered a "specialty album". But this is open for discussion, but until then, leave it where it is. Have a good night. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that! But the Adult Contemporary chart is most certainly not a component chart. If it was, I would certainly not include it. It is the Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks chart and is the chart used by Adult Contemporary radio every week. It is required. Other charts such as the Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks and Top 40 Mainstream are component charts of AC and the Hot 100, but most certainly not the AC, so don't remove it. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Every US chart that's not a component chart should be included. Every important chart for her home country should come first, and that includes the Dance chart. It is necessary, look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style for style guidelines. Just because she's an R&B artist should put her away from the AC chart, so what. It is necessary if an artist has charted there more than once.Dottiewest1fan (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Turntables (song)

Hi Lil-unique1%2FArchive+2. Please re-read SoWhy's comment above, because the same applies to this article. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Label names

Hi there! If you take a look here :Wikipedia:Albums#Label it states : "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified. Where significantly different versions have been released (featuring alternative track listings) e.g. in the US vs UK, the later release date or record label should be mentioned in the article, for example in a Release history section. Drop words like "Records" from the end of the label's name (e.g. use Universal rather than Universal Records)." , i do believe that my edits are correct. (MariAna Mimi 17:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

Her Name is Nicole

Hi there, thnaks for asking. Your work on preparing Her Name is Nicole is impressive and thorough. Well done! Since the album is unreleased I think your info. should be incorporated into the Nicole Scherzinger article, but I also think that the level of detail is too great. I would suggest you cut down on anything "non-essential". --Design (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:More Than a Game (soundtrack).jpg)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:More Than a Game (soundtrack).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just Say Yes (Snow Patrol song)

I'm afraid I had to remove your recent addtions to the article. You added content saying that her debut has been totally cancelled and put a ref. However the website failed to open. I did a google search, hoping to find anything reliable saying the album has been indefinitely cancelled, but had no luck.

Also the billboard site you put doesnt explicitly mention the older songs (including JSY, the point of focus) will NOT be released on any new releases she might have. As editors, we cant assume anything. So sorry, please take care of this in future. Suede67 (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel France release date

In the release history, it says it will be released in france on september 28, however, the source given says that it will be released there on October 5......[6]......since the page is protcected...i cant fix it...can you fix it?

217.136.144.152 (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Video Phone

You might find WT:Record charts#Video Phone interesting.—Kww(talk) 19:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: In Love & War

By "primary label," WP:ALBUMS means the major industry label distributing (Def Jam, Atlantic, Jive, J, Asylum, Warner Bros., Columbia, Universal Motown, Universal Republic, Interscope, Capitol, EMI, and E1 Music are the most frequent examples). "Def Jam" is the primary label involved, while "Feenix Rising" is the imprint. Also, by "primary label only," they mean the label which the artist is working on in his or her native setting (since Amerie's based in the US, Def Jam would be the only distributing label listed in the infobox). WP:ALBUMS says nothing about vanity labels/imprints. Tom Danson (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked

I just wanted to let you know it really annoys me when you put "tweaked" as an edit summary. It would be more helpful if you said what you actually did, like "added record label for Sweden". Up to you what you put but just wanted to get it off my chest because it bugs the shit out of me ;) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Memoirs of an imperfect angel

Why would you remove every positive review and replace it with negative ones. The review sheet is supposed to be balanced.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Catalogue numbers

The US number you put in is an ASIN number- Amazon.com shopping code, and therefore not a catalogue number. Also an ongoing issue is the confusion with true catalogue numbers and UPCs. I believe its only in recent years with the advent of UPC codes in e-commerce applications, they have come to replace cat numbs and are quoted as the catalogue numbers by many retailers. However, Barnes and Nobles usually gets it right and quote the UPC code seperate from the catalogue number. Here's for This is Now (under Details&Credits tab) http://music.barnesandnoble.com/This-Is-Us/Backstreet-Boys/e/886975650422/?itm=1&USRI=this+is+us .

So I'm assuming you wanna continue to go with UPC as catalogue number? Imperatore (talk)
Yes I agree with sticking with UPC since its the common identifier. In fact, I have only found Barnes to play it right, therefore the actual cat. number has lost its notability. I might bring this up to wp:albums along with some other issues I want to address. However, for older albums many users tend to place the cat number right under label in small font; not sure about the logic behind it but we can always do that for recent albums?? e.g. Thriller (album) Imperatore (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sweet 7

How dare you come on my page. I'm a worthy editor thank very much. I know she's not one. It was just at the time how I felt. Let me edit in peace.CalvinNelson4 (talk) 02:44, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. You don't have the right of talking to me in such a disrespectful manner. I should report you for abuse and bullying you transpired on my talk page. As I'm wrothy editor as said. And as you no page is your page except your homepage. So you better mind your language before I reporting you to administrators.CalvinNelson4 (talk) 14:18, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

Forever is Over

I just wanted to point out that the article "Forever is Over" should be titled "Forever Is Over" per WP:ALBUMCAPS where it says that short verbs (such as is, am, and was) should be capitalized. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Echo / Chalice Recording Studios

I didn't really want to put the recording studio in the infobox yet because it makes it seem like the whole album was recorded there, when it's unlikely that it was. What do you think? I normally put et al after the list of producers when we don't know them all, but that always gets removed. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know, et al means "and others". I'm not worried about the list of producers at all though, as for all we know, there are no others. I don't want to list the ones that aren't confirmed. I don't think we should put "including", but I don't want to give the impression that no other recording studio was used. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Same as above ^^

Pulled from Radio are you serious? I sense another album push-back coming then, greattt! Jayy008 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fight for This Love

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. (P.S. Sorry about the annoying template format cos I know you're not new around here but it's the easiest way to let you know about copying and pasting.) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Chart trajectories in tables? [Invitation to discussion]

Hello Lil-unique1,
I've seen some of your Wiki contributions, so I thought I'd stop by and extend an invitation to you to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Chart trajectories in tables?. Please for completeness of discussion post all comments there. —Iknow23 (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Just Say Yes

Thanks for your message:

  1. "It is not encyclopedic to use retailers in the release history, this has been replaced with CD or digital download." - Understood.
  2. "release history should contain alternative labels e.g. Interscope is their label in the UK" - actually Interscope is the US label, fiction is the UK one. is it necessary to include labels, its confusing as there are so many.
  3. "Ultratop/tip is only the chart's provider, you need to distinguish that it is the belgium chart." - Understood. But still, why does Ultratip need to be above Singles chart when you yourself say it should be alphabetical?
  4. "WP:Songs says under the guidance for the infobox for singles that "the a-side feature should only be used if a significantly different recording is included in the release" This also applies to the b-side and is common practise. You only have to look at some the critically acclaimed single releases on wikipedia to see that none of them include remixes as b-sides." - i read WP:Songs too now, i cant find it, no mention of a-side/b-side there. Also its not necessary that the featured articles ARE according to the guidelines. its very much possible that they passed the FA review long before, and the guidelines changed after that. We need to see the current guidelines and avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
  5. The Gwen-Nicole thing, there are two sources that say Gary wrote it initially for Gwen. link and link. Both websites are online versions of US newspapers The Denver Post and The San Francisco Examiner. You'd believe they'd be reputable.

As you said "Nicole Scherzinger said numerous times with sources already in the article that she heard the song from Lightbody and that she was honoured to be given the song" - that can also mean that Nicole heard the song AFTER Stefani had rejected it, and it was just lying around. Plus wiki needs verifiability, not truth. I'm not even sure we "know" the truth, IF there's more to this. We need to make the best of what the reliable sources say.

And, why did you revert back the change i made: CD Single--->Compact disc. I do not find any guideline that says it should be specified single. Please let it be symmetrical to other Snow Patrol single articles. You can respond here or on my talk, i have added your talk to my watchlist. Suede67 (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to see we're reaching consensus. Now, CD Single is a type of release, the format is a disc. I think i'm correct here, but its too small an issue to bicker about. You say thats what the industry calls it. This can be called original research, i'm not sure. As editors we cant be like that. At the risk of being hypocritical, see this album's release history, which appears to be done by knowledgeable editors (judging by the quality of the other content). Also says Compact Disc (CD points to that page). But OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, to me, logically it should be compact disc. You'd say "that single was released on CD", not "that single was released as a cd single" doesnt make sense. I hope i'm getting through you. Suede67 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Since you seem to be active (seeing your contributions list) and havent replied, i'm going to change it. Suede67 (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

french digital albums chart (she wolf)

i'm french, that's not true, french digital albums chart is not a component of the main french chart, albums chart = just physical, that stupid but tell it to the SNEP (this is the same thing for french singles chart)

List of French number-one hits of 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestreamer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not true ... again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestreamer (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Example : French Digital albums chart, week 41, Renan Luce was number one (2 050 copies sold) but when you watch the Top 200 french albums chart he's not in the chart. I can not be clearer (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

yes but you have him invited to advise! [[7]] (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is not a valid argument, for example in the french singles chart it is also possible by selling 100 copies to be in the top 100, yet it is an official chart! (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that it is possible for singles chart top sold 100 copies and to be in the top 100, Now in the french singles chart only the first 10 can sell over 1,000 copies unlike the french digital singles chart, the top 50 sell over 1,000 copies.(talk • contribs) 22:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes but for France the general consensus it is not valid, because the digital chart are not included in the "main" french albums chart (talk • contribs) 22:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: BISD.

Actually, according to the Wikipedia page for single:


It does not say the must appear, it says they may appear. Also, they were released as singles, though the album was changed, they were released in preparation for the album, which is what a single is. And on a final note, "Get Up" actually does have a video, and the situation is very much like Big Dreams from The Game's LAX album. They are singles, but not on the album. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I mostly keep pages together for upcoming albums, once they're released more and more people come and attempt to "take them over", not saying you you are, nor that I own it, but others have, so I'll be taking it off my watchlist. If you'd like to revert, I won't stop nor will I contest. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lil-unique1/Archive_2&oldid=1141110032"