User talk:SnapSnap/Archive 5

Flesh Tone
I don't know how you can call individual chart sources for each chart a mess and secondly it has become a norm. to add a release history link to the infobox. Your edits undo a lot of work in adding individual references which are the standard for GA articles which I'm working this album towards. It would be appreciated if you don't undo such edits because you feel like you don't like the appearance of individual chart references. etc --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  19:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well for a start it is pointed out at WP:Record charts. It clearly says "Note that references should be individual and specific to each chart that is being used.". Additionally appearance and style arguments do not trump the policy and guideline. We don't rename all of the charts so they all read 'XYZ' Album Chart do we? So we should we do it with the references? Also per cite web the title field is for the title of the page not for individual users to create their own titles for the page. Whether we like it or not... the title has to match the title of the actual webpage. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  20:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Please take a look here and please put your name if you are interested. Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  19:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

May i ask you which song of Beyonce do you like the most? Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  18:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I love all her songs. I am totally in love with her her. But my favorite is "Sweet Dreams". Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  00:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dangerously in Love 2 URGENT
Please participate here. Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  08:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sales
Could you please direct me to where it states that sales should not be included alongside certifications in song and album articles? I checked the WP:Songs talk page archive as well as the various guideline pages and could not find any consensus against the inclusion of sales thresholds. Grk1011 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez genre vandalism
No need for an SPI. The block I put in place is as aggressive as anyone is going to be anyway. No more anonymous editing from that range for a month. Let's see what results we get.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Help please.
Please participate here. Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  16:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fever (Kylie Minogue album)
Hi there. In this edit you reverted from using the certification Table Entry template to the older format. Was there any specific reason? The template was discussed in WT:ALBUM quite some time ago and I saw very little negative responses so far. The template eases the use of certification sources, automatically categorizes, and in general, provides a standard look. I presumed removing it was just a mistake and restored it, I hope it is fine with you. If there are any problems, let me know and I'll try to correct them. --Muhandes (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please
Please please please participate here. Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  10:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way (Polish chart)
Hi! I removed the Polish Chart position, because it's listed on WP:BADCHARTS. (I.e., charts for Poland are not reliable.) -- Frous (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * :D Ooops. Sorry, my bad, it's reliable.... -- Frous (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Succession boxes
Please do not move succession boxes into a "chart procession" section. This violates WP:FOOTER and looks extremely tacky. I moved them back. Otherwise, thanks for the cleanup on the article! —Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Blanc Burn
Please note that I have reverted your edits to the Blanc Burn article. This is not "Bad formatting", it is standard Wikipedia practice and its use is detailed at Citing sources. memphisto 08:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have again reverted your edits to the Blanc Burn article, but thanks for pointing out the mistaken space before the tag.


 * Your statement "the referencing system I applied is unarguably universal and much clearer" is plainly wrong. If that system was universal then List-defined references would not exist, and List-defined references were created specifically to "reduce clutter within articles".


 * Also, per List-defined references "When in doubt, follow the referencing system used by the first major contributor to employ a consistent style." memphisto 09:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Love on Top for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Love on Top is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed here until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  09:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ladytron chronology
Why do you insist to revert my edits about Ladytron chronology? All albums (studio, live, compilations) should be linked together. It's Ladytron CHRONOLOGY, not Ladytron STUDIO ALBUMS CHRONOLOGY.

Every artist has ALL albums linked (see for yourself: Goldfrapp, Ian Brown, LCD Soundsystem etc)

Please stop reverting my edits. Thanks. Deepblue1 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Still, they have few major releases (5 studio, 1 live, 2 compilations). It's not a good idea to leave their only live album unlinked and to link together just their only two compilations. I think most people (when browsing their discography) are expecting to see all their main albums. As I said before, most artists have all albums included on their album chronology.

So, please don't modify my edits (especially about this band). Thanks.Deepblue1 (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Sounds of the Universe
I'd like to know the reason behind your recent edits to all accessdate parameters in the album ratings table at Sounds of the Universe. You have changed all of them to what I presume in all cases is the very first retrieval date of the review. In all those cases there already was a date parameter. I wonder what purpose do your edits serve here since all of those links have been checked and accessed later. The accessdate parameter is significant when there is no date available. At other times it shows the latest date of retrieval, e.g. when the citation is fixed and I like it that it is used that way. I never change the accessdate if I don't check the article link that it works. It may prove useful the day the link inevitably dies and the article has to be searched from the web archives, and that is why I don't see your changes very helpful. I'd like to know why your doing this, in case you have plans to go on and "fix" other Depeche articles, too. --Sk4170 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick answer! I don't know about strict guidelines either, but the latest accessdate definitely can save browsing time at web archives when the original link has changed before the article is permanently removed or the latest archived links contain the 404 notice. I can't think of any other true purpose for accessdate if the date parameter is specified. Well, other than aesthetic, like you mentioned ;) Cheers. --Sk4170 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Album ratings
Fyi, the technical limit in the album ratings table is twelve entries. The limit for the deprecated infobox reviews parameter was ten entries. If you try to add more than that, they just don't show in the article page. Not going to argue though whether twelve reviews in one table is too much, or, specifically, about the NYT review, it's okay that it's added as prose in the SotU reception paragraph. No guidelines here either. Just wanted to let you know why I initially reverted your edit. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Party"'s release date
Please participate and help clear the confusion here. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Synthpop Artists - Thanks
Thanks for your help with list maintenance as well as your additions. Unfortunately preventing the addition of unsourced and uncited or red linked acts on the genre lists has become an almost daily task. So any help is appreciated. Edkollin (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please let us know what you think
My friend, as you know, Beyonce's new album 4 is being handled in a catastrophic way (i do not know if this is a correct word). Please voice your opinion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Party_(song)#Article.27s_format. here] so that we can decide which format will suit "Party" that best. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Saturdays = Youth expansion and cleanup
I've noticed the contributions you have made to Hurry Up We're Dreaming and I was wondering if you could help expand and cleanup the article for M83's previous album Saturdays = Youth. Thanks. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding the critical reception section of the article. The only thing I would complain about is that the section seems pretty bloated; is it neccesary to summarize every single critic? Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I space after the Metacritic summary is that, to me, it makes the section easier to read.Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Another discussion, this time regarding "Love on Top"
First of all, my sincere thanks for your participation in previous Beyonce-related discussion. I request you to please weigh your opinion here. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 06:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fact Magazine reliable?
The publisher is called the "The Vinyl Factory"  it sounded like some sort of record company so I thought it might a magazine created to publicize its artists. I will put this up as a talk page discussion which is where this kind of discussion belongs and the UK editors hopefully will weigh in. Edkollin (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Soul and Jazz awards
I'm getting a feeling of deja vu. Didn't we go through this before?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

 * You are welcome and thanks for lovely message. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Shake
The cover of Shake (Little Boots song) is not copyrightable based on the fact that it falls under the umbrella of PD-text. It is plain gold text on a black background that can be duplicated by anyone with an image editor, and I uploaded a better version (taken from the Little Boots Soundcloud page) that isn't a PNG. Do not claim that it is fair use, again, please.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the deletion tag on your image, restored the correct copyright tags on all images, and placed the larger version that is in the public domain back onto the article.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 03:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As a note, File:Nirvana album cover.svg and File:TheBeatles68LP.jpg are also album covers that are in the public domain.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 04:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the cover being solely based on text, it's still a single cover, why should it be treated otherwise? Plus it's absurdly large, isn't there a size criteria?  Snap Snap  04:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be treated otherwise because gold text on a black background cannot be copyrighted. And because there is no copyright, we are not restricted in any way as to how to use the file. It can be as big or as small as we damn well please. It can even be converted into a SVG because the record company cannot place a copyright on such a simple image.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 04:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it.  Snap Snap  04:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Little Boots Shake.jpg.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 04:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)