Revision as of 08:05, 17 December 2013 editRaykyogrou0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,738 edits →rv User:Raykyogrou0's talk wipe). No content was _moved_ to Talk:Love & Girls!: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:21, 17 December 2013 edit undoRaykyogrou0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,738 edits →Love & Girls 17 Dec 2013-ish edit: never mind; reNext edit → | ||
Line 509: | Line 509: | ||
== ] 17 Dec 2013-ish edit == | == ] 17 Dec 2013-ish edit == | ||
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of ], such as the edit you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the ] which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use ] for that. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> ] <small>''(])''</small> 04:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC) | <s>] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of ], such as the edit you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the ] which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use ] for that. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> ] <small>''(])''</small> 04:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)</s> | ||
:Enough with the repeated ''Welcome''s, already! I've been wikiing since 2004, been here significantly longer than you and made many more live edits. | :Enough with the repeated ''Welcome''s, already! I've been wikiing since 2004, been here significantly longer than you and made many more live edits. | ||
:Your comment specifies ], which I'd not edited for more than two days, at your time of posting. Please elaborate. {{nowrap| {{nbsp}} {{ndash}} Ian, ] (]) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)}} | :Your comment specifies ], which I'd not edited for more than two days, at your time of posting. Please elaborate. {{nowrap| {{nbsp}} {{ndash}} Ian, ] (]) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)}} | ||
::''"Being here longer than me"'' does not always mean more experience and/or superiority, we are all equal here as editors. I must have linked to the wrong article when I brought up twinkle; also the basic template seems to say Welcome at the start, even if you have already been ''welcomed''. I'll be sure to preview it next time and make sure it doesn't say "Welcome", okay?] <small>''(])''</small> 08:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
== rv ]'s talk wipe). No content was _moved_ to ]! == | == rv ]'s talk wipe). No content was _moved_ to ]! == |
Revision as of 08:21, 17 December 2013
Welcome!
Hello, DjScrawl, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! — coelacan — 00:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Footstools on Furniture
Thanks for adding Footstool to the page. However, we already have a link, at the top of the page to 'types of furniture', and footstool is on that list. for that reason, I have reverted your edits. ThuranX 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I Had To Say It
A tag has been placed on I Had To Say It, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}}
to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — coelacan — 00:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello DjScrawl! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 8 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- François Jacques Boeri - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of François Jacques Boeri for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article François Jacques Boeri, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/François Jacques Boeri until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfstorm000 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Red Light Management
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Red Light Management, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Zachlipton (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Lorde ce Sept 2013
Thanks for the heads-up with this. I just made some final revisions in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy and for consistency. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your re-edit. Preclusion of adjacent links is news to me, seems good sense, will co'.
- "Yelich-O'Connor was 13, …", vis "Yelich-O'Connor was thirteen, …", seems incorrect to me (number not directly quantifying a thing). Perhaps I'm old-fashioned and am bowing to your greater knowledge - However, for future reference, I'd be grateful if you'd point-out a link to a relevant policy page.
- Onward and/or upward :) DjScrawl (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Galliano/Acid Jazz Records
Something you may be able to help clear up. The Acid Jazz article has the label being created in 1987 with Galliano as their first signing and "Frederick lies still" as the first single (which the catalogue number would appear to confirm). However this blog (and us) have Galliano forming in 1988 and releasing "Frederick" in 1989. Eil.com have the release date of the single as 1987 which would appear to tally with the label creation, but then this makes a nonsense of the group forming in 1988 and leaves a huge gap between that release and the appearance of the singles from In Pursuit. Can you shed any light on the correct timeline? Thanks. danno_uk 22:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll look into that. (Pesky hippies! ;)
For now, I'm plugging some other annoying holes, on the page. DjScrawl (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)- Right, I dug out my copy of the Acid Jazz sampler The Best of Acid Jazz and the sleeve notes from that put the "Freddie" release as June 1988 so I'm going to go with that. It also has the Chris Bangs/Galliano collaboration "Let the good times roll" from 1989 which I'd forgotten about and which bridges the gap to In Pursuit nicely. danno_uk 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good work! I've templated the whopper quote, fixed the Dingwalls page (some) and hefted the club out of NW London, on the AJ page. I've searched for the redlink bands across Wikipedias (no joy) - found the tear-down for Janice Graham Band quite curious: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.myspace.com/janicegrahamband (Things that have one go: mmm).
- On my travels, I found there's some comp' Tito Lopez Combo d/l's on Last.FM, which you might fancy.
- Also, Acid Jazz Records#Artists who have recorded with Acid Jazz Records include is a mindbendingly long unstructured list. How about making it 1st-release chronological (using Discogs), then sub-sectioned by decade - and/or winnowing by popularity, using an amalgamation of Last.FM/label/Acid+Jazz/artists (from 2.2M listeners) and Last.FM/label/Acid+Jazz+Records/artists (from 1.1M listeners)? DjScrawl (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- That section does need a tidy and breaking it down into decades by first release seems a very sensible way of doing it. In terms of ordering within those sections I'd tend to lean towards alphabetical rather than popularity as sampled by last.fm, but I think that does provide a great way of sorting the more notable artists from those who would be on an exhaustive list but probably not a shortlist of associated acts. We can always create a list article or a category of Acid Jazz Records artists later if an exhaustive list is required. danno_uk 19:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies for delay (and still busy elsewhere). My immediate reply got bogged down with technicalities of sortable tables and compromises thereof, vis my ideal (would have to be coded), leading to a pragmatic / efficient solution (I hope). Roughly, I'm thinking as follows.
- That section does need a tidy and breaking it down into decades by first release seems a very sensible way of doing it. In terms of ordering within those sections I'd tend to lean towards alphabetical rather than popularity as sampled by last.fm, but I think that does provide a great way of sorting the more notable artists from those who would be on an exhaustive list but probably not a shortlist of associated acts. We can always create a list article or a category of Acid Jazz Records artists later if an exhaustive list is required. danno_uk 19:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, Acid Jazz Records#Artists who have recorded with Acid Jazz Records include is a mindbendingly long unstructured list. How about making it 1st-release chronological (using Discogs), then sub-sectioned by decade - and/or winnowing by popularity, using an amalgamation of Last.FM/label/Acid+Jazz/artists (from 2.2M listeners) and Last.FM/label/Acid+Jazz+Records/artists (from 1.1M listeners)? DjScrawl (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Fundamentally, this is about releases – since its a label page, notwithstanding artist/repertoire/rights buying/development/disposal (hard to cite and less of an issue for indie labels). Thus, I think, each original-release entry wants: rel-day (or at least rel-month), artist name, release name, (maybe) some notoriety measure, (later, maybe) a label-début indicator (b/g colouring, perhaps), (maybe) release type LP/EP and (maybe) cat-number. Thus, rows are about half-page-width.
- A release-oriented approach also arrives at less unwieldy sub-section titles, I suppose.
- Also, as it stands and for foreseeable, the page is a chronological bio' of the label and, I think, the most useful entries to see at the top of the section are earliest and latest. Thus, I'm thinking:
- Date all 1st releases from currently listed artists.
- Order list chronologically and cut in half.
- Place 1st-half in a left-aligned table.
- Re-sort 2nd-half reverse-chronologically and place in a right-aligned table, beside 1st-half.
- As and when: make tables sortable (with default ordering as above) and full-out catalogue.
- Overall, forming a chronological U-shape. This seems to cover all initial aims, whist being: best ergonomics, efficient use of page-area, good scalability and reasonable maintainability.
- There's quite a hefty, context switching, effort to come-up with the initial new section – I'm thinking of Google Docs spreadsheet (shareable, for other participants), to manage capture of all the data and auto-render initial Wiki table code.
- I hope to have time to start at the weekend. Do you have any thoughts / refinements, to the above? –DjScrawl (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- First and foremost, you've moved into a realm beyond my technical skills in relation to wikitables (skills that can be approximated as anything bigger than two or three columns/rows will be appropriated from another article where I've seen the like) and secondly that sounds like quite a lot of work (sidles away quietly...).
- In terms of vaguely useful comments, firstly I've never seen a record label article with that degree of detail. Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing, someone has always got to be first and if you're prepared to do it then great, but I think it may be over and above the call of duty! Parlophone and Creation Records both just have bulleted lists (and the latter has a separate discography while the former doesn't have any for some reason). Junior Boy's Own is a great example of how not to do it! I'm also slightly concerned that such a long list type section (whilst clearly important) would dominate the article which has only a fairly short prose section about the label itself. For example nothing about Peterson's departure. Secondly, it sounds like you know a lot more about this than me, but will the formatting even allow for side-by-side tables? And if it does, given what you're planning to include, will that not mean a lot of compromise in terms of wrapping text for longer group/release names? Thirdly, while agreed that the most important releases are both the oldest and first recent, the two column model does increase the work in terms of maintenance going forward as new releases can't simply be appended at the end but will (every other release) displace something else that needs to moved to the first column. Finally (you'll be glad to hear!), do you have this info? I've looked on the Acid Jazz website and while their list is long, it doesn't appear to be comprehensive. At a glance, "Frederick Lies Still" appears only as a re-release. I suspect that's likely not the only omission/change from the original chronology.
- As an aside I noted on my last visit to the article the complete absence of Jamiroquai. While they may not be that important in terms of their output on the label, in terms of global recognition they're clearly the biggest act to have had a record released by Acid Jazz, so a bit of a glaring omission!
- As I've said, in technical terms I'm not going to be a lot of use in producing this list, but if there's anything that I can do in terms of simple donkey work such as adding releases to a shared spreadsheet then very happy to help (GTA V allowing). Just let me know. danno_uk 23:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I hope to have time to start at the weekend. Do you have any thoughts / refinements, to the above? –DjScrawl (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Expanded cite template code (re-)formatting
Can you please not expand cite templates like this? It really clogs up the edit window and it makes it hard to see what you actually changed in the edit. Cheers Adabow (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Adabow - Thank you for talking. Such edits were in good faith that the result was very much and overall improvement (to coded content legibility, cite maintain ability, etc.), out weighing the one-off obscuring of change (which I admit's some problem).
- I find it hard to read the edit-page through compressed format, finding this the more obscuring situation - perpetually so. I assumed others were not always using expanded format 'cause they're deft or have an editing client-app - and, thus, found that quick. Possibly, in the case of an editing client, legibility might be as clear (even making the underlying format un-impactful).
- Also, I got the impression from template documentation that expanded format was generally preferred / more conformant.
- I don't notice a "clogs up the edit window" problem - I wonder what proportion of editors do, with expanded format, and how painfully.
- I see a couple+ of compromise edit-policies, between your vis-Team_(song)&oldid=573749759 example and suspension. I am always happy to bow to prevailing Misplaced Pages policy - Do you know of such documented, on this? Also, do you know of editing client-app's, that might make compressed format more legible for me? (Linux-based and open sourced, ideally - Simple Text Pad style colouring would do it.) —DjScrawl (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- PS: I'm looking at wikEd, other editing client suggestions remain most welcome. —DjScrawl (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spotted Elk, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lakota and Evangelist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed –DjScrawl (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sparks (Imogen Heap album) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- (Wired UK)| date= 11 Janurary 2013| publisher= ]| accessdate= 22 September 2013}}}</ref> and premièred as part of ] 2012, together with a re-release of 'the first ever
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Sparks (Imogen Heap album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Digital download
- Will Gregory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to The Telegraph
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fire Within, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birdy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done –DjScrawl (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hints on context-inferenced disambiguation
Hello, DjScrawl. If you want to link to an article named "Foo people" but have the link just read "Foo", you should write ]
, not the other way around. But, when talking about a cultural phenomenon such as the "British punk rock scene," it seems clear that "British" is referring to a location, not to an ethnic group, so the more appropriate link would be ]
. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Russ :) Thanks for the heads-up! (Call me Ian.) I think, we're on the same page (it seems, 10%+ of my edits involve such disentanglement) – as I clearly remember, the Goth subculture link you've refocused did cause me pause, when editing (not linked prior). As an aspie, I'm all about disambiguation, but have an inference impairment tendency (rarely an issue in technical/encyclopaedic writing). –DjScrawl (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- To the case in point – I hope my 'good faith' was obvious, in attempting to assign culture to people-engaged, rather than place-of-'birth'. You intone, I've misinterpreted British people as being about people on an island, rather than people whose genetics are substantially within an island. I shall review – If this is the case, it has substantial bearing on British music pages (which I edit a lot and where I picked-up the habit) and, moreover, on pages about British, et al, cultural produce. (Being the greatest cultural melting pot on the planet, IMO ;) –DjScrawl (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, what I inherently want to ideally link is the noun phrase, rather than a component thereof – in our case that's "British scene" (or more pedantically, "contemporaneous British scene %). –DjScrawl (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, more to the point, I returned to the goth rock page and, within the goth subculture#Origins and development context, "British scene" seems most appropriate – How'd you like that linkage? Thanks again, and in anticipation. –DjScrawl (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Début by English dialect
Why you keep changing it from debut to début? Who says that the latter is correct? Here is also Category:Debut albums. --Stryn (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Stryn - I'm Ian.
- I don't genially 'keep' changing that spelling, only on pages using English dialects where that is the spelling, e.g. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Birdy (musician) is a page on an British subject.
- It's headed Template:Use British English.
- The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for the word "début" and not the word "debut". –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- NB1: I've just checked point-3, above, by OED.com/search?searchType=dictionary&q=debut (searching for "debut", on OED.com) (membership required) which returns no exact match, and suggests two results for "début". – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- BTW: My Google Chrome spell-checker is set for British English and shows "debut" as a misspelling. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thus, an answer to the 'Who says' question includes OED and Google. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- NB2: For example, I have never knowingly made this change on an designated/obviously U.S. English page. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have been gathering info' on dialect variants of this spelling, to propose a new row on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Spelling#English spelling comparison chart, but not with great urgency. Thus, so far, I only know UK, U.S. and New Zealand English. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- What're your thoughts, in light of the above, please? –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply Ian. I'm not so familiar with English Misplaced Pages rules, and I didn't know that debut is written in British English as début. And my English is not so good that I could argue more about this. So I'm ok with that. --Stryn (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Björk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Britian
- Dark wave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Witch house
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done –DjScrawl (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Re: Los Campesinos! (or general) artist-page rel-date precision
User talk:Doc Strange#Los Campesinos! (or general) artist-page rel-date precisionHello Doc - First time caller, long time listener. ;) About your recent Los Campesinos! single release-date/format submergence - I have a vague recollection of aMisplaced Pages:Manual of Style, or thereabouts, specification of minimum precision for release-dates, but not a maximum. Are day/month-precise rel-dates positively contra-MoS? If so, I'd be grateful if you could point-out where that's written (I've failed to re-find such).
NB: I dislike the date part of the edit, but don't want to unnecessarily hassle a follow for simply following the rules. – Best, Ian DjScrawl(talk) 12:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't recall where exactly it is. I was taking the lead of practically every other singles table in a discography section or page, especially ones that have received "good" or higher status, most notably the FA-status Radiohead discography. Very few other discographies have things like specific release dates for singles and especially not formats. If the song has a page, format and release date can be included there (and single release dates can be included in the album template on the album page, too). Things like that can make the LC! singles discography confusing to read. Removing the extemporaneous information makes it a considerably easier read and in line with other discographies of the same type. Doc StrangeLogbook 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I hope dragging over my orig' is OK. Trying to preclude discontinuity madness.
- Extemporaneous is a PoV. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to know the sequence/spread between a number of similar things, especially when they occur within the same year. Obviously difficult when acts are in the common big three production cycle, harder for young/leftfield acts who release nothing but singles/EPs for years (often indefinitely in the case of dance/reggae/etc. producer-centric realms) and progressively so, for both, with the rise of music downloads. –DjScrawl (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, following the lead of the majors' cookie-cutter is not the route to engendering creativity, and the documentation thereof, IMO. –DjScrawl (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I expect I've wikied 10,000s of release dates, over at Last.FM where the common month codification's inherited from C language (three letter names, as Ordinal date#Table). Most of the time I've been able to source a release month and wikied as such, many others also do that, and I don't remember a single revert (on that basis). Last.FM lacks much of the abstraction/management tech' that Wikimedia has, so I expect everything to be better here. –DjScrawl (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't plan to rock-the-boat until I've sight of the Misplaced Pages:Manual/Project guidance (please let me know if you come across it), but I get the feeling there's a lowest-common-denominator obfuscation going on, which is partly a WP:CSB(-like) issue. –DjScrawl (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've actually reverted my own edits because I don't seem to recall any actual style rules agreed upon for discography tables. The one thing that i'm keeping from my edit is the excising of "I Love You (But You're Boring)" from the singles table - that Beautiful South cover was never issued as a single (it was a Heat Rash b-side that somehow found its way to Pitchfork as a free download, and they were the only ones to host it - The band hasn't ever made anything of that.) That's hardly even an official release on the scale of their free download Christmas singles (I did add a list of the four Heat Rash singles though). Doc StrangeLogbook 04:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fun for all the family! To wit, I was wondering how well a month-granularity release dates might satisfy all-people/all-time – then, were I sit on the spectrum of wanting detail – and 78 rpm jass/jazz collectors occurred to me. For 78 rpm collectors there's a prevailing culture of completeness meaning: one from every pressing – thus, those folk are keen catalogue numbers. I'm not about to start fighting their corner, by proxy – However as I recall, the mainstream changeover to vinyl spanned 40 years (1930s–70s), for about half the duration of recorded music history (1857–present), an LP/EP has been impossible. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I Love You (but You're Boring) Insofar as there's no such thing as bad publicity, for official release (NB: official release and Wiktionary's are red), I generally read "Any music release sanctioned by the copyright holder (s, or their duly authorised agents) – which is not a reissue or rerelease – faux leeks, included. (Others are reissues, rereleases, bootlegs, samples or mash-ups.)" Then there's: When does a previous B-side qualify as stand-alone release, rather than a rerelease? Time-wise, e.g. I think, there's a period where a rerelease is indistinguishable, as in, part of the wake of its originator. In which case, a soon-after rerelease seems not to qualify as a release, let alone an official release. However, goliaths like Pitchfork (like TV ad's and film soundtracks), are capable adding sufficient splash that a rereleased B-side might historically be of release stature. %) What an interesting quandary! – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's similar fun around Lorde's "Royals", which asks a what's an 'official release' question (with rerelease proviso), then germane to: Can a track be originally complimentary released, offered-for-sale i/on an EP (download bundle), re-included on a subsequent album (ten months after the original) – with all these being début-events (i.e. an album would not've ordinarily been firmly planned at the time of original release) – then billed as the lead single, for said album? Whatever the answer, or qualification hedging, these seems a situation where there's commercial-imperative to subsume historical detail. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- NB: I looked-up "the skinny" at the top of that and was surprised to find gossip played above succinctness, in its definition (a more succinctness take might be in British et al usage, or succinct's been lost in tacit) – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Lorde ce and dup'e sources/tools
You are welcome. I think that I just added some duplicate sources; do you know of a script or other tool to help find and consolidate dups? BollyJeff | talk 16:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- You'd done a couple of nitty-gritty bits of Lorde ce, which many overlook, effectively saving me work – I tend to thank such when I see it. :) – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant citations
- A dup'e cite consolidation tool sounds useful – esp' one to find them (not necessarily fix them), as an aid and to provide a clean-bill-of-health button. Unfortunately, I don't know of such. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- In case you're generally interested in the problem, the richest seam of redundant citations, I know of, is List of 2013 albums#References - currently, 313 sources, most of which are redundant, notwithstanding submergence/coalescence of any payload with the corresponding album page (or for oldies – where that's not present – the act's page). It'd be quite some tool to (semi-)auto-fix that! NB: It seems like I'm working-up a monthly clean-up schedule proposal – e.g. with the aim of redundant-removal of the whole Ref. column (perhaps reusing real-estate with tiny-thumbnail cover-art, between Album and Genre), for months prior to the previous – Such'd be a significant step toward good article for the page, IMO (with an annual stability point soon after January – where an application point might, with work, be prudent). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I thought that I had seen a tool in the past. Oh well, will have to do it manually then. BollyJeff | talk 12:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I naturally came into the practice of pushing Infobox source-references into the article-body (or, in the case of secondary/subsequent referencings, simple deletion as redundancy). It seems, along these lines, some of your recent Lorde lead edits have been pursuant of this trajectory, pushing source-references from lead to subsequent sections. My tech-writing sensibilities baulked (as, all non-dictionary words / phrases / assertions grounded/explained at 1st instance), I found/read Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section which is ambiguous by-way-of not positively distinguishing between cites (as the template(s)) and references (instantiations of cites, as refs). Do you know of a more direct/unequivocal page on the subject? - DjScrawl (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- From WP:WHYCITE: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." BollyJeff | talk 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, there's some spirit of some law(s). I think, that's elaboration might benefit from a – with liberal use of anchored/deep-wikilinks into the page (
]
), to the points where the summaries are expanded/cited. – post-amble, of the like. Thus, to a good extent satisfying all jargon/assertions grounded at 1st instance, while conformant to WP:WHYCITE logic (which also makes life easy for some secondary users of the Lead, who often seem to pick-up ""s). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, there's some spirit of some law(s). I think, that's elaboration might benefit from a – with liberal use of anchored/deep-wikilinks into the page (
- NB: I've long been thinking of a Infobox-in-Lead checking tool (indicates Infobox fields mention on the Lead and fields not mentioned) – much of the code from which could be re-purposed to summaries non-mentioned fields in formalised prose, for secondary-users. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- That could get pretty messy, as noted in Misplaced Pages:Wikilinks#Section_links where they want notes in the subsections, and changing a subsection name will break it. You don't want blue links for every sentence in the lead pointing to elsewhere in the article. Blue links should be reserved for off-page info. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so there should be very little (or no) info that appears only in the lead. BollyJeff | talk 17:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- 'Pretty messy' is a show-stopper. A tiny bit might be a small cost. Thanks for the guidance-link. Subsection linkage can be future-proofed Template:Anchors. (a little more mess, backstage) Yes, naturally the process must support 'leads' in becoming summary-only (might skew some infoboxed articles, where some fields fit best in the lead and its preferable to cite in the body, rather than the infobox). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can envisage something working for stock pages like most on music, e.g. for an artist: lead = opening (infobox summary + basics of: début-release + latest-release + coming/current tour, if any) + sentence/block(s) summarising each following sections, each block with onward navigation. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, I pondered differently. I think, the far superior solution would be a new Misplaced Pages view-mode: with infobox/lead ref's and without. Where without's the default (and the view exposed to Google). Editors would (over-)ref the lead and opt-in-readers/verifiers could see them ... aaannd, inc' the simplified Google view, it would bring in droves of external-linkee 'fans', to do all the work for us >:) – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republic Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti- (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done – DjScrawl (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Lorde's sub-Croatian ancestry
Good morning DjScrawl! (Great username)
You may be interested to read this thread on my Talk
Thank you for the "thanks"
Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 06:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for the heads-up. A place named-in-antiquity after a people, which then names subsequent people(s) - That's history folks! :D Meanwhile, I'm gathering sources for how Westbourne Grove et al are named after a place (Westbourne Manor/hamlet), which some think was named geographically (from "west of the bourne"), then subsequently gave the stream its orthodox name, River Westbourne. %)
- I have put it on my watchlist ... no changes since September 1. Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have put it on my watchlist ... no changes since September 1. Cheers!
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Post-punk may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Stone]]'' article, referring to bands including Gang of Four, The Raincoats and ]) – as "sparked by a tension, humour and sense of paradox plainly unique in present day pop music."{{
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done – DjScrawl (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Amy Winehouse: "début" or "debut"
Your spelling of debut is wrong, per www.oxforddictionaries.com. I'm trying to get rid of the hidden tag for French spellings in this article. Please don't do this again.--Aichik (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary and Oxford Dictionaries Online (excerpt)– "The Oxford English Dictionary and Oxford Dictionaries Online". Retrieved 24 October 2013.This site (www
.oxforddictionaries .com) is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). You’ll find the OED at www .oed .com. You’ll need a subscription to use the OED fully. You may be able to use the OED at home through your local public library ...
- The word "début" has entries in both the OED and the Google Chrome spell-checker's British English lexicon – "debut" has no entry in either. For details and more info', see Début by English dialect (above). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in, but here it is at oxforddictionaries.com. It says US-Eng, whereas the other one is listed as Fr-Eng. Also, your link début, says see also debut, where it says it is "From French début". So it seems the version with the funny character is quite French. BollyJeff | talk 02:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The more the merrier :) However, that's the same OxfordDictionaries.com link and, again, not OED (see website clarification, in the above quote-box). Please change the misleading display-text for the link. Meanwhile, a broader chat's materialised at Talk:Amy_Winehouse#debut v. début. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Changed link, however, on the OED site, at , it says "Some regional slang words making their debut in OED Online are..." so they think it is a proper word to be using it. Anyway, it's not that important to me to argue any further. I just know that there are not many English words with those marks. We usually remove them. BollyJeff | talk 02:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The more the merrier :) However, that's the same OxfordDictionaries.com link and, again, not OED (see website clarification, in the above quote-box). Please change the misleading display-text for the link. Meanwhile, a broader chat's materialised at Talk:Amy_Winehouse#debut v. début. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in, but here it is at oxforddictionaries.com. It says US-Eng, whereas the other one is listed as Fr-Eng. Also, your link début, says see also debut, where it says it is "From French début". So it seems the version with the funny character is quite French. BollyJeff | talk 02:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
On-Demand-Songs ≠ 'Charts'‽
Is it customary to add On Demand charts to song articles? "Royals" is #1 onUS ODS. BollyJeff | talk 14:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not whilst I kick, and/or scream! :P – Ian, DjScrawl(talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- An on-demand-'registry' is contra-etymological, vis 'charts', if I remember correctly – and, therefore, evil! As I recall, charts has as much to do with the the compilation process, as it does resultant rankings. Also, charts have a heap of qualification/verification law built around them – a basis upon which we give any credence – which on-demand-(thing) don't have. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Such is as notable as a big YouTube view-count, IMO, i.e. tokenistic when extraordinary, but not a reliable measure of fluctuations in the mundane ... Somewhere in noteworthy / anecdote / trivia territory, I'd say. Worth a mention when extreme, but then only with an exhaustive explanation of provenance to hand/referenced. – Ian,DjScrawl (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- I thought it would be okay since it is on the official Billboard website, and listed right next to the other charts. But it it's just not done as a rule, then I understand; that's why I asked. BollyJeff | talk 17:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please forgive the delay. I was mobile-editing at you, while on my way to Värttinä at LIFEM 2013 Värttinä at LIFEM 2013, e.g. YouTube of their "Riena" (about witches) and have just landed from the ensuing social whirl. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's only to be expected that Billboard will 'big-up' their offerings – it's their job to do so! However, I'm not saying US ODS and the like (e.g. I think every musical item on WP should have a link like Last.FM/music/Lorde/_/Royals, at least to direct readers to the 'Listening Trend' – aggregating 1.66 million plays from 213K accounts, that is saying something and it's CC BY-SA!). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- So long as US ODS gives reasonable attribution of its derivation – rather than emerging from then a miracle occurs then a miracle occurs – I think it deserves to be in, just _not_ as a 'chart' (more like a YouTube view-count). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- NB: It's not a showstopper, but ! don't think it would take many Bitcoins, on the Tor network, to hire a botnet crew to near-undetectably hype any given track to the top of US ODS (Last.FM would be harder). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- BTW: As Last.FM are known to be both most responsive and accurate, in the field of market tracking music-metrics, one'd expect their /tracks/top/place/United+States to lead Billboard US ODS, and it did: "Royals" ousted Washed Out's "It All Feels Right" from the top spot, in the week ending 25 August 2013 and has been glued there ever since (10 weeks and counting). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of baroque pop artists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
ARIA streaming tracks weekly ranking (and other on-demand music 'charts')
The ARIA Streaming Tracks Chart details were removed from the Royals (song) page. According to the definition of Misplaced Pages's Record chart page, it states 'a record chart is a ranking of recorded music according to popularity during a given period of time'. The ARIA Streaming Tracks Chart ranks the songs according to how much they've been streamed online on sites such as Spotify and JB Hi Fi Now. I have also seen other Misplaced Pages pages that are about singles, they too list streaming charts under their 'Charts' section they list charts such as the UK Streaming Chart or the US Streaming Songs chart. (121.214.21.44 (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC))
- Thanks for talking :D Along streaming lines, across the three countries, we have sources including:
- UK OCC Weekly Streaming Track Ranking @ OfficialCharts.com/official-streaming-chart
- UK Last.FM Weekly Top Tracks @ Last.FM/charts/tracks/top/place/United+Kingdom
- US Billboard Weekly Streaming Track Ranking @ Billboard.com/charts/on-demand-songs
- US Last.FM Weekly Top Tracks @ Last.FM/charts/tracks/top/place/United+States
- Au ARIA Weekly Streaming Track Ranking @ ARIAcharts.com.Au/chart/streaming-tracks
- Au Last.FM Weekly Top Tracks @ Last.FM/charts/tracks/top/place/Australia
- NB 1: Last.FM also segments another 50+ countries, and cities within (plus global).
- NB 2: There are other more industry-centric aggregation companies, e.g. MusicMetric.com and Next Big Sound.
- I have no problem with these sources per se. They're in a similar ballpark to global YouTube views (often quoted), except generally usually more representative of real-world trends and some may be less susceptible to artifice. However, the word 'chart' comes from 'charting', i.e. the process of compilation. Music charts as we know them are made under strict published constraints and this underpins notoriety / public trust/expectation. Thus, I think it's misleading to juxtapose 'streaming ranking' with 'sales ranking' (or 'radio play ranking'), without a clear distinction and a definition of how the newbies are compiled/constrained/de-spammed/etc.
- In terms of the above six, the UK OCC seems close to such a definition and Last.FM's mechanisms are well known (and reviewed as most sales-predictive by MusicMetric via Fortune/CNN). Meanwhile, US Billboard has a vague page and Au ARIA has no page (vague info' on site).
- Rigging/artifice by botting/etc. is an issue (see YouTube link). I'm sure a few Bitcoins and a quick trip to find some shady-Tor-types, would be enough to engage enough botnet-muscle to create sources, that WP might judge notable, via streaming services collating from unregistered-users (e.g. YouTube) – almost undetectably, too!
- Thus, I think these 'weekly streaming track ranking' are properly partitioned into two subtypes, those purely from registered-user plays (e.g. Last.FM) and the rest. IMO, this distinction should also be clear, when juxtaposing with other 'chart' types.
- In conclusion, notwithstanding unregistered-user play/verifiability concerns, with the above definitions/clarifications made, my objections go away (but not before), e.g. a definitive page on each source, plus a (new) classification column in a chart table (sales, radio-play, pure-registered-streamers, etc.). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your welcome, I kind-of understand what you are trying to say but thanks for replying anyway. :D (124.180.143.197 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC))
Reference Errors on 15 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Crookers page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done was temp/debugging {{Reflist}} left active on save. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Shannon Leto
The article for Shannon Leto has been restored, since he meets WP:MUSICBIO. You should undo your edit. Thanks.--Earthh (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Gosh, thanks! Let's thrash, or as the 3 Mustaphas 3 used to say ¡Forward in all directions!.
- With all the coverage on other wikis (I'd picked French as best of many), I'm amazed there was any doubt. Thanks again for the guidance. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
About Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album)
The reason why I relinked them back to Universal Music Group is because the Nayutawave Records articles on the Japanese wikipedia all redirect to the Japanese article for Universal Music Japan. It would be kind of pointless and linking to Universal Music Group on the English wiki serves the same purpose. (Nayutawave is listed on List of Universal Music Group labels#Under the Universal Music branding under Universal Music Japan) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Black Elk Speaks quote
You recently reverted my change to a quotation in the Wounded Knee Massacre article. The quotation was sourced from Black Elk Speaks, and I noticed that it did not match the original text: it used the word "hope" instead of "hoop". I made the small change to fix this discrepancy. I understand and agree that in the article, the word "hope" probably makes more sense, but it is not the word Black Elk used. In the context of what he was saying (you should read the entire excerpt from the original text, as the article omits a sentence or two) he is speaking about his community being broken, and refers to a metaphorical hoop. Anyway, the point is that the simple fix here is to change "hope" to "hoop." If you think that's too confusing for the reader, then we'll have to work out a more complex solution; I'd suggest leaving out the last sentence altogether. —Rutebega (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed and thank you for coming. I hope my annotation was clear in its presumption of good faith. I see your points, describing an interesting enough problem-domain, in them selves. However, there seems to be more to this rabbit-hole.
- Looking at the cite:
- leading the portion quoted in the article, at the end of page 217, we have " Red Cloud made a speech to us something like this: "
- then, at the end of the quoted portion, there's a side-note about paraphrasing: "The last two paragraphs are Neihardt's summary."
- and the hoop/hop dichotomy is at the end of those two paragraphs.
- thus, this is not Black Elk's words verbatim, as the article shows (something else to fix)
- it's not Elk's words at all!
- We're chatting about co-author John Neihardt's paraphrasing of Cloud!
- Thus, in paraphrasing, Neihardt will have faced the same duty of intelligibility which we're tackling now. I do see the possibility of a poetic slant on "hoop" to mean totality / cohesion / connectedness / etc. However, if Neihardt were to use this word, with this meaning, without clarification they would be failing in that paraphrasing duty, i.e. I'm convinced it's a typo!
- However, the passage has important historical gravitas (including the 'hoop sentence'). So, I'm loath to kick it out, for the sake of a single character in error. I suggest we:
- a. change our "Black Elk " to "Red Cloud paraphrased by John Neihardt " (as 1 & 2, above)
- b. seek WP guidance in identification/handling of assumed typos in sources
- c. seek a typo-verification cite or later corrected edition
- If b and/or c do not resolve the problem, such that the passage may stay. I have an email contact within the Spotted Elk Family Foundation who may have verifiable insight.
- Do you agree with that logic/plan and/or have other ideas? – Best, Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is an interesting point. In regards to option C, I do have a copy of Black Elk Speaks somewhere, though I need to locate it first.
- Failing that, I think the other solutions you provided are acceptable well. I will note that if the typo cannot be confirmed or denied, I'd be most comfortable with defaulting to the spelling used in the cited source if necessary, until better information can be found. Regards, Rutebega (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still open to the idea of there being an error in Neihardt's skill in making a summary (I've found, he has been widely criticised for, the like of, lack of scientific rigour), i.e. that "hoop" is a literal quote/translation, but he failed to give an explanatory note. Given that hoops had then been engrained in Native American culture since before oral record: weaving, toy, architectural assembly, jewellery, etc. (e.g. the origins of the hoop dance are mystical).
- Also, I've found the original notes are published (but rare) and the have been other interpretations (also yet to find relevant). Furthermore, I've seen another Neihardt re-quote text which includes "hoop" and infers it's metaphorical, as above. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Love & Girls "Linguafranca" citation
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Love & Girls, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Adding an excessive amount of citation needed tags is unnecessary. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your belated welcome (only 2.5K+ days after the fact) :/
- You reverted two of my edits as Once again, removing the unnecessary and excessive cn tags., they were:
- rv unsatisfied {{Citation needed}} rm + unexplained info' removal
where I was simply reverting your removal, as stated, I added nothing. - Infobox: fixed Andreas Öberg + ce as Template:Infobox_single (except additional use of between tracks) + eliminated HTML + WP:NOPIPE + moderated dictatorial comment
- rv unsatisfied {{Citation needed}} rm + unexplained info' removal
- " excessive amount unnecessary ". Unnecessary is tautologous, here, and not a constructive word anyhow, since Misplaced Pages operates on the basis of useful / relevant / verifiable / quality-improving, not necessity.
- I happen to agree that all but the first cn-tag are excessive, but I was not the one claiming to have attended to that, you were (I merely revered).
- "Linguafranc" is an esoteric (and contentious) purported-fact – thus; by WP:WHYCITE, etc.; it must be verified by citation; may have a cn-tag until a citation is found and that cn-tag may not be removed prior; unless the purported-fact is consensual agreed to be non-esoteric and non-contentious (you have made no material preposition, as such). It seems, you have removed a valid cn-tag without providing a citation (as stated in my annotation, above) and reverted a heap of my positive improvements (2, above) without any comment. This is both, contrary to my understanding of cn-tag consensus and far away from good faith.
- I shall do a partial-revert, this time, removing the cn-tags that I think are excessive. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Citation needed tags are unnecessary for every single mention of "Linguafranc" on the page. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've never disputed that and last positivity said as much four paragraphs above (beginning "I happen to agree "), then two paragraphs later proposing to remove "excessive", which I did. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is already shown on several retailers that it appears on the tracklist. I've already added a link to iTunes for the spelling. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- You placed an iTunes URL in comments. That is not a link, nor does it " enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources " as the 1st sentence of WP:WHYCITE. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is no need to add links to every single entry there. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- As above. You seem the be mistaking me for someone else. Also, needs or lack thereof have got little to do with the matter. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Now, please refrain from editing Love & Girls and Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album) if all you are going to do is engage in unconstructive editing--adding cn tags and such. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is no need to add links to every single entry there. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- By virtue of the fact that I've made several prevailing improvements to both those pages, your WP:CANVASing is without foundation. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good faith is long gone since you seem hellbent on having it as "Lingua Franca", which is not how it should be stated on the English Misplaced Pages (WP:MJ). You have yet to point me to a policy stating that we are to ignore what the English-sources are saying and embrace the fan translations. Try proposing that at the Anime and Manga wikiproject first, see how they will react. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hellbent is a huge exaggeration. I've seen at least four other editors challenge "Linguafranca" over the last few days – there's nothing unusual about that. I am one of those who have not made uncited edits on the articles. All I've done is once flag for a "Linguafranca" citation, consolidate consensus from Talk:Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album)#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca to Talk:Love & Girls#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca, talk at the later (where I have not proposed the removal of "Linguafranca") and defended others' flagging for citation. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I will resist going into Talk:Love & Girls#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca matters here, such is likely to be more fruitful / consensual on the article-talk. Misplaced Pages:MJ#Romanization looks good, if not added already, I will do when I next post on the article-talk. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- And still, we have no citation! *sigh* – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is completely optional to add links for tracklists. Really, I'm mistaking you for someone else? Then what is this and this? What exactly do you mean by canvassing? I have not posted on anyone's talk page about this. <span\ style="color:blue">Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Really? The word I used was "seem".
- Your first link, Track listing: {{fact@Linguafranc}}, is the "once flag for a "Linguafranca" citation" I mentioned above (like it says in the annotation). Your second link, partial-rv (Raykyogrou0's prior rv) + rm all but first "Linguafranc"{{Citation needed}} + moderated dictatorial 'Track listing' comment, is a revert with an edit to remove (like it says in the annotation) several redundant cn-tags inserted by someone else. With the addition of "moderated dictatorial 'Track listing' comment", this is precisely the edit I proposed in the last sentence of my first comment in this topic.
- By canvassing, in the context of Misplaced Pages editing, I mean: one person advising another person how to edit, beyond what is specified in MOS, WP and/or article-talk consensus. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Once again, citation for this is completely unnecessary. <span\ style="color:blue">Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again, Misplaced Pages operates on the basis of useful / relevant / verifiable / quality-improving, not necessity. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here you put in the first cn tag and here you are putting back the cn tags I removed; I don't think I have mistaken you for anybody else. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- The first of your links is a repetition of Track listing: {{fact@Linguafranc}} referenced in article talk; then 2, 3 and 4 posts back – If you're trying to say something new about it, please elaborate (on article talk, if more appropriate there). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Anyhow, you then contributed to article talk, including the Misplaced Pages:MJ#Romanization quote: "Japanese terms should be romanized according to common usage in English-language reliable sources". (At this point, the article has my single Linguafranc cn-tag.)
- The following article edit was yours revise hidden note, reformat oricon table. Not a technical reversion and yet my prior article edit was undone, without mention.
- Then I contributed to article talk, elaborating how contentious "Linguafranc" is (and proving "Lingua Franca" is a de facto common-usage name). Since it was not an edited undo, not a revert, and because I'm not "hellbent" – at the time of writing I was not aware of your undoing my cn-tag.
- Thus, at the time I discovered your undo, it was a matter of record that I think a citation's warranted and the only opinion(s) you've stated is that reliable sources are involved. Suggesting the article's then lack of an Linguafranc cn-tag was a typo, on your behalf (re-enforced by the lack of a revert). I partially reverted the undo of your edit rv unsatisfied {{fact}}rm (preserving your reformat oricon table), I also change the dictatorial "Don't change this. On English-language iTunes it appears as this, so per ]" comments to "Please see talk page for consensus on valid names for this track." – Since, (a) I understand it's bad form to tell other editor(s) what, and what not, to do. (b) There's a dedicated talk section on the issue.
- Then, not for the first time, someone edits in the name "Lingua Franca", a long-serving apprentice editor.
- Then you contributed to article talk, expressing various opinions, again mentioning an iTunes source and confusingly WP:CANVASsing (or however you'd like to describe it): "don't add citationneeded tags to the page".
- Then you seemed to have a bit of finger trouble, splitting an article edit over two Reverted to revision 585737424 by DjScrawl (talk): Restoring hidden note. (TW) + Reverted to revision 585733784 by Raykyogrou0 (talk): Correct revision. (TW). Indeed, you had reverted to the dictatorially worded comments plus, without mention, reverted my cn-tag and the apprentice editor's "Lingua Franca" edit. (At this point, the article has no Linguafranc cn-tag.)
- Then there's a sequence of edits by others, during which the apprentice editor re-inserts the name "Lingua Franca", another inserts undated cn-tags against every "Linguafranc" instance and a veteran editor then dated the cn-tags.
- Then you edit Rm excessive cn tags, in which you remove all the cn-tags and, unmentioned, apprentice editor's "Lingua Franca".
- Thus; at this point; it's a matter of record that a veteran editor (implied), one other and I; think a citation's warranted and the only opinion(s) you've stated remain that reliable sources are involved (excluding 'canvassing' and the other editor's Linguafranc cn-tag has been undone).
- Summarising: in the 27 hours since my Track listing: {{fact@Linguafranc}} edit, consensus seemed that three editors (including myself) wanted a cn-tag and you were giving mixed messages on the subject. So, we get to my consensual rv unsatisfied {{Citation needed}} rm + unexplained info' removal edit (1, above, in my first comment in this topic, and the second of your links). During the period, you made four (or five) edits, at least four of which involved cn-tags, yet at no point did you clearly express your opinion on how a Linguafranc citation warranted, or a basis upon which it's excused. Meanwhile, I've been clear, communicative, positive about my opinions and, insofar as opinion was expressed, consensual in my actions.
- Thus, assuming you can see my good faith evidenced above, I'll swap you my "You seem the be mistaking me for someone else" for a "Please, don't shoot the messenger". –Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think Misplaced Pages:Canvassing does not mean what you think it means. Canvassing is like posting on a talk page and telling someone about an RM or an AfD and explicitly saying to vote Support without telling them about the other side of the conversation; i.e. no neutrality. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Mmm, seems similar logic – I thought of saying reverse-Misplaced Pages:Canvassing, but that seemed silly, since canvassing can be pro and contra. –Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is such a thing as not having to cite obvious things, you know. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm aware of WP:BLUE. Obviously, me an many others (the above is only a ~one day sample of Love & Girls contention on the matter and there's more to be found on Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album), not to mention other heaps of contention I pointed-out on article talk), think that it is not applicable to "Linguafranc ". –Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm done with this. (Ps. don't put your reply/comments in between other people's comments, it makes it harder to read and is just plain annoying) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm aware of WP:BLUE. Obviously, me an many others (the above is only a ~one day sample of Love & Girls contention on the matter and there's more to be found on Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album), not to mention other heaps of contention I pointed-out on article talk), think that it is not applicable to "Linguafranc ". –Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Except where consensual, I will continue to reserve reply-interweaving for exceptional circumstances (less than 1:100 threads, I guess). If you look back at how disparate your post was, where I started interweaving, you might understand. (Repetitious unopposed argument, obvious restatement with factual error, 1st non-argument repetition, some 'canvassing', a false accusation and ensuing rant, all in one paragraph – That's disparate!) Thus, it sometimes serves a purpose – you may sometimes find it annoying, as might I, but it is not "just plain annoying". Meditation is good. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Simply for having common sense! ONITOPIA (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks a lot, ONITOPIA, that's much appreciated! :D – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Love & Girls (Linguafranc) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Love & Girls (Linguafranc). Since you had some involvement with the Love & Girls (Linguafranc) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Summary of o/p, for information only: "The redirect's destination article is a single which contains the original release of two tracks, named: "Love & Girls" and "Linguafranc". Therefore, that article is the most appropriate place to wikilink to for each tack. The redirect allows each track to be wikilinked from the same source article, while both minimising hidden WP:OVERLINKing (by supporting adherence to visited-link colouration) and allowing maximal adherence to WP:NOPIPE." – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Love & Girls 17 Dec 2013-ish edit
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Love & Girls, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Enough with the repeated Welcomes, already! I've been wikiing since 2004, been here significantly longer than you and made many more live edits.
- Your comment specifies Love & Girls, which I'd not edited for more than two days, at your time of posting. Please elaborate. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Being here longer than me" does not always mean more experience and/or superiority, we are all equal here as editors. I must have linked to the wrong article when I brought up twinkle; also the basic template seems to say Welcome at the start, even if you have already been welcomed. I'll be sure to preview it next time and make sure it doesn't say "Welcome", okay?Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
rv User:Raykyogrou0's talk wipe). No content was _moved_ to Talk:Love & Girls!
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Talk:Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. It was already moved to Talk:Love & Girls by you. It would be unproductive to have two separate discussion about the same topic. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is false! Again - No content was _moved_ to Talk:Love & Girls! I moved nothing!
- I wrote a note on 12 December 2013, which attempted to discourage duplicate discussion, by directing folk to Talk:Love & Girls#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca, nearest the origin. Subsequently, after ONITOPIA posted, I wrote them a specific note, to the same effect, and asking about article specific issues.
- Assuming no article specific issues, one might've requested that ONITOPIA
strikeor delete their comment. Unless its both defamatory and thoroughly non-constructive/uninformative, I would consider deleting another's 'talk' (except by way of archiving) to be a violation.
- You have removed my constructive/informative direction note (thus, undermining consensus), plus removed the other posts by ONITOPIA and I (violation, IMO).
- Thus, it seems you have been anti-constructive and I've been constructive! Please revert your revert. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the anon user started discussion on both pages and you suggested that the discussion be moved to one page, which it did. It makes no sense to have the same discussion on two pages regardless so I will move your (later-added) comment (which I did not notice, sorry about that) to Talk:Love & Girls. (Also, the unconstructive part here referring to you re-adding the already-moved discussion) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)