User talk:Rlholden/Archive 1

Track listing template
Hello! I notice you have been adding the Track listing template to a large number of album articles. I just dropped by to inform you that Wikiproject Albums feels that track listings should generally be in a numbered list format, and the template should be reserved for "more complicated situations." One reason is due to accessibility issues from people with wide screen monitors. With only the title and length fields in use, this places the song lengths an unnecessary distance away from their respective titles for some readers. The template is a tool that is intended to be used when there is a lot of information to display, and a simple numbered list would be too cluttered with lyric credits, music credits, length, title and notes. There is a select group of Wikipedians that are (or at least were) trying to get the template width reduced in more simple situations for a cleaner look. Until a service such as this becomes available, the numbered list format is perfectly acceptable and looks great at all resolutions. Cheers! Fezmar9 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:CTS Machine.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CTS Machine.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click onthis link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Discography sections in band articles
Hi, I've noticed that you have converted the discography section of a number of band articles into table form. There's no need to do that, a simple list is the standard format. Tables are normally only used in discography articles. Thank you,—indopug (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, as another user mentioned above, the tracklisting template should mainly be used for albums with a complicated tracklisting. More often than not, a simple list would suffice, and there's no need to convert a tracklisting that is already correctly rendered in numbered-list format. Many editors are opposed to needless and avoidable complexity of the template's code.—indopug (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I will refer you to the section on Discography, which has no guidelines of "standard format" (see my discussion above regarding standardization). A couple of things to note: 1) Tables are easier to maintain; 2) Tables look prettier; 3) Tables can be updated to be sortable if necessary. Keeping in line with consistency, yes, I realize that a simple list will suffice. However, again with being pretty and consistent, the Tracklisting is easier to read and can, and in my opinion should, become the standard format.Rlholden (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:2007 Polaris Music Prize.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:2007 Polaris Music Prize.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I Salute you
Hi.

You are in a difficult, loooooong and thankless task, grading the importance of articles, i do the counterpart, i assess them. Is nice to acquaintance a fellow hard-worker. Zidane tribal (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yessir. I find that it allows me to learn about some new music, though a lot of it has been terrible. As you've probably seen, I also am trying to make albums fairly consistent with the Tracklisting function instead of the regular list view (see hateful comments above that I've chosen to ignore). I figureif 85,000 albums all looking the same, then people will start following suit! Pleased to meet you as well, I'm sure we'll cross paths again.Rlholden (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles Lloyd
I just noticed you wikitable-ing of the Charles Lloyd discography section and would like to thank you for your efforts. It looks a lot better than the previous list and IMHO is an improvement. I award you the following:

Covers in discography
I've removed the covers you added to 7" of the Month Club. The use of covers in this manner fails our WP:NFCCpolicy and WP:NFC guideline. As a result of this action, the covers are all "orphaned" making them subject to deletion. Please do not restore the images. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft(talk) 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain to me how they fail to meet the non-free content guideline? I am unclear, and as I am constantly adding album covers to various articles, I want to make sure that everything's correct.Rlholden (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC ΔT The only constant 14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The general principal is that a given album cover is acceptable for use in an article about that particular album. For example, it's ok to have File:Taylor Swift.png on Taylor Swift (album), but not ok to have that album cover on Taylor Swift discography. 7"_of_the_Month_Club is effectively a discography.--Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

King of Lambs
The reference style was one thing (from my experience, most albums article don't have it that way, so sorry if I didn't understand it at first), but the edit to the reception section really ain't necessary.WP:MOS expresses a preference for full paragraphs, as it says "the number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text", and while WP:MOS also promotes internal consistency, not external, it makes sense that most albums articles have full paragraphs for critical reception sections, like at least 3, 4 or 5 sentences. Dan56 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I mostly figured that it was beneficial to split out by the various reviews for clarity. It just seemed choppy English to me and I thought a paragraph split would be most appropriate. I'll leave it as it is now.Rlholden (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

21
Words can't express the level of gratitude I feel ;), but I'll try. Thanks so much for improving the referencing in the article. To be honest, I've been a bit rusty in that department for a while, and was going to leave that part for the last. Thanks for your help. I'm basically trying to update the article to FA status in the next few weeks. It's a long way away: right now, I'm just throwing the information in there, and will improve the content/prose etc in the next coming days/weeks. Your edits today was much appreciated. Oran e   (talk)  03:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Star ratings
Hi there. I notice you've been doing some really fantastic work standardising album articles broadly across the project, but thought I'd bring one little thing to your attention. You've been converting to Album ratings, which is great, but I can also see you've been unilaterally switching to rating. As you can see from the rating template's documentation page, it is only intended to be used where the website/publication itself also uses stars. This change here shows it being used inappropriately (the Pitchfork review). I'm not trying to be a moany bitch; just thought you should know for future reference. Keep up the good work, mind. Seegoon (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. Totally did not know that. I will definitely look out for that in the future. As you can guess, I was mostly doing it for consistency (i.e. all stars). Thanks for the tip!! Rlholden (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problemo – like I said, you're doing a great job and this information can only make it done more greaterer.Seegoon (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Track listing template (again)
I see you have chosen to ignore my previous comment about the track listing template. Your edits are going against theconsensus—one of Wikipedia's core policies. Editing against the community consensus, especially after you have been warned before, is highly disruptive behavior. This topic has been discussed numerous times in various places. Here are two of the longer ones I've found:. If you dig through the archives of WT:ALBUM, you'll find additional discussions as well. The consensus from the community is not to use it universally; only use it in more complicated situations where a simple list would be too cluttered. I'm going to politely ask you again to please refrain from adding the template to album articles where it is completely unnecessary to do so. Thank you. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ratings template
Per WikiProject Albums/Article body, the template may be used to supplement the text. It is not a requirement. The purpose of the template is to summarize the ratings, which is generally helpful when there are several reviews covered in the Reception section and the individual ratings may or may not be mentioned in the prose. In the case of A Comprehensive Guide to Moderne Rebellion, the entire section is 1 sentence, and the rating is already mentioned in that sentence. No supplemental table is necessary, as this does not need to be summarized. Adding the table at this point is entirely superfluous. Down the line, if the Reception section is expanded and additional reviews are added, it will be pertinent to employ the ratings template. But it is entirely useless when the section is literally 1 sentence long and begins "Andy Hinds of Allmusic rated A Comprehensive Guide to Moderne Rebellion four stars out of five". Like Track listing, Album ratings is optional, not required, and is meant to be used in situations where there is a substantial amount of prose and readers would benefit from having the ratings summarized. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Valid points. So, just to be clear:
 * It is OK to use the template in the case of something like 21, where there are multiple reviews, where most of those in the Album ratings template are used in the text of the Critical Reception section
 * It is OK to use the template when there is one review and no Critical Reception section, as in 12 Picks
 * It is NOT OK to use it when there is a one-sentence section, which references the rating used in the template, as in A Comprehensive Guide to Moderne Rebellion
 * Did I get that right? I guess my only comment is that I don't see how the template in there is not a good thing. Personally, I find it useful, instead of perusing an article, to look at the nice Album ratings template that's used and, except for long articles, right there on the right side that says how good or bad an album is. Does that make sense? Rlholden (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Disguised As Ghosts


The article Disguised As Ghosts has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * I see some external sources but I think notability for an emerging band is yet to be proved, if more sources are added in the time for the consideration of deletion then the article should be reviewed to see if it should be saved, if not then it should be deleted.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.  User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 02:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Da Inphamus Amadeuz - 2 (Da 2nd Time Around).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Da Inphamus Amadeuz - 2 (Da 2nd Time Around).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ringo Starr and His All-Starr Band - 4-Starr Collection.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ringo Starr and His All-Starr Band - 4-Starr Collection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bal-Sagoth - 1993 Demo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Bal-Sagoth - 1993 Demo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Billie Ray Martin - 18 Carat Garbage Demos.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Billie Ray Martin - 18 Carat Garbage Demos.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Acousta


The article Acousta has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Mattg82 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on linking to streamed copies of albums
Wikipedia policy allows us to link to legal streamed copies of albums. It would be useful to draw up a guideline on how and when to link to such albums; however, there is concern that it may not be appropriate as the music would not be available in all parts of the world. Is the benefit of having access to the music for most users outweighed by the fact that some users will follow a link to find the music is not playable in their region? Your view would be helpful at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  02:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bear vs. Shark - 1653.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Bear vs. Shark - 1653.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)