User talk:SnapSnap/Archive 2

Barnstar

 * I'm glad you like the Barnstar. :) I've come across your edits many times before and have always been impressed with your work. Regarding your comment about my work to Beyoncé Knowles‎, thank you. :) Acalamari 16:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do mean it. :) You do a lot of good work, and it's appreciated. Acalamari 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Acalamari 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

L-O-V-E
I got the chart position for Joss Stone's version of L-O-V-E on theofficialcharts.com. --Andrew t c 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Alicia Keys
I don't really know if the same articles are up on any other website. But both references are from newspapers (The Hartford Courant, The Herald), which I know can be used as citations. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Chart names
Hi, and Happy New Year! I just noticed that on Caught out There, you changed the name of the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks chart to its current name, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs. As far as I know, when a chart's name is mentioned in an article, it should correspond to the chart's name at the time of the single's chart run&mdash;on the Billboard.com chart history page for Kelis, for example, "Caught out There" is listed as having charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks and "Get Along with You" on the Hot Dance Music/Club Play, even though the charts have different names now.

Thanks, and hope you're having a great 2008 so far! x Extraordinary Machine (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know the exact dates either, so I usually just refer to the artist chart history pages on Billboard.com. moved the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks and Hot Dance Music/Club Play articles to their current titles in June 2006, if that helps! :) Extraordinary Machine (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think so&mdash;but that's just my opinion! Maybe we should bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Record charts or some other Wikipedia talk page? Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind, and thanks! Also, I accidentally replied to you on my talk page instead of this one&mdash;sorry! Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I don't know&mdash;sorry! I'm quite familiar with her singles, but they're not all the same, and I know they may not be representative of her full body of work. From what I've read in various articles, doesn't she combine elements of contemporary R&B and more traditional, '60s/'70s-style rhythm and blues? Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Need a neutral opinion
If you have a moment, can you take a look at Talk:Thriller 25? Myself and a few other editors seem to be going back and forth about whether this should be in its own article. So far I've place a merge tage there, and the consensus could go either way (which is fine), but it seems to be the same few people going on and on and its been about a week. There are two main conversations going, here and here. Anything you could add would be appreciated. Thanks! - eo (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani
Can you please stop User:Blah1993blah from changing Stefani's genres? Charmed36 (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mary J. Blige
You seem a bit more in tune with this stuff. Can you explain the long slow edit war over her genre to me? Various anonymous IPs keep shifting it around to various versions of soul, hip hop soul, gospel, hip hop gospel, etc. and I have no idea what is actually true. I just keep the article on my watchlist because of vandalism, so I wind up checking out every change. 75% of them are these things.Kww (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blige's main genres are R&B, soul, and hip hop soul, but there are IPs users who keep changing the order of the genres, wikilinking things wrong (for example, they wikilink the hip hop soul article to the hip hop music article, which is completely nonsensical), anyway, doing things wrong. I'll have to warn them if they continue to do this. Was that helpful? :) Funk Junkie (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel competent to know what should be there, then having you keep an eye on it would be very helpful. I'm personally surprised to hear what passes for R&B these days ... I tend to think of Etta James.Kww (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

On Deja vu
All I know is that multiple labels are delimited by a comma per WikiProject_Songs.. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the immediate response... --BritandBeyonce (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Christina Milian
I have noticed that you have removed the years that she has been with her labels. I just wanted to know why. I think it looks good, and it is informative. I'm not angry or anything, I just wanted a reason. Thanks.  ЩіκіRocкs (talκ) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK....I didn't know that. Thanks. I just thought it looked good. Happy editing.  ЩіκіRocкs (talκ) 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Song In A Minor
I am sorry that I did not take the opportunity to explain this better - I hope that you will understand after my explanation. First of all, UWC has been going only since 1999 - you will note the founder (Fred Chuchel ) is a youngish person - not someone who began this in 1957 as you suggest. He has been collecting sales data back to 1957 - but that does not mean it was founded then. At some point in time he "may" have had a reference to the sales data for albums in 2001, but in 2008, he does not. Finding it on a fansite is not a verified reference - please refer WP:V. The other issue is, that it is also stating a fact i.e. 11 million in sales, that is non referencable, as it is not on the UWC site. Therefore in all accounts, this does not meet the criteria to be a part of the article. As an editor for wikipedia, you should already know that the policy to include an item for inclusion into an article, especially if trying to state/portray something as a fact, is that it needs to be fully referenced, and this has to be a verified reference. Thanks for reading 60.234.242.196 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to revert your edit for peaks. My mistake, so have corrected back. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is welcome
Is Ashley Tisdale an R&B artist?Kww (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Genres
Hi, is there any significance in the order of genres listed in articles? Specifically Leona Lewis and her related pages. They're being swapped about practically daily. Just curious. anemone │  projectors  00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I'm not at all bothered what order they're in, it just bothers me that other people can't agree. anemone  │  projectors  20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I would say Leona is more soul than R&B. It's totally POV, really. I think the people who keep adding R&B to "Footprints in the Sand" are totally crazy though :) anemone  │  projectors  20:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh right. I'm not really that familiar with genres, espcially the really specific ones, though I like the sound of neo-soul. Of course, she's also done rock, with the Avril Lavigne song "I Will Be", but that seems to have been overlooked... anemone  │  projectors  21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 25
Hey

You said you wanted Thriller 25 to remain a separate article from Thriller (album). Just wondering, have you re-considered since then, now it's out? It's just we're trying to get a consensus going on the talk page. Right now thirteen of us want a merge, five people (including you) do not. It'd be nice for you to either contribute to debate, or state if your opinion has changed. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Twilight Zone
I draw your attention to this. One crappy album, 11 tracks, and 14 genres of music.Kww (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson songs formats
Can you please explain where you got your formats from? And if you are so keen to adhere to them, why not change all the singles pages from Janet Jackson, especially the most recent active page "Feedback"? Reqluce (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Following other wiki users is not the best solution. Please adhere to the format in the featured article Hollaback Girl as an example, since that is the clearest form of approval.Reqluce (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are far more examples of featured song articles where succession boxes are directly before references.Reqluce (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change 'UK' to 'British' on Jackson's singles or albums pages. CDs and records pressed in and for Britain are distributed throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, this includes Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Midlands. Thank you.Reqluce (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at record databases from HMV, Tower Records to specialist record stores such as eil.com, both American and "British" releases are listed as "US" and "UK" respectively. This further translates into the actual print on the CDs themselves (printed in the US) or (printed in the EU). Furthermore, you find the music charts are the US Billboard Hot 100, not "American Billboard Hot 100", and it is the UK Singles Chart and UK Album Chart, not "Britsh Singles Chart". As far as the music industry is concerned, "US" and "UK" is the official terms used to mark territorial release geography.Reqluce (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Song articles
I know you like editing music-related articles.

Please subcategorize any song thats a ballad. I have subcategorized the category Category:Ballads into Category:Ballads by genre, with it's tertiary subcategories as well! --Roadstaa (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you could make the article Category:R&B ballads, or Category:Rhythm and blues ballads. The article for slow jam purported that its criteria is any R&B track focused on being ballad-like. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:47, 24 May 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 ) 21:23, 30 May 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 ) 00:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He Said She Said
I checked, and I think all of your changes are in the article after I put it back to the small version. Please double check me, and I'm sorry if I missed something and accidentally erased it. You should be careful with all the Tisdale articles ... there's a long running edit war with a group of editors trying to force in enormous fannish versions, and if you make the changes to those, they sometimes get lost after the reversion to the normal version. Best to check the edit history, restore the latest small version, and edit that. Kww (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Charts
Hello. On another article an editor decided to clean up the cites, combining them all in the header. I didn't think it was a good idea but let it go. The article quickly became impossible to verify with the unending vandalism to numbers; any change required checking which of the various links in the header had the values, which made the article unverifiable in practice.

This article has a similar problem. Please leave the references with the numbers. (And you're also removing one of the charts and the specific refs without explanation). Gimmetrow 23:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I realize your form may look more neat or stylish, but it impedes WP:Verifiability, which is an ongoing problem with that article. Gimmetrow 22:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that works. Gimmetrow 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)