Talk:Love Drunk

Review

I would like to add a professional review from a Canadian publication (BLARE Magazine) for this album. What do you think? 99.230.239.19 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you link it/give a publication number? It sounds like a good idea from what I've seen on the magazine's website. I couldn't find it there, though. talkingbirds 15:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link for it - http://blaremagazine.com/2009/09/07/album-reviews-7-9-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.239.19 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's not listed as a professional review resource on the Wikiproject Albums, I think it qualifies. You can go ahead and add it to the article. talkingbirds 21:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How can BLARE Magazine be classified as a professional review resource? 99.230.239.19 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a published magazine. Even though I can't find any evidence..there's nothing incriminating about it as far as I can see. talkingbirds 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. harej 02:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Love Drunk (album) → Love Drunk — It is better if this article MUST move to that link. Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

j3j3j3...pfH0wHz (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Love Drunk just redirects back here. BOVINEBOY2008 04:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • @BOVINEBOY2008 yes but it is better and advisable that it must be located here.j3j3j3...pfH0wHz (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm confused, do you support your own move request, or not, because I do. It makes no sense to make a PT article to redirect to an disambiguated article, as that is determining what would be the PT. BOVINEBOY2008 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. There's also Love Drunk (song). Is there some convention for giving priority to the album over the song in a situation like this? PC78 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • @PC78 Yes. I just base it on some other articles like Can't Be Tamed and Can't Be Tamed (song).j3j3j3...pfH0wHz (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure, but Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) and Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) (album). PC78 (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

      I think you have to assess it on a case by case basis. For example, Imagine (song) is probably more notable than Imagine (album) (although in that instance it's irrelevant as "Imagine" is a multiuse dab page anyway).  — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mild support - as far as I can tell from a very brief look, the album is more notable than the song and the redirect has been from Love Drunk to Love Drunk (album) for some time anyway. We need a hatnote at the top of the page though.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - if there's no indication that the song is more notable, then there seems no reason not to have the album at the base title. Other dab page entries are just word-association - there's no need for a dab page in fact, just a hatnote to the song.--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Drunk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028220406/http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691 to http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)