User talk:Odin's Beard/Archive 1

March 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. –Cheers, L  A  X  22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk: WWE Championship

 * Well if you would notice, that's the plastic version (which is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more cheaper). The 300+ bucks you're talkin' about is the gold-plated replica. Just like to clear that out mate :p The Game - Hhh210 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dog Logan
Since you seem to agree with me on this, could you drop a comment on the deletion discussion for the image or at least allow me to use yours? Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RIAA gold and platinum singles question
I've finally gotten around to responding to your query at WP:DISCOG's talk page ([Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies#|here]], in case you've forgotten). Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Drewcifer (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sentry
OK I'll take a look - I have it on my watch list but have been focused on other things so this has slipped me by. (Emperor (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Certifications
Langdon (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)i7114080
 * 1) the link at the top is enough.
 * 2) we write US because someone may not know what RIAA is. write US is more obvious.

Championships and Accomplishments Order
Hi, I saw your edit to Kane's and Triple H's title sections, moving PWI awards to the bottom. According to this section of the MoS, lists should be formatted alphabetically if no one order makes sense without explanation. if there is another section of policy or a WP:PW guideline that states otherwise, let me know and I'll cease move them. Regards and respect, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Prince Discography
What's with your removal of the BPI information in the Prince discography? There isn't even any attempted justification via an edit summary. Lianachan (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Super. Another victim of wikipedia's wonderfully ironic obsession with online confirmation of information. I would despair, if I still was interested enough to.  Lianachan (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Although the article and others like it are doubtlessly an easy target for vandalism and exaggeration by fans, actual sales figures are widely available in several books. Paper ones, that is.  It's the fact that wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia, even though it's clearly nothing like one whatsoever, that makes the removal of relevant information pretty annoying.  It is, I suppose, a pity the BPI website doesn't have any info about sales/certification.  Then it would meet wikipedia's ironic citation criteria, without reliance on the real world or paper.  Lianachan (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

tupac shakur discography
ok Supreme euphanasia (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

RIAA award clarifications
Hi, I noticed some of your edits to discographies and hoped, as it seems we share an interest in music and in accuracy, you'd welcome my clarification of a few points. "Multi-Platinum" is a catchall phrase for any level of certification Double-Platinum or higher. However, it is not correct, as you stated, that the "multi-" prefix is necessarily a part of the certification. It is both redundant and erroneous to state "2x Multi-Platinum". As one time Multi-Platinum would be Double Platinum, being certified Multi-Platinum two times would mean it was Triple Platinum, if you see my meaning. Simply noting the number of times Platinum ("2x Platinum") is correct. I know a search of the RIAA database shows the "Multi Platinum" along with the number, but that's because the "Multi Platinum" part is referencing the type of certification being awarded on that date. To be technical, it also always shows a decimal and two zeroes, literally reading "2.00x MULTI PLATINUM". This is not the actual accurate, common usage. As this RIAA newsletter page shows the RIAA's common usage is simply "2x Platinum", etc.

On a related note, while a record is no longer noted as having gone Gold once it has gone Platinum, as the Platinum award supersedes the Gold one, or Double-Platinum once it has been certified Triple-Platinum (and so on), the Diamond award is considered an exception. It is fitting to note that an album has been certified Diamond, as well as any additional multiple of millions sold. You'll find here that those titles certified 11 million and above continue to be identified as Diamond award winners.

Of course, having said that, an album or song article might justifiably note that the recording was awarded a Gold certification on a certain date, and a Platinum certification on another, and a Multi-Platinum on another, as this can illustrate either how quickly or how enduringly the record sold.

Finally, Gold, Platinum, Multi-Platinum and Diamond awards are trademarks of the RIAA, and as such should be capitalized. Hope this helps! Abrazame (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bob Seger discography
Do we really need the Detroit radio charts in the Bob Seger discography page? I think that's indiscriminate information. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Yeah, that discography needs a total rewrite, eh? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Championship lists
I noticed your edits to a few wrestling articles changing the championship order. Per WP:Lists, they should be listed alphabetically within each promotion. Perhaps the acronym "WWE" is a special case and if it is, let me know. Regards and respect, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. That consensus was formed before we realized that such sections should conform WP:Lists. So ECW would always be first, then anything with "World" in it then WCW, then WWF, then WWE. Other accomplishments like RR, MitB and KotR still get listed after titles though. Anyway, I've been editing articles to have them conform with the above link, but most others haven't as it's a quite a minor issue. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cher Discography
OK, here's the reply I had to your message. Cher has released several albums under the title Cher. Including what was later retitled the GYPSIES, TRAMPS AND THIEVES which was her highest charting album until 1989 featuring 2 Top10 hits and released under the KAPP label as listed on the RIAA database (as opposed to the 60's album released by Imperial Records which was not a huge seller and did not outsell all her albums with one Top40 hit on it and the album itself failing to reach the Top40, I don't see how it could ever go Platinum.) I noticed the 1992 album is a continuation of that same Cher album from KAPP but believe it is misrepresented because of the confusion surrounding the 3 albums released with the Cher title. Sites like http://www.rockonthenet.com/artists-c/cher_main.htm agree and mention the Cher 1987 record going Gold in May 1988, Platinum in Feb 1992 (which is mentioned on the album's respected Wikipage.) Other sources include http://www.cher-music-all.com/1987-1989.html Puckeylut (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cher
But it's annoying when you have to search the whole page to see how many #1 or top 10 did she have. Most big artists have their discography page like that. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How 'bout Mariah Carey singles discography, Janet Jackson singles discography, Madonna singles discography, Kylie Minogue discography, Michael Jackson singles discography? When an artists has as many releases as Cher or MJ, the part you keep removing makes it easier to find how many top20 hits the artist had. Maybe you're like that because Cher doesn't have so many #1 or something, I don't know, but I think it's better if we keep the page with those tables. Alecsdaniel (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.
Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bone Thugs N Harmony
It used to say 6x Platinum on Wikipedia. I didn't know the certifications that were listed were accurate. It's okay. Darius20 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rihanna discography
I have reverted your edits again. As you said, go to RIAA.com and check out the Platinum status of the singles and you willsee that the original were correct. And as for the Top 1 or Top 10 singles it is necessary. As number of singles will go up it will be more difficult to read total #1 or #10 singles. You cannot suddenly be the one to remove everything that has been correctly included.--&quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Multi-platinum
Hi, Can you please explain the difference between double platinum and double multi-platinum? Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not my page but I have previously attempted to educate this editor as to the correct way to denominate the multi-platinum status of a recording. I am sorry to notice that he continues to make edits that erroneously style the RIAA sales awards.  There is no such thing as "double Multi-Platinum".  I wrote previously to this editor, if you scan upward on this page, "'Multi-Platinum' is a catchall phrase for any level of certification Double-Platinum or higher. However, it is not correct, as you stated, that the 'multi-' prefix is necessarily a part of the certification. It is both redundant and erroneous to state '2x Multi-Platinum'. As one time Multi-Platinum would be Double Platinum, being certified Multi-Platinum two times would mean it was Triple Platinum, if you see my meaning. Simply noting the number of times Platinum ('2x Platinum') is correct."  This editor never responded here or on my page to indicate his acknowledgement of my point or, alternately, debating the issue with me.  I make additional clarifications that may be relevant to your editorial understanding, including the fact that, as a trademark of the RIAA, "Gold," "Platinum," and the multiples, in reference to recording awards, are capitalized.  Odin's Beard, please respond here on your page to the points I raise.  Thank you.  Abrazame (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A number of articles that have acheived featured list status have the certs listed with the multi prefix and some listed without. So, evidently the multi prefix isn't considered to be very erroneous or redundant. I asked the project as a whole months ago what the deal was regarding their use and if it really mattered. If there was any sort of policy or consensus regarding it. I only got one response that it didn't really matter. Since the project as a whole doesn't seem to give a shit one way or the other, as evidenced by the lack of participation in the discussion I started and the fact that both prefix and nonprefix are represented in FLs, I figured the best way to do it was to just list them the way the RIAA listed them. Since the RIAA uses the multi prefix in the database, I simply feel that the articles should as well. Sure, it's only one word, but I think listing the certs without them would be substituting what I think should be used over what the organization itself uses. So while I was wrong to make it sound so finalized, it looks as though both ways are acceptable.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I respond to your perception of what is evident, and the editorial initiatives of yours which that has precipitated, have you perused and would you care to comment on the examples of the usage by the RIAA itself, as shown in the links I provided in my above post to you of the 26th of July? Abrazame (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding my perception as to what's evident, I tried to initiate a conversation to come to a consensus on this very subject. Also, as I said, the project as a whole didn't care enough to even participate in the conversation. So, the only logical conclusion I came to is that the project overall doesn't give a crap. So, here's how I look at it: If the project gets off its collective ass and decides to reach a consensus concerning this and other little issues with some discography articles, I'll be more than happy to oblige with it. If a consensus is reached not to use the prefix, I'll happily oblige as I always have. Until that happens, I'm going to continue to use them. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the discussion. You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you. So let's just leave it at that.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that you say you tried to initiate a conversation with other editors, yet you're clearly not interested in having one with this editor. So what you're saying to me is, you found an inconsistency in style at Wiki pertaining to the multiples of RIAA Platinum certification.  One uninformed group doesn't care, and gives you next to no input; one informed individual does care, and in a friendly manner offers you links to see how the entity which trademarked the awards refers to their certifications.  You decide the lack of response by "the project" speaks louder than the official RIAA site, much less my assessment of what is logical, and so instead of leaving the situation inconsistently styled, and instead of contemplating how the RIAA official site styles it, and instead of having your desired conversation with me, you have chosen to be pro-actively ignorant in your edits.  "You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you" doesn't sound like a responsible editor who's interested in understanding or fostering the comprehension of this issue.  Elsewhere you suggest this is a small issue.  If you're so uncurious, uninterested, and dismissive of this issue's importance, then why do you persist in making these edits?  Frankly, my assessment of what is logical, much like your own, should be secondary to the usage of the RIAA itself.  You argue that your understanding comes from the RIAA database, when I have suggested you are misconstruing the way the table is set up and pointed out that you're not styling it precisely as that table does anyway.  Meanwhile, you have not responded to the fact that the RIAA in all other uses of the term on its site, such as here  and the other link I gave you back in July, use the phraseology I have indicated and never use the phraseology you use.  "So let's just leave it at that" is untenable, considering the fact that you are not only muddying Wikipedia by replacing correct usage with incorrect usage but dispensing your faulty logic and your incorrect editorial caprices to other editors.  The fact that nobody caught the erroneous redundancy in the featured articles doesn't legitimize such incorrect usage.  Have you not visited the RIAA pages I have linked for you and seen for yourself?  Abrazame (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Abrazame, the article you are referencing is from 1999. I've included further comments on my own talk page, but the RIAA site itself in numerous other news articles uses the terms interchangeably (i.e. N times Platinum is the same thing as Nx Multi-Platinum). This is confusing and the usage does not make sense, as you point out. My recommendations are to 1) if multi-platinum status is mentioned in an article to ensure that it is used consistently within that article, and 2) if it is used consistently, do not change it just for the sake of changing it to the way you prefer. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Where did Hercules or Thor received this title?PROVE IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.57.145 (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing valid chart information from discography articles
I have reverted your recent edit to the Rihanna discography because you wrongly removed valid chart information from the article. Using one of the sources which you cited, Billboard.com, I was able to verify this information within minutes. Below are the relevant pages from Billboard.com for Rihanna.

Rihanna - "If It's Love That You Want" #15 Pop 100

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=396&cfgn=Singles&cfn=Pop+100&ci=3063553&cdi=8520086&cid=01%2F07%2F2006

Rihanna - "We Ride" #107 Bubbling Under Hot 100

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=344&cfgn=Singles&cfn=Bubbling+Under+Hot+100+Singles&ci=3078716&cdi=9066261&cid=10%2F14%2F2006

I was also going to revert your edits to the Toby Keith discography but I see another editor has already taken care of that. I verified the Toby Keith chart information from the same source but I don't have the time or inclination to provide you with links to every page. This is not the first time I have corrected one of your mistaken edits. Please review your changes more carefully in the future. Piriczki (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man
Hi. As you appear to be one of the major contributors to the Spider-Man article, I'm alerting you to the fact that I have nominated this article to become a Good Article. If you are able to have a look at the article and fix up anything that needs fixing (sourcing, grammar, etc), feel free to do so before the review starts, or feel free to wait until the review starts to see what concerns the GA reviewer may bring up. Good work on helping to get it to where it is so far. :) BOZ (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Spider-Man has been picked up for GA review, which can be viewed here. There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)