User talk:Status/2013/03

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:Oops!... I Did It Again
Reply at my talk page. You may add it to your watchlist. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mirrors (Justin Timberlake song)
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake
Um I did 1 revert on his videography page because I've had veteran editors nail me for doing exactly what was done to filmographies, they all go to the WP: Filmography page as reference. You're telling me you really think how they had it looked better? Having box office numbers, directors, ect looks better? It makes it look cluttered and none of that is necessary when the film/tv has ALL of that on it's page anyway or should. But whatever. Lady Lotus (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding such information when the filmography section is on a biography article is undue, yes, but when it is its own separate article, and the purpose of it all is to display all the information? Then no. That's not my problem anyway, WP:FILMOGRAPHY isn't a Wikipedia policy, it's a guideline. It can be followed, but not enforced. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 22:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please ban user Xekoxeko
See his edits to Halo, and my page, after you had warned him. Uberaccount (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Chartbot review
The bot to repair the Billboard site revision catastrophe has undergone its initial test run (see Special:Contributions/Chartbot). I uncovered a few small bugs in the initial edits, but any that I didn't revert are, to the best of my knowledge, good. If you have any issues with it, Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot is the place to bring them up.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll be sure to keep an eye out! — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 23:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Weeknd
Thanks for the barnstar. The album (article) deserved better. Could you drop a comment at Talk:The Weeknd? An editor insists on adding a random song(s) accolade to a WP:MUSICIAN article that I believe belongs in the album article it currently is in; he's been rejecting the guidelines I cited and instead uses the article Elvis Presley as a precedent for incorporating song information in the biography section. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Red
First, the ten review limit has been exceeded. Next, the two sputnik reviews do not match the one in prose is not for the score in the table. Then, you either have to put both in the table and put in the prose for both or delete? Lastly, this is why I favored deletion! Not that I have the need or care to delete or keep a review one way or the other.HotHat (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I give you here the prose source and rating source, so what do you want to do?HotHat (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, both are staff reviewers, so both carry equal weight and must be reported on here if the site is used to begin with. This site is similar to Jesus Freak Hideout and New Release Tuesday, who sometimes have double staff reviewer, so both must be taken or left out.HotHat (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Precious (film)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Precious (film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Some Girls (Madonna song)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Diamonds World Tour
Why did you remove the edit I made to the page? I thought it was good, factual and non-biased? Are you writing your own concert synopsis then? — Preceding Deem97k comment added by Deem97k (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for FutureSex/LoveSound
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The 20/20 Experience
Definitely the best or maybe eventually one of the best albums of the decade :). It's awesome! WB JT! :D — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in the top three for sure, along with Push and Shove and Born to Die / Paradise. As a few reviewers said, it's like he never left! — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree for this too, but however, yeah the reviewers are totally right ! :D — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sweet Spot
Is this real, or fake? It says official cover. Ar re  09:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Access denied, but if you're talking about that one with the lollipop, white background and ugly text, fake. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 19:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * it was. Good, such an awful cover. Ar  re  05:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Are you here? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 17:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes; what's up? — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please send me an email. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 03:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No Hay Igual
The article No Hay Igual you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:No Hay Igual for things which need to be addressed. Diva   Knockouts   16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What is all...
this?:, ,. I need an explanation of why undid my edits (which are valid, because they are terms associated with these artists). Chrishonduras (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A Madonna wannabe is a "a trend in the 1980s of women (as well as men) dressing like pop star Madonna." — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 19:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, this term still used today (in various part of the world) and not only by "dressed". What happens is that the article itself is poorly written. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, adding a "see also" link, referring to their whole existence is ridiculous. Besides, the article doesn't even have anything to "see also" about. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 19:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but No, no and no. This is not ridiculous, because inevitably is an article (which term is still used) related to these artists and is added in the right context (e.g. influences, public image...). Why do we have to be judges of this information? We must let the reader is informed about it. This is completely common sense (One of the five pillars of Wikipedia). Best all, Chrishonduras (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But the reader is not informed about it. All they see is a "see also" link with no justification. Now that is common sense. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 21:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A have question: What is not justified? That is an article (which term is still used) related to these artists?. This will always be common sense. Chrishonduras (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's inclusion. I don't see any mention of them being called a "Madonna wannabe" in the article. So what use is it, again? It may be true, but the article doesn't mention it. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 21:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My estimated, please all in stride. Kylie Minogue, Gaga or Spears and other mentioned copiously to Madonna as influences on them. This is inevitable both in the words of the artists themselves, and of the press (globally, not only in English). Therefore, it is an article about the artists, because it is a term that is still in use (beyond that, as synonyms) and is properly included in the proper context: influences or public image. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. For example this book is a example that Gaga has been called as such ("He refers to her as a "Madonna copy cat" and a "Madonna wannabe" ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishonduras (talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Status! Talking of which, I'm just curious as to why did you reversed Justin Bieber after I added about the murder plot? Anyways, nice to meet you! :) Antonio Justin Wannabe Martin ("don't call me Shirley!" 08:36, 23 March, 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson discography
Hey Status, just so we're clear, I didn't revert your edits regarding the promotional singles in the Kelly Clarkson discography. I just fixed the tables and updated the sales from the latest reliable source. But I reverted it back to my last edit, because of consisted reversions about the promotional singles section. If you still insist that "Get Up" and "I'll Be Home for Christmas" are singles, you may want to talk to Aspects about that to reach a consensus, because he's the one who reverted it back as promotional singles. I'll be fine with whatever consensus you two will reach. Chihciboy (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Boomerang (song)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I need a reviewer for a GAC
Hi! I've been working on this article for the last months and I already nominated it, but I'm having a hard time finding a reviewer. I noticed you got some experience reviewing music-related article, so I guess you'd be a good one for this article. I'd appreciate if you could take the time!

Cheers! --Rod840 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Creating a tour article
Hi Status! I'm writing an article for an album, and I want to know how to create an article for a tour. This is my sandbox. I've never written an article about a tour so I don't know which information should be left on the album article and which should not. Thanks. Erick (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally, for a tour, information should include:
 * Background: Some information about an act's previous experience with touring and some information about the album in which the tour was launched in support of. Something that the reader would need to know to understand other things in the article. Information about the tour's announcement could also be included here.
 * Development: How the tour came about. For example, who was chosen to direct it, what is the theme of the tour, etc.
 * Synopsis: A description of a typical performance during the tour. What songs were performed, maybe what the act was wearing, etc. Concert reviews generally cover this info.
 * Critical reception: Don't think this one really needs explaining.
 * Commercial performance: How many tickets were sold, what shows sold out, or lack of selling would go here.
 * And then we have a list for opening acts, set list, personnel and a table for the tour dates.

Of course, everything depends on the tour and must be adjusted to fit said needs. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, call me Zach. And take a look at Zoo TV Tour for an example. It's the only FA tour article. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zach! You the man! ;) Erick (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have time for a peer review?
Hi Status! Over the past couple of weeks, I've revamped the Demi Lovato biography article. Before I nominate it for GA, I thought it would be best to have it go through a peer review first. Since you've made such great contributions to music articles, do you have any freetime to give the page a lookthrough? :-) WikiRedactor (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Melin
I was just about to remove that, seemed dubious. Thanks. &mdash; Robin   (talk)  18:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Taylor-Johnson
I see you moved Aaron Johnson's page from Aaron Taylor-Johnson to Aaron Johnson. But he is now credited in his film roles as "Aaron Taylor-Johnson". Doesn't that make it his common name? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I may be wrong in this case and may not just be entirely familiar with him, but from 2001 until 2011, he was known as Aaron Johnson. Only since 2012 has he been known as Aaron Taylor-Johnson. So for the majority of his career, he has been credited as Aaron Johnson, so that would be his most common name. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 18:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But aren't these things supposed to go by present common name? IMDB calls him Aaron Taylor-Johnson. I mean, if he was born a Methodist and was a Methodist for 20 years, but converted to Church of Scotland in 2012, wouldn't we list him as Church of Scotland? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comparing an article title to a religion isn't an accurate comparison. See this discussion for a similar issue. A quick Google search of "Aaron Johnson" comes up with 205 million results, while "Aaron Taylor-Johnson" comes up with 64 million results. It's clear what he is commonly known as. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 21:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is when someone changes an attribute about themselves, the article should change to reflect that. His "common name" is the name he uses to be billed in movies, and that name is now Aaron Taylor-Johnson. The definition of "common name" isn't time-dependant. BTW, in the Lily Allen example you mention, Allen did not release any new albums or music credited under her new name. That's not the case here. Johnson's most recent films, Anna Karenina (poster from August 2012) and Savages (poster from September 2012), bill him as "Aaron Taylor-Johnson" above the title. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, two of his films credit him as Taylor-Johnson, while 18 credit him as just Johnson. I can't explain it any better. A common name is what most people know you by, not what you are currently known as. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, his two most recent film credits, not two random film credits throughout his career. That's the point. The phrase "most people know you by" makes no sense to me. What "most people" allegedly "know" or don't "know" has no relevance to factual information. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what the Wikipedia guidelines are for naming. I agree that a person's current name should be the title, however, that is against our policy here. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 21:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Parker (2013 Film) Budget". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 17:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you help?
In my sandbox, I've put together some references for a page I'm creating, but they turn up red when you click them. Why does this happen? They're all perfectly healthy links. --Matt723star (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove the {{ from them. They should appear in this format: . — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 22:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Review
Hello Status. I see that you helped review Sharon Newman for GA and was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing Cane Ashby for GA as well. I've been working on it for almost two months and it would be great to get it to GA status. I understand you're probably busy, I just thought I'd ask. Please let me know at your earliest convienence. Thanks! Regards,  Creativity  97  14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the late reply), But I don't really have the time. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 17:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Pusher Love Girl
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That Power
"ThatPower" is only stylized as #thatPower or #thatPOWER, the correct title is "That Power"--MDNA (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK? nomination review request
Hello there,

Anyway, I was wondering if you could please review this DYK? nomination of mine--Template:Did you know nominations/Urbanization in the United States. For the record, I previously reviewed your Pusher Love Girl DYK? nomination. If not, that's okay, but please let me know what your decision is. Thank you very much. Have a good day and take care. :) Futurist110 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. You too! — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 17:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fugitivity
Hey Status, could you please tell me what the word "fugitivity" means in this context? Seems to be extremely rare and is unknown to the following dictionaries which were the first I got with google -- not defined, not defined and unrelated. Incidentally, I have linked "she-ro" to Wiktionary. Cheers Moriori (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The stage in the character's life when she was a runaway; a fugitive. I thought of the word choice to be a little odd myself, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Status, that means you assessed this GA with a word which you can't truly explain. Do you think you could amend that subheading in the article? Moriori (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that means that a reviewed this GA that I felt the word to be acceptable. If you can think of a better word, please, feel free to insert it into the article. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 17:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You can't say "fugitive", because that doesn't seem right in a heading. Something like "Life on the run and alter ego" would be too long. There is nothing wrong with Fugitivity. The word is self-explanatory. Ar re  08:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "There is nothing wrong with Fugitivity". Please explain where that word is defined, and what it means. My question to Status was and remains "please tell me what the word fugitivity means". Moriori (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Christmas in Spiceworld
FYI, please see Deletion review/Log/2013 March 22. This article was a copy/paste re-creation of one that had been deleted at AFD. --B (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jurassic Park (film)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jurassic Park (film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Spiceworld Tour...
... is now deleted. Not sure why it took so long to do it, looks like you tagged it a day and a half ago. You can move whatever you were planning to move now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Stop reinserting fanmade covers
Actually you are doing the opposite; multiple sources show the image you are reinstating was created by a fan. (Here) --WikiGaGa (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The person could just be posting the cover and claiming it was done by them. The official website of Nelly's management would not upload a fake cover. They also showed it on their Facebook account. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 01:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, and
Could you please comment here. Moriori (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

soFLY & Nius
Hi Status,

Why did you move the page ? The name is not correct, this is not "SoFly and Nius" but "soFLY & Nius"...

Regards, Koffey (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick conversation
Dear Status, I am not trying to argue or cause a rift, however I am curious as to why you are the one who constantly reverts and changes my edits. While I respect that everything should be sourced, you completely undo everything I edit even when it is sourced. I understand we aren't a "wikia", so I wouldn't cite anything that isnt a reliable reference. Also, I like to make articles look like other articles. Nearly every single tour page has a 'Box office score data' section as well as a 'cancellations and rescheduled shows' segment. I don't understand why the Diamonds World Tour article and the Truth About Love article should be any different. It's getting really tiring working hard to edit an article only to find later that someone undid all the work. I am trying to be peaceable and understanding and I trust that you will try to do the same. Please value other people's hard work while others value yours.

Sincerely, TheMadonnaMusicCN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themadonnamusiccn (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand you, however, the way other articles look doesn't mean everything has to look the same. It's really quite pointless to have a separate box office table, as it is much easier for the reader to see everything at once. They can see "Hey! This is what city in took place, country, venue, how much people went there and how much it grossed!" at once place, you know what I mean? As for cancellations and rescheduled shows, a table just adds extra space that isn't really needed. Adding a simple note gives the reader exactly what they need to know, without overdoing it. There are really no guidelines for tour articles, and I apologize if I have made you feel like I am constantly reverting/changing your edits for some strange reason, as that's true. Like you, I am just trying to better the encyclopedia. But please, of course, I am open to discussion about it. I just don't feel that because so and so article is one way, all articles must be like that. That's not a reason to keep it like that. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 21:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I do see your point, and either way the article still looks good. Thanks for understanding! — TheMadonnaMusicCN  ( talk,  contribs ) 10:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Cassie
Hi Zac, Just been super busy with my undegraduate research project TBH. I've lost my passion for wikipedia after the new wave of editors joined and its become really catty lol! Yes I still think Cassie is criminally under-rated! I dont think we'll ever get a proper album from her. I'd like to see her collaborate with David Guetta for his next album. It would really raise her profile i think. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the project! Aww, yeah, I know what you mean. It can be a real bitch around here. I've tried to leave... but I just can't bring myself to. She really is and I don't think so either. She has already worked with the biggest names in the business and nothing has helped (lol). I just want her to do her thing, I don't care about its success. Just glad she's finally releasing something. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 22:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify April Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * }