User talk:Indopug/Archive 5

Radiohead song articles
Hello. I've noticed that you have redirected several Radiohead song articles to their respective album article. I would ask that you refrain from this. Most of the songs you've redirected weren't singles from the band, yet they serve importance to have an article. Examples are "I Might Be Wrong" and "Optimistic". They were released as radio-only singles in some areas, yet they were redirected. Please take caution when you make decisions like these which could spark unnecessary upheaval. I will slowly but surely revert your edits so the songs will have their articles again. In the future please seek consensus to prevent controversy like this. Thanks, and enjoy your Wikibreak. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply.


 * You have pointed out some things that I haven't known before. Songs are indeed notable as singles because of their public appeal. But some songs are also notable because they have a music video. Sit Down. Stand Up. is an example. Its video appears on TMGLMOAT and their upcoming Best of Radiohead DVD collection. Another example is "Idioteque". That has a video. Songs like this probably should have their own article. But there are other songs that are neither singles or have a music video, but have some importance to have an article. It can get very confusing, however, I'm glad that you contacted me about this before you re-reverted the articles, which possibly could have sparked an unnecessary revert war. I'll admit that I should have contacted you first. However, I think it'd be best that we leave the articles as is for now and not reverting them and instead bring it to WP:SONGS(?) for an outside opinion. But I'll point out that many of the Radiohead song articles need lots of work (cleanup, sources, the whole nine yards). —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 22:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you enjoy the Sit Down. Stand Up. video, he he. :) I have mixed feelings whether if the Sit Down. Stand Up. article be redirected. As for "Idioteque", I'm confident that it should have it's own article; it is notable enough for having a music video known to those who watch MTV regularly. The only two Kid A songs that should have articles are "Idioteque" and "Optimistic" (Optimistic was released as a radio-only single in the U.S.). The other Kid A songs that have articles are "The National Anthem", "How to Disappear Completely", "Morning Bell" and "Motion Picture Soundtrack", and those probably don't need articles, although MB may have an exception because there are two versions, the Kid A version and the Amnesiac version, called "Morning Bell/Amnesiac". That song can have its own articles because there are two different versions, and they can both be described in one article to avoid redundancy. This is going to be a very strenuous task to decide what songs deserve an article and which don't. We may need outside opinions to decide this. I don't think it would be easy to take a look at every song on every album, and determine if they should have an article. This is an extreme case. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let me see:


 * Picking from the Amnesiac songs, I think we can both agree that "Knives Out", "Pyramid Song" and "I Might Be Wrong" remain. The remainder, which are covered by articles, are the ones hat should be disputed greatly. As for the Sit Down, Stand Up song, I see that after taking a glance at the history, it was created by an IP user, only to be edited later by users who signed up. It has somewhat matured since then, although no significant references were ever added. I believe most of the articles can be "saved" requiring that they get the attention. I will fully discuss this some more later on before the close of the day.


 * Also, another thing: I will be replying to messages posted on my talk page at that page. Just check there from now on as I find fragmented discussions inconvenient. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I reverted "Optimistic (song) back to its article. I think the #10 showing on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart is sufficent for its stand-alone notability. |This Billboard page lists every song by Radiohead that charted on a Billboard Chart 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, the user who replied brought up a good point: whether or not the article about the song is a single or not shouldn't be the issue. If the article has an adequate amount of references, then the article can stay. As for Sit Down. Stand Up., that article doesn't have any references, leading to its re-redirection. If we can find some references for songs like those, or songs that do not have an article at all, we can update the information and the articles will be in place again. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Doggystyle FAC
I think i've taken care of your concerns about the CD Universe quotes, is the page Ok now ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One question, is Acclaimed Music a reliable source to use for showing a list of accolades an album has received, instead of using Rocklistmusic ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the accolades section into a table and added the AcclaimedMusic ref, would you be willing to change your stance from Oppose now ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you, but I was just wondering if you've had a chance to look back over the article yet ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I responed to your oppose at the FAC, just informing you incase you missed it :) - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to have another look at the article ? I hate to be a pain, but I think I've taken care of most of your concerns. Also, the only other problem seems to be that it needs a good copy-edit, which i'm trying to get done. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

grunge
its a pov statement and as been discused to great exstent and everything you described only reinforces what i have said every event that is mentioned in the article took place in 1994 which happends to be in the in the early 90's not mid 90's so stop being a troll--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

you know as well as i do that nobody breaks down a decade like that thats pov .The real issue here is not prose the issue is article ownership and only wanting a article to say what a click of editiors wants it to say so you and your click just fillibuster any editors who come along with changes you dont like and just complain about grammar,so you are telling me that sentence is the only way to lead the paragraph off?you would have to be kidding me,and dodd had said he could live with the change and said he just didnt like a set date so please stop lieing about prose and grammar being your motive--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Assistance
Hello, sorry to bother you. I'm having a little trouble with User:Freedom (song) on the Soundgarden album articles. He keeps placing charts into the chart section that I insist aren't notable. These are charts like the Top 40 of a particular country for which the main chart is already listed. Can you check this out? Thanks.-5- (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Soundgarden
No, it could be much better, especially compared to the other FA articles on the "Big Four" grunge bands. I remember a few months back Xihix wanted to turn it into an FA but had trouble finding sources. I remembered that there's a bio from 1994 called New Metal Crown, but that's been out of print for years. Still, it'd need to be looked at in order to assauge comprehensiveness concerns. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I remember an older version where it would list pages by ranking in a nice orderly format. I noticed on that list that certain bands would rank higher than others; when it came to alt-rock, My Chemical Romance, the Chili Peppers, and Green Day were generally the most visited, although Smashing Pumpkins got up there around the time they officially announced their reunion last year. It might be comforting to know that My Chemical Romance still got less visitors than Nirvana (band) last month. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was looking up some stats and was wondering why the articles for Alternative rock and Grunge music spiked unusually on April 22. It took me a few minutes to realize that was the day Pearl Jam was on the Main Page. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * People were updating Grammy results, from the looks of it. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

God, no. I hate those things. They make tracklists needlessly complicated. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think of creating a composite infobox image for Foo Fighters? We have enough clear images of the current individual bandmembers. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Important
Are you saying that i'm user:Wellwater Conspiracy cause i'm not. And it's not my fault wellwater conspiracy likes the article User:-5- has written and i set up okay. --Freedom (song) (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's so importent for you delete two of supporters okay. --Freedom (song) (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Heaven Up Here
Hi Indopug, thanks for your help with the Heaven Up Here article. I'm just a bit curious about some of the repeat references you've removed. If you look on the talk page you'll see that User:Efe who is reviewing the article for the GA nomination has suggested that they (at least some of them) need to be there. Is he likely to fail the nomination now? --JD554 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What I would to say that all qouted materials must be directly sourced. --Efe (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me if you're done copy editing it. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? All I know is that when a certain sentence have "this", it should be directly sourced. BTW, I thought you'll be back by June. --Efe (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Efe (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley
I'm restoring some of the associated acts you removed as per the infobox article "Associated_acts=Acts from which this act spun off; acts which spun off a group act; groups with which an artist performs; other acts with which the act is associated."Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHART
I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies/style asking members whether they think WP:CHART should be followed in discographies. Just letting you know for if you want to comment. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk· contribs· count· email) 08:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks


Dorothy the Dinosaur (and me) have given you this beautiful rose in appreciation for your assistance in getting The Wiggles to FA-status. Yoo hoo! and Good on ya, mate! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

TWS
Thanks! I'll use the SP article, as well as the Sex Pistols article since that one looks reeeeally professional. I do listen to a few things that aren't punk or blues actually...I grew up on SP, they got me listening to "different" kinds of music. Still love Gish & Siamese Dream. Anyway though, I think we sould really work hard to get The White Stripes to FA status. I literally know so much about them that if you knew the far-reaching extent to which my 7-year obsession with this band ranges, you'd probably not talk to me at all, LOL. Lastly, I have a question for you: how do I add a pic of myself to my userpage? Thanks. :) —-Tim010987 (talk 4:20 AM, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Very big house
When you want me to add sources to "Country House", let me know. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Allmusic review doesn't say too much about the song's structure. I'll take a look at the John Harris Britpop book; I believe he talked about its cliched Blur Britpop beat, at least. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough my NME Originals: Britpop has neither the review for "Country House" or "Roll With It". Oh, there's three articles and two sidebar features about the Battle of Britpop, but no reviews of the singles. You'd think they'd included something like that. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Echo & the Bunnymen discography
Hi, I've made a number of changes to Echo & the Bunnymen discography as per your suggestions for the peer review. I'd be grateful if you could give it another look to see if you have any further suggestions. Thanks --JD554 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Paramore
According to WP:LEAD, a lead section should "explain why the subject is interesting or notable". As this band qualifies as a band that "has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award.", this a major claim to being notable according to WP:MUSIC. -- neon white user page talk 14:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Metallica
Put Metallica's tours in the template Template:Metallica tours which redirects to template Metallica, don't just disappear them!--  Rockk3r       Spit it Out!  02:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fightin'
I'm going to start moving to the "Musical style" section on Foo Fighters, so if you could check out what I've done with the rest of the article so far and tweak here or there that would be much appreciated. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Madonna reassessment
I have replied to your comment/concern. -- Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 21:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Watching a video on VH1 Classic right now . ..
You know what I'd like to fix up someday? Led Zeppelin. My main concern is the amount of sources I'd have to dig through to refresh my memory on things and to use as suitable reference material. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No; I've never even seen it in stores. I'm assuming it's a UK-only release. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And no fucking way is Coda a studio album. Haven't they heard of an "odds 'n sods" collection before? They must be friends with the people who change the Nirvana infoboxes to include Incesticide as a studio album. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, Black Sabbath is rather long (81kb), but skimming through it it's remarkably focused and doesn't really go into unnecessary detail. I'm trying to think of ways to trim it, if it can be done at all. I think the legacy section is the weakest part right now, and the musical style section in need of some serious expansion. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I asked JD554 replace the everyhit/chartstats UK chart refs in some of the featured discographies with references from a book he has. That should quell some major sourcing issues. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Got an album to recommend for this month's newsletter? Something good but not outrageously obvious. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll roll with that. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Hammer of the Gods mentions something. Sharon Osbourne pushes the myth that Sabbath emerged fully formed from the ether with no precedent, but I wouldn't be surprised if the musicians in the band respected Zeppelin. I believe I read once that Tony Iommi is a Zep fan. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, one of my pet peeves: The Beatles are primarily a rock band. People act as if there are tons of harmonies and hooks in in your songs you aren't "rock" enough. That just means you are really good at writing vocal melodies. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Random list of rock band FAs, more or less in order of when they released their first albums: Pink Floyd, Genesis, Rush, AC/DC, Sex Pistols, Motorhead, Joy Division, U2, R.E.M., Metallica, Slayer, Pixies, Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails, Alice in Chains, Uncle Tupelo, The Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Stereolab, Tool, Silverchair, Wilco, Powederfinger, Opeth, New Radicals, Godsmack, Audioslave, Damageplan. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know Genesis passed an FAC over a year ago. Or maybe it was Phil Collins. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember looking at that page a while ago and it saying "pop rock" or the like (currently going through Pink Floyd revision history). WesleyDodds (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's the version of Pink Floyd promoted back in February 2006. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That lead sucks so hard. . . WesleyDodds (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When "Hey Jude" was up for FAR, no one stepped up to fix it up. It was about to be removed until Ceoil suggested the two of us work on it. Reading all the Beatles books on my university library shelf was certainly taxing. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Random: Why does the Gandhi article list his middle name in the title? WesleyDodds (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a dirty godless American, we only need to say "Mohandas Gandhi" for people to know what we are talking about. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone can pull off a mullet. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That Mary Chain picture should go into the article ASAP. The R.E.M. one could be better, but it's nice to have an image of when Michael Stipe had hair. And is this not a great Prince photo? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PR
Hey boy, "Deja Vu" in on PR right now: Peer review/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)/archive2. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! Could you re-visit Featured article candidates/Baby Boy (song)? Thanks. --Efe (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have more concerns? Please check the FAC page, I left comments there. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson
Hey, take a look at the JJ talk page. Consider putting the article on your watchlist to keep up to date with the dialogue, your input would be great, cheers. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 21:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a few more dubious links that i have brought up at the madonna reassessment if you wouldnt mind vetting as a more experienced editer. Cheers. --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 00:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I discussed it on the admin noticeboard, im to take the links to Jayron32 when I have finished to be wiped off the site. Cheers. --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here, if Jayron cant handle it he wont mind passing it on the the relevant body. Im gonna AGF on your part that you didnt think i was wildly removing stuff because of my taste in music, id like to think I have a little more respect off the community than that. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I might do when im finished, at the moment im just trying to get through the 18 archives, you can help me if you like, start from 18 and work your way down. Its so much fun. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 20:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Strapping Young Lad
Hi! Could you please take one last big look at the article, Strapping Young Lad, if you happen to have free time. It's a FAC again, and now the only concern is with references, but I'm slowly taking care of it, so just look at other stuff, grammar and things like that. By the way, thanks for the cake!:) Gocsa (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 07:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, forget it, pay no heed
I think that after literally years of work, I should get serious about getting Nevermind ready for a GA nom. In terms of prose, I really only need to fill out the Music and Legacy sections. Could you help cite the chart positions, borrowing liberally from Nirvana discography? If you have any questions about the prose, ask away; I sourced most everything myself. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In a sense, yes, but Michael Azerrad specifically mentions "Sliver" as the key change in Nirvana's sound, and Kurt Cobain did as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick answer
I don't think I have (at least none that I've noticed). I'm pretty sure that Everyhit is accurate, or at least as accurate as any source is. And for anything from 2006 onwards it seems to be the only source there is. --JD554 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Past Masters, Volume One article
Please explain the deletion of the LP album cover of the Past Masters Volumes One and Two LP. The album cover has formal fair use rationale included. The CD version was issued as two separate CDs. The LP version was released as a combined double LP. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion to make the double LP a separate article, but it was rejected in consensus. There are different release dates as the separate CDs were released before the double LP. The inclusion of the double LP sleeve was part of the compromise. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The requested info was inserted. Should a new spinoff proposal be made for the double LP? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for answer about spinning off double LP into a separate article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Arise article
indopug, I'll adress the issues you've brought up in due time, although I have to say that the tone of your judgement on the quality of this article ("I'm not convinced this is anywhere near GA status" or "doesn't even resemble a professional tone of writing") seems harsh and unecessary. Maybe a bit more of constructive criticism next time? Musicaindustrial (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for your input! Musicaindustrial (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FAQ
Oh, jikes, cheers, ill take note. I was pointed to the Bob Dylan article myself my someone working on the elvis article. I took it at face value, saw the star and ashumed it was good. I should know better than that having just put the Supremes article up for FAR lol. --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, earlier you took the part about wives and children out of the MJ lead. The article does donate quite some time to these issues and they are a significant controversy in MJ's life. Is there a reason that you didnt think it note worthy enough for the lead? Should the lead have clarified their controversial significance perhaps? --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I will think on, im trying to keep the lead neutral so negative aspects shouldnt be removed if possible. Ill see how it goes, if I readd it, ill clarify its reasoning. Cheers. --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Another question, the new picture seems to be getting the thumbs up. I was wondering if there was anyway to make the background completely black, to get rid of that annoying green shirt. Or would that be photoshop? — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

MJ is always leaning forward for no apparent reason. see here. ;-) — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AMG on Madonna
It collects personal info and is not all that reliable. So Billboard is needed. But I haven't put back the numbers

Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)
I saw that you took out details on the tracks, as well as details on the 8 track. I understand that it's good to reduce clutter, but I think there are some necessary details there (especially regarding the 8 track, as there is additional music on it that's not available on the CD/Cassette/Vinyl releases). Jrclark (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

UP & RUNNING!!!
Glad to see all the enthusiasm, all further questions should now be delt with at the Project talk page here where we will discuss our first tasks. Put the project on your watchlist, add the badge to your user page by pasting .Then add your name on the user project page here. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 00:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Jam discography
I checked the total number of live albums and official bootlegs again and it comes out to 251. There's the six live albums listed on the discography page, 72 official bootlegs from 2000, 72 official bootlegs from 2003, and 101 digital bootlegs from 2005 and 2006. I'll go ahead and put it up for nomination.-5- (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tommy, Can You Hear Me?
I have reverted this, just because it has little on it, or not released doesn't mean it is not notable. The song was the UNICEF song/anthem (unsure on what they want to call it). Consider expanding the article instead of removing it. Cheers, Jonomacdrones  (talk)  18:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Eyesight to the Blind
I've reverted your apparently hasty (certainly not discussed) redirect to the Who's pages, and reinstated a stub article, with an unreferenced tag, relating primarily to the original blues song. The original song is notable in its own right, in my view, but I would fully accept that the article needs to be expanded and referenced - which will happen in due course. Changes by consensus, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, no probs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm.. no reason to remove the category though, surely? - the Who did record a version so I would have thought it should be listed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really either mind or care either way, to be honest! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

May FAC reviewer award

 * Well done! giggy (O) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it up man! --Efe (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :D indopug (talk)

Archive
Hi there! I think you can go ahead and archive Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. The RM admin has declared "No consensus" and closed the discussion. We can now all go back to making useful edits (like to the main Gandhi page itself). Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

a-ha has sold 80 million records
her is the source for it from --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The White Stripes are back and already recording a 7th album
Thought you might like to know. I'm telling everyone on planet Earth. Read what I added to their page about the upcoming album confirmation as well as Meg's return last night in Detroit at the Racs show. Tim010987 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that. My favorite White Stripes album is probably still White Blood Cells. Yours? Tim010987 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sockpuppetry at FLC
Thanks for letting me know. The discography page could easily be closed as a failure right now, but I'm going to leave the awards page up for a couple of days, just in case someone decides to take over. -- Scorpion0422 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

JB Discography
I was thinking of starting one myself so knock yourself out. Hadn't thought about the possibliity of putting the unreleased songs and tribute songs there. I've had worries about those sections all along and you were definitely right about removing the covers list, there are no notable covers yet (a la All Along The Watchtower etc) and it became a forum for non-notable stuff. Personally i'd reduce the selected discography to Grace, Sketches, Mystery White Boy and the two legacy editions but i'm not sure what normal procedure is. I would also recommend that "Guest appearances and collaborations" go in there too as the most significant stuff is repeated in the body of the article anyway. I'll be sure to have a look when you're done. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Scrap the legacy thing i said, i see they have the same articles as their smaller earlier releases. No wait - The live at Sin-e ones don't. What's the normal thing to do regarding Legacy/expansion re-releases? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, you just ended my GA review... by removing the rest of the article! XD Good times. Haha,  Lara  ❤  Love  18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm copying this to the article talk. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The featured list contest
Thanks for entering the contest. You are now able to select the topic that you would like to work on. While it is a good idea to know which specific list you will work on before you select a topic, you do not have to submit your list until Thursday. Once you have a topic and a list, you can start work. However, you will not be able to submit an FLC until Sunday at 00:00 (GMT). Good luck and have fun! -- Scorpion0422 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC
Thank you! The low-res, high-res issue is still a foggy issue to me. Thanks for stepping in and taking care of that picture for us. NancyHeise (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lions (album)
Thanks for the peer review, but I can't figure out why you shortened the name of the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart... —Zeagler (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:2008 attacks on NI in MH (FAC)
Hello, Indopug...thanks for the copyedits to the lead. I am impressed by your editing. Can you copyedit it some more? I have requested people at LOCE to c/e it but didn't receive substantial help. Another thing- Whats the guideline about MOS-Dates? (I have some queries- see my reply at the FAC) Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Indopug! Did you find that link (MOS dates)? I just logged in and wanna correct the date formatting (atleast something to do in this short visit to WP) KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Madonna (entertainer)/1
Hi, this discussion, which you were involved in, has been restarted. Please take another look and try and get this wrapped up sooner rather than later. :-) Cheers, giggy (O) 12:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Buckley GA
I'm going to start on the references now. I think i'll stick to the templates that i'm used to so i don't mess up the order of the info. I find it much more readable when in edit mode too and it doesn't mess with my mind when updating refs. Though i guess it might take up a few more bytes here and there. Now for the dirty (dull) work! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814
would you mind reviewing Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814? I'd like to have a thorough review making sure I have a proper list of what to add so I don't go overboard and then have to rebuild the page. If you choose to do so, thankyou in advance. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  00:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTM
Congratulations on having earned your first WP:FL during the last month. You may be interested in nominating your list for consideration as August LOTM and LOTD. It would also be great if you would consider voting on the current set of candidates for consideration as July LOTM and LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:United World Chart
I'm a little hesitant to remove the chart positions for now. There is a discussion here about the chart, and there are several users who disagreed to remove the chart positions. I don't know which way should I go about this. Sorry for the confusion. RaNdOm26 (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Dates
Okay I have changed all occurences of full date to the International format...however in case of dates which are not followed by the year...the link you gave–WP:MOSDATE says both 12 May / May 12 are correct. So do I need to change them? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
I would think this should be subject to discussion and consensus per WP:TRIVIA. It's a major change to the article. -- Rodhull andemu  15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything's up to discussion and consensus on a talk page. So far, two people have agreed to both points (me and Ceoil), and Realist2 "definitely" agrees to your second point. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. I archived the PR. The reason I do PRs before any work is done is because I like to get an idea of what I NEED to do BEFORE I start working. Apparently, that won't be necessary in your case, but I've only been here for about three and a half months, so I need a little direction...I tried starting on this before, but I was a bit too inexperienced to take on the task. Oh well, it's a fresh start. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 23:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources...well, there's plenty of Geocities websites. Just kidding, actually, I don't have any sources, but I could get some if you like. Google Books will be my friend for a bit. ;) What do you suggest? Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 23:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know any good FA album articles that we could use as a guide? Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the first albums that appear in the section on WP:FA. Hm....LOL, okay, those will work I guess. I thought we might need a more influential album, so that we can better compare with "Sgt. Pepper". Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much has been going on with this. Where do you suppose we start? Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See talk page. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 16:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See talk page again. Any suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks for the sources too (I was really busy, sorry). Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 02:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on "Background" right now, but there's something I don't get. Did Harrison meet Ravi after doing "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" or before? Because all the sources I see say that Harrison met Ravi in 1966, after Rubber Soul was released (1965). It would make sense if he met Shankar AFTER Rubber Soul, but then what sparked his interest in the sitar? Then there's this, which says, "In 1966 Beatles guitarist studied with [Shankar]. Harrison later [emphasis added] played the sitar on the Beatles song 'Norwegian Wood'..." Hope you can help. BTW, nice work on The Beatles. ;) Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially with hardcore Beatles fans and their "It must be comprehensive! Keep everything!" But you gotta keep some things in, and others out. And you're doing a great job in that respect. Hopefully I'll have time to work on that too (it's on my to-do list. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Beatles photo
Hi, Indopug - that photo should be fine. When you upload it, the correct license to use would be PD-Pre1978. Under the "source" section of the Information template, put. In the "Permission" section, I would include a link to the LOC gallery page that includes the note that the copyright was researched by the Library of Congress people. According to this, only a few of those UPI photos had copyright registered, and those apparently were not renewed. Good luck - if you like, drop me a note when the photo is uploaded and I'll check over the details for you. Kelly hi! 14:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church
This is a formal notification.
 * The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
 * Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the  nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page.  Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: FF
I removed the bolding of number 1's. Apart from that, Let It Die's chart trajectory is the main reason for the edits. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind comments, they are most appreciated. I don't think I will get an account: I like the open nature of the project and think it is its great strength. Therefore for now at least I prefer to be part of the wider community of editors without being part of the narrower one. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistent influences editor
Be careful of the editor who added the influences on the Bob Dylan article here. They constantly change IP (school or library user?) and insert influences into infoboxes and articles, focussing especially on (from the top of my head) Donovan, Buddy Holly, Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, Tim Buckley and The Animals amongst others. They have also copied influences directly from the answers.com entry for the musician/group. I have to say they are remarkably persistent. I could show you my extreme lengths to act in good faith regarding Tim Buckley and his dislike of Bob Dylan but i'm sure it would only bore you as much as it bored me.

I know this is exactly the kind of pointless, citationless trivia that you'll be rid of in a second: so keep an eye out. Also, reckon you know anyone up for reviewing the Bob Dylan article? I think wikipedia FA standards have risen since the last review whilst the article has seen a decline. Personally i don't have the time for it at the moment. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Would you mind lending me your thoughts on the state of the MJ article. Im probably going to nominate it for FA soon-ish, it will without question cause a minor storm in a teacup again. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree, his charity work hasnt received enough mention in the media...... However it is still a huge part of his personal achievement. Besides if you took it out the lead it would imply that there are NO good aspects to his personal life, which is not neutral or remotely accurate. Infact from what I know of his fans at least, its because of his charity work that he has any fans that are willing to stick around. Thriller 25 is notable, selling 3 million copies of a reissue in 12 weeks when the pop industry is crumbling is an achievement. Also remember, at the moment he doesn't have a record deal, many people have said that he woundn't be able to get one after his trial. The success of T25 has just ended that speculation. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Every revert is like Sunday
You are somehow involved in this slow war of attrition. Somehow I'm mediating, and asking that you present arguments against the sources on the talk pages[s]. Sorry to drag you in. Ceoil sláinte 21:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

stp
indopug its not about if somebody can be both genres,its about having a nuetral article some consider them grunge and some post-grunge and when i mean some i am talking about music critcs and the general public and sources dictate that even if you just read there bio on vh1 they are accused of riping off the seattle sound that is what post grunge artist are accused of--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * when you are doing clean ups and you see isp users removing sourced infomation be a good chap and revert the vandalism even if you agree with the vandal,also wikipedia is not set up just for what you and your alternative music project click think, so now you can go back a redue what ever you did on your last edit since you failed to revert the vandalism by the isp --Wikiscribe (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * if you cant read the above statement i dont know what to tell you, but did you try and read ceoil response to to my poor grammar,well here it is(Yes, you said and I repied. Bty, small thing, but have considered puncuating your postings. Ceoil sláinte 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC) ) i had a hard time reading this as well but i dont care about grammar as long as i get the gist of what the person is trying say.But when the person you are disputing with makes grammar in talk pages the central issue i know they are just mad and are venting like a child,i mean sure my grammar sucks but im a wiz in sciences, history and social studies--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * jeez to put it in simple terms for you here is Ceoil sentence asking me to be a little better with grammar


 * Yes, you said and I repied. Bty, small thing, but have considered puncuating your postings. Ceoil sláinte 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But you read that just fine lol but you can't make out a damn thing i type i find that amazing no wonder there are such few people who contribute to alternative articles you run everybody off and make trying to contribute to these articles a nightmare--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * featured article good prose and well sourced wow great still does not make you anymore or less important than the isp who makes gramatical corrections on random articles--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * More important as a person? certainly not: More important to the success of wikipedia?....I'll leave you to ponder that. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

a-ha
I undid your revision of the a-ha sales. If you look at the sources list at the end of the page, you will see a source to it. As accurat as salesnumbers can be anyway. The numbers at the French site ( source ) has been given out by Warner and give an indication. Note though, that records, means albums AND singles. Mortyman (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A scan of Brasilian article, with the numbers for Madonna, a-ha, Michael Jackson etc. It says that a-ha has sold 600 000 units of Stay On These Roads in Brazil. Numbers are from Warner. Mortyman (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, I can't source everything and every word in the article. When it says that a-ha has sold 16 times the population of Norway, that is a fact that you can calculate yourself. By looking up Norway, you get the population figure. Second, I added the newspaper article from Brazil as a source for the stay On these roads figures in Brazil. The sources are good enough. Just as good as any other artist claim to numbers. An artists recordsales will never be completly correct, as they change daily. It goes for every artist. Mortyman (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not commented on my source for the stay On These Roads figures in Brazil. The source to the article above says that they sold 600 000 of Stay On These roads in 1989. The article has used Warner as source. Everyone is claiming that Elvis Presley has sold a billion records, but I don't think that ther has ever been prouced a reliable source for that claim. So why are you getting so fussed up about the a-ha numbers ?Mortyman (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Arise album
I left a message on the editor's talk page. I'll pass/fail the article by June 25. Thanks for reminding me. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bends
While I figure it took you a bit of time to put together that composite Banshees pic (which is pretty good, by the way), I have to say it's a shame that Big-Hair Siouxsie isn't in there. I know we have a licensed/free picture of her in all her goth-y glory. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Classic rock topic of the day: the Rolling Stones, while good, are vastly overrated, and do no belong in a list of the top twenty rock bands of all time. I love the Beatles and can listen to The Who and Kinks for quite a bit, but the Stones are the weakest of the top four British Invasion bands. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the NME "Single of the Week" review for that song. Still, no matter how overrated they are or how badly they might behave, it is scientific fact that Keith Richards is pretty damn cool. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes sense in a historical context. If you were a stoner into heavy music in 1971, all three would have equal standing. But taking into account nearly 40 years since then, well, Deep Purple do come up a bit short (Funny enough, I'm listening to "Immigrant Song" right now). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing how often you keep changing your future Blur-related projects. But given it's always a Blur article, you must really like the band. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with the great forgotten Blur single? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out the Allmusic review of that compilation, where the reviewer is flabbergasted that neither "Popscene" nor anything from Modern Life Is Rubbish aside from "For Tomorrow" is included. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

When going through my 2001 Nirvana-themed Guitar World issue to cite the articles, I realized there was also a feature article about the making of Who's Next. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like the tracklist template is making a comeback. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just removed it from the articles I'm the primary editor at. I don't need a template to format a tracklisting (I've also weaned myself off of cite web, but I continue to use it at articles I've utilized it at previously for consistency's sake). WesleyDodds (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Glancing at Template talk:Tracklist, there seems to be general agreement not to use it if you don't need it, so you can probably just remove it from articles if you like. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of its usefulness, it's pretty clear you don't need it for Pixies albums, which at most had two songwriters to list. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just have to say, I love the way NIN albums list credits. "Trent Reznor IS Nine Inch Nails". You're damn right, motherf**kers. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Am trying to formulate a user talk page response, but I think I'll wait and see what tomorrow brings. One of the things that strikes me is that the template would be best for helping unexperienced users create tracklistings for new articles, but he's implementing it in well-established articles that are already fully developed by experienced editors. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The diffs for Accelerate at the COTW page are for the wrong week. I checked it because I remembered an insane amount of editing going on that week due to the album release and all sorts of edit warring. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you one thing: it'll be surreal seeing a composite Beatles picture with Old Man McCartney right next to Hippie Lennon. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this, all images by Look magazine have been released into the public domain, so maybe you could find something there. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does Paul look like a bloated conquistador? I need to show that one to Ceoil. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have The Beatles Anthology hardcover book, if there's anything you want sourced in an album article. It's rather heavy, though, and I fear dropping it on my foot as I take it off the shelf. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think of moving Let It Be to "Let It Be (Beatles album)"? There's a number of albums named Let It Be, most notably the Replacements' album (which, to be completely honest, is a much better album than the one the Beatles put out), so redirecting "Let It Be" (much less "Let It Be (album)") to the Beatles album doesn't work for me. It's the most notable album with that name, sure, but the 'Mats album is pretty notable as well (hell, they both made the Rolling Stone "500 Greatest albums" list). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we can copy the albums table to the R.E.M. discography article now. Do we need the "Format" portion, though? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a band is either grunge or post-grunge, not both. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted some Sgt. Pepper-releated Time article links on Kodster's talk page. Some interesting facts, like that the album had sold one million copies based on preorders before it was even released. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to add a screencap of the "In Bloom" video to the article? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RE: "Strawberry Fields Forever" vs. "A Day in the Life": the double A-side with "Penny Lane" was the first the public had heard (and seen) of the band in months, and kicked off the start of the "new" Beatles. I once saw footage of the video's premiere on American Bandstand where Dick Clark talks about how different they look and sound before showing the promo. Afterwards, he asks the crowd what they think, and there's a lot of muttering. If I remember correctly one guy didn't like the band's newfound love of facial hair. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what that was about. In contrast, if someone added a picture of Kirk Hammett's favorite brand of guitar to Metallica, you bet that would go rather quickly, for more reasons than one. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Either ignore him or report his behavior to an admin. Either way don't let it get to you. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My long-term plan has been to junk that section entirely and craft something more akin to the "Decline" section in Grunge music. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head: Editors, Art Brut, The Kills, So Cow. I don't listen to too much newer stuff in my free time, though; my top-played artists on my iPod are The Smashing Pumpkins, Green Day, and R.E.M. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to bring up the header debate to an admin or somewhere else, because this is getting ugly. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So that frequently-banned user is back, now as User:Be Black Hole Sun. Apparently it's ok, but one odd thing I've noticed is how he's trying to flesh out the Rock WikiProject by copying content from WP:ALM, down to the Featured articles box. There's nothing technically wrong with it, it's just kind of annoying, since lots of people in this WikiProject and the Metal one have been the ones that have done the actual hard work. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you created the tables for the compilations on the R.E.M. discography work page? I'll deal with the chart positions. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hun, thought I had listed them there. Everythign n the main discograph page should be what we need. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I listed them all on the temp page. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the Pearl Jam discography list the fanclub singles (I happen to own three)? If not, then we shouldn't worry about listing the R.E.M. ones. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On American Idiot I'm going to tackle the recording and music aspects, probably starting tomorrow. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I've seen the term thrown about, of course, but I haven't seen it in academic research or mainstream media. Most sources eventually have acknowledge Mudhoney and so on. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Guitar World article I have, Billie Joe explains the entire storyline of the album. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure you'd care, but I've been watching this over and over right now. In between listening to Green Day. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Scroll down to the paragraph that begins "Many fans would put . . ." and read on from there. It's pretty funny. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag that Garbage song a long time ago because it's more an "electronic James Bond theme" than an alt-rock song. I mean, if you feel it should be in the project's scope you should tag it, but I ultimately didn't tag it for the same reason I don't tag most of the New Order singles; they're barely rock songs, much less alt-rock songs. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "we will never know what went through their minds while writing this. again, this is the general audience's view." The funny thing is that Billie Joe explains how he came up with the storyline. He says after he wrote "American Idiot" he was trying to imagine what sort of person that would be, and came up with the Jesus of Suburbia character. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the recording section in American Idiot is as complete as I can make it at the moment. Holding off on completing the music section at the moment; have to visualize the best way to summarize the album storyline. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Early Genesis is pretty good. It's probably largely due to Peter Gabriel, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Hmm, my internet at home is undergoing repairs, so I won't be editing as much this week. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper
I think this section should go under recording or background. It doesn't seem to flow w/ the rest of the article. The article should probably be chronological, so it shouldn't be going back and forth. I think it'd be best under background, maybe as a sub-heading. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Should not the last paragraph of Sgt. Pepper (about Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane) go under "Recording"? Both songs were recorded FOR Sgt. Pepper, and Background should be about what happens BEFORE Recording. Just a thought. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 20:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but the fact that it was part of the recording for Sgt. Pepper should mean that it should be placed under the named section. The fact is, "When I'm Sixty-Four", which did appear on the album, was recorded in between "Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane", so they are both part of the recording. But if it makes sense in "Background" to you, then maybe it's just me... Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 20:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Another conspirator
Replied. Rudget  ( logs ) 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That was worthy of inclusion on your most notable events on Wikipedia. Very silly indeed. (Now blocked). Rudget   ( logs ) 19:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! Unless your creating them to see what I'll block. :) Rudget   ( logs ) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Beatles LOC image
I uploaded that Beatles LOC image to the commons. The filename is different though. The LOC site has different names for their thumbnails and the large images. I uploaded it here>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:3c11094u.jpg then I tried to replace the existing one, but it said I couldn't do it because my commons account was too new. Not sure what you want to do, but it's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterweiss (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin (album)
You said: "more neutral since it was *not* critically acclaimed when released" Not true. It received rave reviews from Oz magazine and Billboard. RS is not the be all and end all of all reviews. Mark Prindle reviews are currently being used on 145 other Wikipedia articles. MegX (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have placed the issue up here for further discussion, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. If you really believe Mark Prindle should not be used then the 146+ articles (his reviews probably appear on more articles but the search reveals only linked articles), then all 146+ articles should have Mark Prindle removed. MegX (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Release details infobox. This has been previously discussed on the Album infobox Talk page. See this archived page here:

"I had some discussion about this with Cbing01... We agreed that catalog numbers would crowd up the infobox and came up with a table to go at the bottom of the article in a section called Release details. It's used on Let It Be... Naked and Demon Days for example.--Fritz S. 09:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)" The release details infobox appears on a number of articles, and has done so for over two years. MegX (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "you don't expect me to remove all 145 of them just so that I can remove it from this article, do you?" Which is why I am asking for consensus on this matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. MegX (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Infobox templates are no different from a Release details infobox - lots of numbers and dates, yet no-one here would argue that infobox templates should be removed. I find it puzzling that Led Zeppelin (album) here is being singled out when there are other album articles with the same information, that have been around for even a longer period of time. MegX (talk)
 * I note there was no recommendation to remove the reviews, which is why I'm interested in hearing what others have to say on the Album project page before any further deletions, considering the number of articles this is going to impact upon. MegX (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well so much for consensus and debate, you went and removed it anyway. Can you just hang on mate? MegX (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comunity
You said that I need community wide consensus, ok, then where do I get it? Is there a platform I can open a debate on this topic? The problem is that it IS only band articles that has this. Why are they so special, science articles don't do this. Please let me know on my talk page.68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But you haven't even defined what success is. In any case this is not going anywhere.  I'm going to have to discuss at wikipedia talk:NPOV.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards FAC follow up question
Hi, you commented on Featured_article_candidates/The_Greencards/archive1 about the Reception section at The_Greencards being a positive POV dump. I'd broken that off from the main chronological prose section specifically because an earlier FAC reviewer was opposing because of the lack of a Reception section. I honestly haven't seen any bad reviews for them, if that is a concern. NPOV is fine and adhered to, but there is no bad to offset the good. Its part of the reasons this band have practically become superstars in their field of music... three albums with each better than the one before, going by all the reviews that got better each one. What are your thoughts on this? Most music/band articles have reception sections, so if I remove it thats a problem at FAC, but if I leave it in, it looks "glowing"--but we've got no bad press to offset the good. rootology ( T ) 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

TWS G.A. nomination
Hey, I have been working heavily on The White Stripes' article in my spare time for the past month or so, and it is abundant with sources and has been much-improved. Additionally, its prose and formatting have been cleaned, and I think it's a pretty sharp article — very comprehensive and clear. How can we re-nominate it for GA status? What would it require for FA status? Tim010987 (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

GAR for The Marrow of a Bone
Hello! I was just wondering if you have any more suggestions to work toward the GA nomination for The Marrow of a Bone. Thanks for your earlier tips as well, they pointed out some larger areas I'd not checked yet. --Jacob Talk 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Discography and videography
A discography should not include videos because it's discography which is a collection of albums cds and so on videography is something else. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

NME, Melody Maker, CREEM, Q, Sounds
None of the above examples you gave contain reviews on the Thriller album, I checked them all. I managed to add one from the new york times. I also checked TIME's database and they don't have one either. Not sure what you expect me to do about this, the material just isn't available im afraid, I'm not sure if you specifically found some thus opposed but I certainly can't see them. You suggestions mostly document white rock music not black R&B. Could you clarify what I should do here, cheers. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm up to 3 old reviews now which isn't so bad, fingers crossed maybe I can get a fourth. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 00:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Q didn't exist until years after Thriller came out, so that makes sense that they wouldn't have a review. Sounds was very rock-oriented, and so was Creem, so it's possible they didn't review the album. However, I would be surprised if there was never a review written for the album in NME or Melody Maker, the two main British music papers of the era. Some serious work needs to be done to track down these reviews. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have tried very hard for NME, no luck, infact the only album they have reviewed by Michael Jackson was Invincible in 2001. Melody Maker no longer exists, I believe you have to pay and set up an account to view their material right? — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just bought NME originals - 1980's online and its all saved to my computer now!! Its got lots of reviews for his 80's albums, cost me money though. I will use this a lot in the future!! Ive you ever think you might need it give me a bell and I can help you write stuff. Saves you buying it. One question, in the corner of the Thriller review it has MM, does this mean the review was made by Melody not NME? — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added what I believe to be a Melody Maker review (if I got that MM thing correct). All I can say is, its no wonder they went bust or whatever they panned Thriller. Anyway I'm $10 in debt but at least the article has 4 well respected old reviews (well I don't respect Melody Maker after reading that piece of cr*p). Considering the bias against the genre I think its a very reasonable effort and shouldn't constitute the article failing FA. Specially with the 3 recent reviews stacked up along side.
 * I found some stuff in TIME that talks about Thriller, but its about 13months after the album was originally released. I checked the archives, they don't talk about him at all between early 1983-1977. This 11 page article from 1984 (singles from Thriller were still being released at this point you must remember) is the closed thing I can find to providing a review of the article. Would this be acceptable to you? — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 06:55 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It has already been added to the article ages ago, probably before I even got involved in the article. . I will read this piece as I have never read it in its entirety and add anything useful to the article. It doesn't seem that many more reviews of Thriller exist. TIME never covered it originlly in late 1982/early 1983 and neither did NME (it wasn't in the magazine NME originals). I have 4 original reviews and maybe some filler sentances from the TIME magazine, that should be fully acceptable now. A lot better than just that 1 review I had a few days ago. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 07:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the article is on peer review again, I would like you to comment at the peer review about any problems you have with the articles quality, I really want to avoid three consecutive opposes from you. We really need to get some black music on that FA list, its absurdly dominated by white rock, indie, punk etc and it doesn't reflect well on the music department at wikipedia. So your assistance is needed, please comment on any further problems you have now, instead of me finding out about it at a future FA. Cheers. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 07:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In truth he isn't "black" music your right, read the "Themes & Genres" section of the MJ article and you will realise he is very versitile, I still don't understand why beatles fans just won't let old wounds heal lol. If you still have any confusion regarding his sink colour why not read the physical appearance section of the article. Both sections are will sourced (not perfectly written yet) and are a cracking read. When you do get around to the peer review later today, could you also mention the lead. Kodster advised me that the lead was too short, everyone was been keeping it trimmed so I thought it was fine, I haven't done anything yet. So just give your thoughts on that when you have the chance, for now I'm going to read that TIME piece and try to makes sense of it. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 08:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will indeed get around to his other albums, they all need serious work. However my next MJ album will be Dangerous which is far superious to Bad. I have so much wiki work to do, I also plan to get the musician prince to GA because that article is a disgrace. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 08:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not rushing you, I know you haven't edited in nearly 24 hours. Just wanted to say that the peer review I set up for Thriller was closed because it was too soon after the FA review. Therefore feel free to leave your review comments on my talk page or the Thriller talk page. Sorry for that inconvenience. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 04:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Music Videos in discogs
Hey, I just noticed your comments at the Linkin Park FLC about music videos being necessary for a comprehensive discog list. I thought I'd point you towards this discussion, since this seems to be under debate. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Drewcifer (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd discography
Her is sources for american chart positions and canadian all back to the 60s which the billboard 200 deletes. Her Only reason why i'm giving you this is that you asked me this under the PF discography nomination. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its reliable see RPM (magazine). --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary
Don't place too much emphasis on the edit summary on that one. See this. Thanks for being so observent! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol
Lol I keep forgetting about that fair use thing. Have you had any time to gather thoughts regarding Thriller, I'm particularily interested about rearranging the article into a chrono order as well as a possible lead expansion. I'm also quite happy today because I past my exams! :-) —  Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I was bold, I made some changes and replied on my page. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 18:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't decided for sure but I might take the Michael Jackson article to FA before I try Thriller again. That will be fun. --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

R.E.M. discography
As i just found out to day you have also start working out on the R.E.M. discography which is good. Still use this when you try to find Canadian chart positions. They have the same chart positions before 2000. As you have on the R.E.M. discography (The archives stops at 2000). If you don't believe me see The Canadian Encyclopedia - RPM Magazine and the RPM source is used on the Nine Inch Nails discography which is a FL. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Discographies/style RPM is listed as a reliable source. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

List of certifications
Yeah, I was confused about the shipped/sold thing for a while too. The list is based primarily off of the IFPI's definition, which goes by sales not the amount shipped. That said, it may be possible for some certifying bodies to do their thing slightly differently. I'll do some looking around on that. Drewcifer (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cure discography
Good luck! I think you'll need it. It's one I've been putting off for ages... --JD554 (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Honorific titles in popular music
Lol, i cant believe people actually want to keep this "article", it's .... pointless. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 14:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a nerves twitch, I have this uncontrolable desire to nominate an article for FA TODAY/SOON. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, im not nominating Mr. Cruise, its not even a GA. I might give MJ a tail spin, its been a while since that pot of gold last sank. —  Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 15:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Indopug, could you please close the current MJ peer review, I never get it right. Also have you seen all the hate mail on my talk page regarding this article I nominated for deletion. Lol, it's the most fun attention I have had in days, I feel ... wanted. :-) — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gracias. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 21:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards FAC follow up
Hi! You weighed in on the The Greencards FAC previously, here. I'm fairly sure I've gotten I believe all the FAC suggestions remedied, and began a peer review as well. Would you mind taking another glance and letting me know on the peer review or my talk what else may need doing, before I go back to FAC? Thank you! rootology ( T ) 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hilary Duff FAC
Thanx for your suggestions.....I have removed the Avril-Duff spat from the article. It did seem a bit tabloidish and hence i have removed it. Your other suggestion was abt presenting her career chronologically by combining TV,Music and film career. However, i personally feel that combining all three sections will result is too much clutter and would infact harm the readability of the article. Thats why the three sections have been separately presented. Also i would like to point out the fact that each section is chronologically presented. Hence the article moves from her early TV career, to her film career and finally to her music career in a chronological order. In the view of above information, i would request u to kindly revisit your opinion on the FAC page. Any other suggestions are welcome....Gprince007 (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is Mudhoney discography rated as a B
Why is the Mudhoney discography rated as a B. It doesn't make sence, their are beter discographies then that like Mark Lanegan discography or Screaming Trees discography my point is. if the Mudhoney discography is goin to be a B the Screaming Trees and Mark Lanegan one should be B's. So i'm revertingg your edit on the Talk:Mudhoney discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Question shouldn't the Touch Me I'm Sick article metion that they are making a music video for the single? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reaply and why are you messing up the mudhoney album chronology and yes a Touch Me I'm Sick music video is supposed to be in production according to the band. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but whats uncivil. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please talk to this user User:Officially Mr X hes vandalising the Coldplay discography page and his been doing this for over a month now. And he doesn't want to talk to me so its a problem. Why im asking you is easy you like blokking vandals i now cause you blocked me. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

GLAAD 2008
As President of Mt. San Antonio College LAMBDA Student Association, I was lucky enough to receive free tickets to the 2008 GLAAD Media Awards. Our VP, Comic artist Aubrey Miranda was also in attendance. Here's what would have happened had I decided to take the plunge. Hope you find it amusing. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding to X discography
Sure Well, I add it sorted with a space to make it the first article for precisely that reason - e.g. U2 discography is not a U2 album, as you rightly point out. That having been said, List of Presidents of the United States is not a president of the United States of America, but it belongs in Category:Presidents of the United States because it is a main article of that category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Subcategories I am in favor of not having articles be in a category and its child, and I don't think I've done that with any articles today. As you alluded to on my talk, not all bands have a main category themselves and there is a significant portion of other Wikipedians who are opposed to band categories anyway (minus, say Category:The Beatles or Category:Bob Dylan, for instance.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposition For instance: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_1

India House FAC
Hello Indopug, thanks for your comments at the India House FAC, I have addressed the points you raise and left comments on the FAC, please have a look. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Z's
"did a ctrl+F for "z"..." Hahahha. I kept putting off running through the entire article just to fix those (because I can't write in British English). You definitely made it a lot easier! NSR 77 T C  18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Aussie charts
Greetings. Thank you for the comment. I'm glad to help. For my source, ive been using the Australian-charts.com website (http://www.australian-charts.com). This has information of Australian album and singles charts dating back to 1989. Duck6 (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Honorific titles for individual vegetables
Have you seen the deletion page recently, things seem to be evening out, it's definitely divisive. Bling bling, I have a new signature. Did you see what happened with the Heather mills GA review, I feel terrible about it. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 12:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It closed as no consensus, it wasn't deleted. I still see this as a moral victory though. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse FAC
Hi. I noticed that you haven't commented on the article recently, since the majority of your concerns have been taken care of. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks
Thanks for the words. I'll try to get to those articles when I have some time.-5- (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)