User talk:Wolfer68/Archive 2009

Time (Clock of the Heart)

Just a question, Why did you remove some parts from the infobox, and the categories? The song and the band are clasified as new-wave and is 1982 song. And is very common to put the certifications in the infobox as well as to link them to the album. Just look at featured song articles, "Hollaback Girl", "Irreplaceable", and "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Frcm1988 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I apologize if I was too agresive with this, I tought that you were one of those control freaks, that need to have everything sourced, even the genre, and that keep removing some things just because they think is irrelevant. Well again sorry for jumping into conclusions. And I would try to get more info on this, so it don't qualify as a stub anymore, I would like to have this article at least at GA, but I don't think there are any info on the writing or recording process, I can't even find info about "Karma Chameleon". Well I think I get out of topic, thank you for your help. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Heart and Soul (Huey Lewis and the News song)

I know that you often heavily edit articles relating to Huey Lewis and the News, so I thought I'd leave you a message saying that I created a page for the song, "Heart and Soul" and that if you had any extra info to add, since you know more about the band than me, then feel free to add it. :) I have slowly been creating articles for all of the band's singles that did not have articles on Wiki, and am very thankful that you have added any information you have come across. You've done great work, thanks man! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For doing such impeccable work in improving the quality of so many music articles, without getting any recognition at all. I thought you finally deserved some. Keep up the incredible work! CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem on creating the articles. The band is one of my all time favorite bands, and I am more than happy to give them more than the tiny minimal amount of articles they had about a year ago! My goodness, you even have newspaper clippings! That would help the articles TREMENDOUSLY, especially if you cite the clippings and articles. When you have the time to get them, feel free to send me a message. We can both work together on an article about an album or a single, and bring it to GA or FA. :) Have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now created the The Heart of Rock & Roll article. Now, all that's left to create from the Sports album is "Bad is Bad". Hard to believe that their most famous album had only two articles created for it at one point! Anyway, same deal, if you have any information to add, feel free to add it. :) Have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I personally always felt that a song was notable if it was released as a single! I mean, the notability to me is established if it's been released as a single, which did happen with "Bad Is Bad". I've seen a picture of the single cover sleeve, but I can't seem to remember where I've seen it before! I also don't know where exactly it was released as a single. It's a fun song, and I agree that it's a favorite, and I love the music video! I have WAY too many favorites when it comes to that band, LOL! Oh well, when the time comes I'll see what I can do. Actually, I think I should go after more notable singles that still need to be created, like "Small World" and "It Hit Me Like a Hammer". Also, I may try to extend and work on an article and get it to GA quality. I'm thinking of doing it with "The Power of Love", since that is probably their most famous song, and the easiest to find information to. Also, do you know of anyplace where I can find information on songs they've done, like their origins and such? That's always the hardest things to find! Have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand what you mean. Do you think that "World to Me" and "Walking with the Kid" are notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia? Both singles charted in the U.K., and I have the single covers for both. Just wondering. And here, It may have been a promo single release, though I KNOW I've seen a single cover somewhere... oh well. RE: It Hit Me Like a Hammer. That's a great idea, I'll go ahead and create the article later today, then you can add the single cover whenever you get it. :) Agreed with those choices, and I thought it would be a good idea to extend the "The Heart of Rock & Roll" article, and then nominate a fact for the Did You Know? thing on this Wiki, and it has been approved! :) Have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Billy Joel single template

Hello! I have contacted you because you have heavily contributed to the Billy Joel template. A discussion has been started, by me, about a template made solely for Joel's singles. The discussion is here, and your input it appreciated. Feel free to send other people a message, asking for their input. Thank you! CarpetCrawler (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Huey Lewis and the News userbox

I have created a Huey Lewis and the News userbox, feel free to add it to your userpage!

This user is a fan of Huey Lewis and the News.

Have a great day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

I don't think that your recent edit to Bat Out Of Hell (song) was entirely constructive. Adding flags is useful because they can provide a link to the country, and the written form of the country can provide a link to the national chart. In addition, Wikipedia is a professional website and adding the flags works well for keeping a formal presentation. You say that you removed the flags per MOS, which makes no sense at all because MOS stands for Museum Of Science. Please be careful in future, so you don't cause unwanted confusion amongst other editors. --Sky Attacker (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

date formatting in Hot 100

Will help you out. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything else?

What else needs to be done to help the article Don't Hang Up (song) have inline citations? --Sky Attacker (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your edits look good. Regarding the infobox, can you please just do ONE more thing to help improve the articles quality...do you think you could get a picture from Flikr or a similar source for the article?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD nomination of Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums

I have nominated Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

comment from your userpage

Can I add another professional review to now 19? Whowantstobeamillionaire (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I add another professional review on now 19 US series?

Whowantstobeamillionaire (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I put the CD length on now 17 US?

Whowantstobeamillionaire (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I put the CD length on now 29 US?

Whowantstobeamillionaire (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I put the now 31 cover I uploaded on the now 31 article later?

Whowantstobeamillionaire (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologize

On todays "World Sorry Day" I want to say "I'm sorry" for calling you an i****. I was upset about your behavior. 217.237.149.206 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Number one singles

You are aware that one number-one singles subcat was kept, and two renamed, in recent CFDs? See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 27#Number-one debut singles, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 18#Number-one singles in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:Number-one singles in Canada. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry about the WP:POINT accusation as well, but it did lead me to believe there was a cause and effect here. Still, I think that categories and lists aren't always mutually exclusive, especially in cases like this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was actually uncertain about the album categories, and sent the Billboard 200 one to CFD only because it had deleted before and there was no precedent for the number one album categories. There does seem to be a precedent for the singles categories, though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

With that one exception, the last CFD for the album categories was several years ago. I could easily see the album ones being restarted, as it makes sense — we have categories for all the singles, why not the albums? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, DRV would be a good idea. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Creative (song)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Creative (song), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative (song). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I Believe in a Thing Called Love

Hey Wolfer, on this edit were the categories you added mistaken? I took them out, if there were right somebody needs to find a reference. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No biggie, I keep tabs on the Billboard #1 adult contemporary category and noticed it got added but wasn't in the chart table. There are a few extra songs on the Billboard Hot 100 #1 category too, but I don't watch over that one. It should match the total on the Hot 100 article, but there's a discrepancy. Probably a few songs listed there that may have hit #1 before it was called the Hot 100 in 1958. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true, however I did find one that didn't belong there (only because it was towards the beginning): 'A' You're Adorable. Somebody used HotCat to change the category '#1 singles in the U.S.' to 'Billboard Hot 100 #1 singles' even though the song topped the pop chart in 1949. Maybe that was the only one, because I would guess that the former category is for songs pre-1955. Or for ones that don't have a more specific category created yet. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Music articles

Hey, I just saw you tagging after me in editing a music article. Could you please help me by changing all links to One of These Days so that they point to One of These Days (Pink Floyd song) instead? I'm about to move One of These Days (disambiguation) to One of These Days since it's an ambiguous title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Latvian charts

Please do not add the Latvian charts, or any other chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, to any Wikipedia articles. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Top Hot 100

Hi. Your question about the copyright status of these lists at Top Hot 100 Hits of 2008 could be far-reaching, so I have opened a discussion about it here. Please feel free to join in. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Difford

Thanks for the heads up. Now listed for speedy renaming. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Exposé

I saw you moved this from "band" to "group". I know logically this is correct (vocal group, no instruments), but I thought "band" was just kinda the Wikipedia naming convention/standard in order to keep music-related articles uniform? I could swear about a zillion articles were changed a few years ago, i.e. TLC (band). I know there are a bunch of "band" articles where the artists aren't really a "band" per se. - eo (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, no worries, I just wondered.... I thought the same thing you did when one day I saw the TLC thing and figured that was the agreed-upon standard. Later! - eo (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

American Dad! (season N)

Hello Wolfer68. What is the reason to keep useless redirects like American Dad! (season 1) - American Dad! (season 5)? They are IMHO of no use and perhaps examples for more useless redirects for other articles like this. To prevent this I think it is much better to delete them. --Ilion2 (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories for number-one albums/number-one songs

While CfD tries to be consistent, unless there has been some kind of a previous consensus, any nomination can result in odd results. If you want an example of this, look at Category:Women by occupation. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

DRV is always an option, but you need a valid reason, not sure if there is a case here or not. Personally I would not try again since that could result in a speedy delete. You could also take it to the CfD talk page and see if you could get a consensus there. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge/separation of different versions of the same song.

As somebody who appears to be interested in song articles you might be interested to know there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separation of different versions of the same song. You are invited to comment. Regards. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Menudo

Am I missing something on this Menudo DVD/CD product? I fixed up the page and you seem to have a thing with this DVD? Is there something personal that I should know about? I have never seen someone so persistent on a well known band like Menudo music. Please forgive me if I missed something in the translation and I am not trying to step in your toes, just a tad bit confused.

If we continue I will seek admin review and appeal as I am just confused. Please help me understand were you are coming from. Thanks, take care--66.176.154.137 (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing redirects

I notice you recently removed a number of redirects from I Wanna Go Back (Billy Satellite song). Please check out WP:NOTBROKEN on this topic. ("There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to remove the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise, and it can actually be detrimental.")

Reasons not to remove redirects of song titles, i.e. to have separate titles for each song version, include:

1. A redirect can host categories that might not be appropriate at the main page
2. A redirect can target a specific section of the song article dealing with the particular version in question

Neither of these apply in this case and this is not widely done, so I don't really care if the redirects are removed but I thought you might want to know. If you have a good reason for the removals, please disregard this note and/or enlighten me. — AjaxSmack 23:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Selena articles

What's going on with the anon IPs on Classic Series, Vol. 1 (Selena) and similar articles? Shadowjams (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Piped links

There is no need to use piped links as you are doing in many of your edits, such as you did in Now That's What I Call Music! 47 (UK series). Instead of this: [[Walk_of_Life|Walk of Life]]; just do this: [[Walk of Life]]. Thanks and happy editing. --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Or, rather, in this case, it should be [[Walk of Life (Billie Piper song)|Walk of Life]]; you don't need to use underscores. --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I realise that in many cases the simple use of [[Walk of Life]] would often be enough to ensure the link to the correct page, but in some cases, this one in particular, there are several pages that "Walk of Life" could refer to (for example, in this case it could have been to the track in question (a Billie Piper Song), or to a different track by Dire Straits Walk of Life) and so the added extra of ensuring that the link goes to the correct page was, I felt, to be necessary to prevent linking to a wrong page. I felt that as this site was helping me so much in my attempt to catalogue and find the correct details for my music collection, the least that I could do was to ensure that any broken, missing, or incorrect links were corrected by myself while I was looking at those pages anyway. I have run into a few (not too many, but a few) instances where the links pointed to the incorrect page, so I wanted to ensure completely that any links that I made pointed to the exact page that I wished them to. Where underscores, etc, appear in the links, these do so because I have simply copied the link directly from the page it should link to (to ensure no typos or mispelling on my part). --Wolf3587 (talk)

Now That's What I Call Music! 73 (UK series)

Hi there! I see you've reverted a paragraph from this article on several occasions now. Can I ask what kind of source you consider to be acceptable to allow it to remain? First you say the paragraph is "unsourced", but when screenshots of the official Napster software are provided, apparently you don't consider that to be a "reliable" source either? Napster is a subscription service, accessible only from its own software. A screenshot is the only way to demonstrate the contents of the software at issue. If you'd like to sign up for the UK Napster service and try to download the album yourself, you can verify it for yourself? Bonusballs (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

While I'm doing my best to see your point, I don't see how you can decide that the non-availability of the album on a major music download service is not notable. You're constantly reverting this information on the article, while leaving similar information (which must surely be equally unsourced and or "not notable" in your eyes) untouched - e.g. that the album is also the first one which does not provide ringtones. Your reasons also seem to constantly change - first that the claim is "unsourced", then it's sourced but not by an "independent" source (which as I've said above is not possible when you can't deep link into a subscription-only service), then it's "not notable enough". I don't like screenshots either but you're the one insisting that I prove the ABSENCE of something - something which I'm sure you can understand that there are relatively few ways to do. I think it's unreasonable for you to revert useful text on this basis - if you applied those rules consistently across the whole article there'd be nothing there. While we all want articles that are factual and verifiable, I don't think constantly reverting and deleting reasonable and decent information encourages people to contribute to Wikipedia in any way at all - quite the reverse. Bonusballs (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Girls (album)

Do you mind explaining why that article is not notable?--Launchballer (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I can't find release of the album online. Worse, I can't scan the front and back covers of the album as "sort of" sources.--Launchballer (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air episodes

Why did you made the links for each one of the episodes redirect to the episode guide page instead? You threw away lots of effort from other people (including me, who wrote the page for the episode Def Poet's Society) and information not contained in any other pages. Please, put the links back as they were if you can. I don't want to see my work ignored and I'm sure the users who created and helped writing the episode pages share the same opinion about their works.--Jmcalil (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

anime songs

I have redirected several stub articles you have created for songs as all but one, Rakuen (song) appear to fail WP:MUSIC. I would suggest adding the relevant info to the pages or, for Inuyasha creating a list page.陣内_Jinnai 01:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Down_IV

Would you consider redirecting this article to Down (band) right now?

The article is obviously not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining.

I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd, instead of having to wait 7 days. .

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from user talk:ikip

Down IV

If you've got the power, please go ahead and close the AfD and redirect the article. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay BRB. Ikip (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can redirect an article, this is usually faster than putting something up for an AFD. If someone disagrees with your redirect, you can then put it up for AFD.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. This barnstar is awarded to Wolfer68, for his willigness to comprimise and wanting to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. Thank you for your hard works to the project. Ikip (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hassles

Hi - why did you merge the two Hassles albums onto the Hassles page - particularly without asking on the TALK pages first? The article is already becoming unwieldy as a result of that, and there's not much room to put any criticism... I'm posting this on the Hassles TALK page as well so please respond there. Luminifer (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Billboard chart names

Hey I noticed you've been reverted some of my updates to Billboard chart names, please go here to discuss and forward your opinion on the matter. Thanks. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Pop Songs

Yes, I know but it's a component chart. It doesn't need to be individually listed on WK: Bad Charts. Component charts that affect chart positions on the Hot 100 are not allowed. Jayy008 (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pop Songs affects Hot 100 airplay affects Hot 100 Jayy008 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Added next day: I think it should be allowed to be kept it seems half of the people delete it and half keep it. How do you put it up for discussion as to whether it should be allowed or not? Jayy008 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, it's up so I'd appreciate you adding your opinion. Jayy008 (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Sorry to ask but you're the last person on my talk page. Could you tell me how to nominate a screen-shot or a album cover for deletion please? Jayy008 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again (2009 song) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Again (2009 song). Since you had some involvement with the Again (2009 song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TJRC (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Brownies Growing Strong, Vol. 3 (Melinda Caroll album)

Hello Wolfer68, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Brownies Growing Strong, Vol. 3 (Melinda Caroll album) has been removed. It was removed by Gerosete with the following edit summary '(Removed content to make the tone neutral. This page explains discography on main page. Go ahead and delete it if you find it offensive in some way.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Gerosete before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Add RB chart to Alicia Keys Discography

Hello wolfer: Please add a RB colum to the Alicia Keys Discography page. AK has had many #1 on the RBcharts. AK is more of a RB artist. Beyonce has the RB column on her discography page so I think RB colums are allowed. AK's positions on the RB charts easily verifiable from BB. I dont know how to do charts that is why I havent done it. I dont wanna ruin the page. Thanks 64.26.99.120 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

IT'S "The Beauty of Grace" NOT "BEAUTY OF GRACE"

You changed the link to "The Beauty of Grace" to The "Beauty of Grace". FYI, THE SONG IS CALLED "THE BEAUTY OF GRACE", NOT "BEAUTY OF GRACE". IF YOU WNAT TO DO THINGS RIGHT YOU WOULD RENAME THE PAGE AND THEN FIX THE LINK TO BE WHAT THE SONG IS CALLED, NOT WHAT THE PAGE IS NAMED, WHICH IS WRONG.

EYESONCHIST

CfD nomination of Category:Savage songs

I have nominated Category:Savage songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Savage (rapper) songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 04:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Christmas in America

Just a heads-up that I edited the prose in the article. I had originally added the article itself in November 2008 as it was missing at the time, and I have just started to return to sporadic editing in Wikipedia as I go through my music collection (hopefully with an eventual full return to adding things in the future). I happened to be scrolling through the Rogers' albums (many of which I worked on) and found the tag on this one, so I hope my rewrite warrants removal of the tag. I'd originally followed the review prose much too closely and realized that the tag was correct; I had encyclopedia-ed a review. *LOL*

Let me know what you think, and if any other changes should be made, or other inclusions. I found chart info on the album for the first time today so also added that. =) CycloneGU (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that goes back a bit, almost a year. It does still need sourcing. Much of the first paragraph comes from the Allmusic review. You may want to identify that and reference it (so and so of Allmusic says it will drive one batty, blah, blah, blah). Dump the word "classic" as that is POV. You should be able to find the Billboard chart info somewhere; I just don't know where, at least online anyway. I'd just leave it until (if) someone challenges it. Thanks for the heads up.

All the Right Wrongs

I noticed you had edited the page for All the Right Wrongs and wrote "a self-described "alternative rock edge" does not make the album alternative rock". This doesn't exactly have anything to do with that specific article, but I was just wondering that why does a self-description not define the genre, but one subjectical critic's review does, here in Wikipedia? For example on Here We Go Again (album) page, one out of 6 or 7 reviews mentions dance-pop in the sidebar, not even in the actual article and the others say nothing about it, but I was told not to remove the genre. PaRaDeaD (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

--Wolfer68 (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WoW, look at what I found. (Billboard charts)

Billboard charts
I was so excited that I had to bring it over to your TALK :) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL - where do you think I got all the chart names from to do the list. ;)--Wolfer68 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

haha, ok —Iknow23 (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for all your help

at Freddie and the Dreamers (album) It was my first attempt at an album and I sort of got lost in all the details. Most of which you fixed. Anyway, for that you get the seldom sought Thumbs Up Award. Carptrash (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wolfer!

Can you please take a look at Talk:Billboard Hot 100 50th Anniversary Charts and Talk:List of number-one hits (United States)#1958 and some of the edits being made by User:Mateyahoy? You've chimed in here before and I'm wondering if you could re-join some of these discussions. I appreciate Mateyahoy's enthusiasm but I think he needs to step back just a little bit before he starts disrupting other Billboard chart articles. Or maybe it's me who is being a little too resistant to what he is trying to do. I really don't want all of the decisions here to just be me vs. him, so another set of eyes and an additional voice would really help us out. Thanks. - eo (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable solution was found. :) --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Gloria Estefan correction Sorry if I'm posting this in an incorrect place. Could you revisit your edit for Megamix (Gloria Estefan). You made an edit that it was not released in the United States, which is untrue. I purchased the "Megamax" when it was released in the US on cassette. There's a reference in the article to it being called Miami Mix, which I've never heard it called, but apparently it was known as that in the UK. I'm sure if researched, it would turn up in a catalog somewhere that it did have a US release.Heystarcade (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)HeyStarcade

If you don't think the 50th anniversary charts are important why don't you ask to have the page removed? I won't object :) — MateyAhoy^† 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A major publishing house created a book with songsheets about it, and It had National & International major news media, reporting on its historical significance. Hows that? :) — MateyAhoy^† 00:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I already put the refs up :) — MateyAhoy^† 00:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

white space

Regarding this edit and your comment: "no need for <br>, an actual space does the trick."
It doesn't "do the trick" on my computer. What magic are you employing? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what it looks like on your computer, but unlike navboxes at the bottom of the page, I always see a small space above and below succession boxes when the return key is used to add a space. --Wolfer68 (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I gathered that. And as I said/implied, I don't see that. And that's why it was like that.

So where does that leave us?

(I'm inclined to restore it, but decided it would be more polite to discuss the matter first.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have no problem with that, it's just that I've never seen it done on any page that I've come across with succession boxes. I've seen it on artist's navigational boxes, because I've seen what that does, but even that's not really a big deal. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm interested by your response, and the apparent fact that my experience is so different from your experience. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say I'm puzzled - maybe even "concerned".

I agree that, in the grand scheme of life, it is far from being even a small deal. Never-the-less, in the interim, I'll accept your offer.

Nice talking to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Now That's What I Call Music! 74 (UK series)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Now That's What I Call Music! 74 (UK series). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 74 (UK series). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Pop 100 pages

Yes, this is probably a good idea. I'm not sure about the final "Poker Face" week tho... I don't think that chart exists? The text before the table even states that the final #1 was Black Eyed Peas. My personal opinion is to discourage the ↑↓ stuff (I like the by-week layout better), however since you're consolidating it all into one article this way probably makes the most sense. I don't really see a problem merging these all and getting rid of the extra pages. - eo (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

re: "Poker Face".... ahhh yes, I get it now. - eo (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: PopLife Records

Hello Wolfer68, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of PopLife Records - a page you tagged - because: They appear to have two acts signed who have articles. Smees a credible assertion of notability. PROD or take to AfD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  14:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion nomination of Dance with Me (Aaron Carter song)

You say the article has zero notability as a single release. However, according to WP:NSONGS, the single has been released and has been confirmed and promoted by the artist, Aaron Carter, therefore, it qualifies to have an independent article than the album. Plus, the song is available for purchase on iTunes and Amazon.com as a single. Cougars2012 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I created the article because of the notability of the artists, Aaron Carter and Flo Rida, and the probability that it will be successful. It is Carter's comeback single and Flo Rida is a very well known rapper. It could be compared to the page for the Britney Spears song, 3, as it was created before the song was even released by the record company. Like you said early referencing WP:NSONGS, "...have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Aaron Carter and Flo Rida are notable and it is performed by them. Cougars2012 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How about instead of deleting the article, we redirect it to Aaron Carter? Cougars2012 (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Hello, I thought that you might be interested?
Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Is it really needed? (18 Charts)
For completeness of discussion please make any comments there.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Dieter Bohlen

Hi, you have just added Modern Talking as a category but not all the songs he wrote were recorded by Modern Talking, yet you removed the Hall and Oats songwriting category from the band on the grounds that not all Hall & Oats songs were recorded by Hall and Oats. Although I like Modern Talking in the category, ditto Hall and Oats, it's not something I feel that strongly about, but I'd like a little consistency. OTOH It's easy done, I daresay I have done something similar many times at WP. Hope that all makes sense. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know that group's song and did not check. Although that is why I did not place it under the Modern Talking songs category. What I was doing there was emptying the eponymous category for Dieter Bohlen, which only had the main article and the songs written by category in it. I just moved up the Songs written by category to a parent category. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

navboxes with non-linked items?

Hey Wolfer, I noticed your edit of a navbox that contains non-linked items at Anjulie. So I thought that you might be interested in joining the discussion at LINK. For completeness of discussion please make any comments there. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(I Want to)

Where does it say that "to" should be capitalized in "(I Want To)"; I don't see it in WP:NAME. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I found it here at WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles and am just going by that. --Wolfer68 (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't interpret that as you do; "to" is an article and the guideline says not to capitalize articles. There is another rule that says to capitalize the first and last word, but that seems secondary to the article rule. The guideline also says to ignore parens except for the first word after the ending paren. So, "(Don't Fear) The Reaper", not "(Don't Fear) the Reaper", but "(I Want to) Come Home" not "(I Want To) Come Home". I'll leave it as is, but I think it's wrong; if it's right, wow--that's nonsensical. Parens don't change the importance of an article like "to". — John Cardinal (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, to is not an article; it is an infinitive marker. (English articles are a, an and the.) Still, I would interpret the guideline by treating infinitive-marker to like preposition to, and therefore not capitalize it. Cnilep (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning for capitalizing "to" is solely based on the criteria as stated in WP:MOSCAPS that reads "titles that include parentheses should be capitalized as though both the part inside and outside the parentheses are separate titles" (i.e. "I Want To" [because you capitalize the first and last word] and "Come Home"). Based on that, it doesn't matter what "to" is. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems consistent with the MOS. Cnilep (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected about to being an article; I knew it wasn't an article and I am not sure what I was thinking at the time. Anyway, I am surprised by the guideline. The parens essentially make an aside of the first phrase and that doesn't make to any more important than it usually is. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sway (song) covers section?

You edited Sway (song) with the edit summary "notable covers are listed in "covers" section". Yet there is no 'covers' section on the page. Furthermore, every recording of Sway (with the exception of Beltran 1953 and arguably Martin 1954) is a cover. Could you explain what you had in mind at Talk:Sway (song)? Cnilep (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Telephones and editors.

Hi, I know I have missed the point, but Stephen is correct, the Video Phone was released without Lady Gaga, it was remixed and put on Beyonce's album only, therefore he is correct and it is NOT a LG single, I'm getting so confused with this one I might even have the names round the wrong way! (I did and I corrected my post, maybe the other single is similar but article is silent! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Most of my discussion pertains to the issue in general, anyway. --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Cochise (Cochise album)

Hi, I saw the edit you made to the stub clasification on Cochise (Cochise album) to "Country". This review makes it fairly clear that it isn't a country album. I puposely left the 'genre' field blank in the infobox due to the eclectic nature of the album. I assume there is a task out there that aims to more precisely tag these stubs but I don't think it is appropriate for this album. Thanks J04n(talk page) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)