User talk:CycloneGU/Archive02

Image copyright problem with File:Back Home Again.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Back Home Again.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved. Looks like I flubbed the article name in the rationale details. CycloneGU (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Timepiece.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Timepiece.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I screwed up again. CycloneGU (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Cyclone, thanks for your message - I've replied on my Talk Page (or at least I'm about to!). Hope this is correct. Cheers AndreaUKA (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply on my page, Cyclone - cheers AndreaUKA (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles

Hi. Thanks for dropping by. I am currently working an article so I am sorry to say that I cannot trace those edits of mine, as of now. However, if you would so kind, could you please provide me some diffs? Thanks a lot in advance. --Efe (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BlackHawk

Wow. Okay, yeah, I need to fix that. I was finding sources such as Allmusic that were listing their name as BlackHawk, but their website says it's indeed Blackhawk. If you want to page-swap it, go to the redirect and tag it with {{db-move}} so it can be moved to Blackhawk (band). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie Tyler

Allmusic isn't always complete for some reason, and sometimes they list albums wrongly (singles or compos under studio albums, studio albums under compos, etc.). I'll take a look at it. I blanked my talk page on purpose because it wouldn't archive. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, a few things. You don't need a header before the intro, and the times are supposed to be separated by an en dash, like so:

1. "Name of Song" (Full Name of First Writer, Full Name of Second Writer) – 3:39

Notice I said full name. Just a last name won't do. Also, the personnel should be listed like so:

• Brent Mason – electric guitar

WP:ALBUM has a whole MOS on how to do album articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I find the "en dash" interesting. A few months ago, I recall custom was to put the times in square brackets, as such:

Title (Writer) [8:88]

I guess this has been changed? And if so, how are we supposed to type that thing? Some use a longer dash than the regular dash and the keyboard only types the regular one easily.

Also, regarding names: I recall this discussion with you as well in the past. If the same writer writes multiple songs, it's only needed on the first occurrence. I've made a further addition to this: the writers of eight songs on that album are the producers. I thus only used last names because their full names are listed as producers. Tracks 2 and 4 I used full names (even though I only had an initial for one).

I'll check the thing out - I still like the square brackets, so I might bring up a discussion on that on the talk page. Also like my way of doing personnel better, might discuss that too.

I sure know AllMusic is incorrect at times; they still haven't made any changes to Kenny Rogers' Short Stories album despite two messages from me giving them the correct info. Idiots...=) CycloneGU (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say the Bonnie Tyler page looks amazing! Puckeylut (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 20 Great Love Songs

I have nominated 20 Great Love Songs, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20 Great Love Songs. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Original Gold (Kenny Rogers album)

I have nominated Original Gold (Kenny Rogers album), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original Gold (Kenny Rogers album). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of For the Good Times (Kenny Rogers)

I have nominated For the Good Times (Kenny Rogers), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For the Good Times (Kenny Rogers). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision

Who's this "we" you speak of? Do you mean the hammer-wielding otters who don't have admin tools? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, by the way, one general rule of thumb that I follow for compilation albums is, if it's on a red link label or a label that the artist himself was never signed to officially (e.g. Disky for Kenny Rogers), it's probably not notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hey

Hi - i know what you were doing last night and i have no issues. I was just trying to stem the onslaught of IP edits but no worries =D lordmwa (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the page needs protecting. I think it also needs to be done for other big events, for examplr before the champions league final etc lordmwa (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Files:Six jpg images)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bitterblue

I can understand your point. You might want to mention that at WP:ALBUMS though, since their MoS suggests otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

SYTYCD

Hello, thank you for contributing to the So You Think You Can Dance (season 5) page; however, please realize the elimination background is |bgcolor="palegoldenrod" | '''Elim''', as opposed to a gray background. This is because it has been this way for the previous four season pages. Thanks, IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 02:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I just used what I found on the Season 5 page when I first got there and wanted to make sure that the fake results posted at the time were removed (someone edited results before they were announced, and one was wrong). I copied the gray colour from that. Guess I should've realized that the person who did THAT had the wrong colour; I didn't look at the first four seasons before making the correction and moving the names rightfully to the bottom of the placing list. *LOL* CycloneGU (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Compilations

I usually go with the ones that have ratings and/or are on major labels. By that standard, everything before "Love Collection" is good, and from there just skip the ones without star ratings and the CBS ones. I've checked and found that most of the ones without ratings turn up virtually no hits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Best

Hmm. They most likely are the same album. I'd say play it safe and merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Love Collection

The Love Collection doesn't seem to be a notable album. It was put out by a non-notable label even though it's bigger than the Definitive album. Given that you can't find any sources, I'd say take it to AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• All that does is verify the track list. There's no non-trivial coverage for this album, as it was on an el cheapo label. I'm going to AFD it if you don't mind. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

iTunes originals

Hmm. I would say no, since they're not notable enough for their own listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would say don't include the iTunes albums unless they prove individual notability (which I would guess is almost never). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Fame

• I'd best stay out of this. Content disputes are not my forte. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't want to have a discussion about this with you, but the thing is that the new tracks will be released on their own, without those from The Fame. It is essentially a brand new album. That is why it makes no sense to have it stuffed into a section on The Fame. Besides this disc also being included as part of a deluxe edition, it will be sold completely separate as a standalone album. That is what my sources, which also include her label Interscope and the New York Post state. It's not just a bonus disc as it was originally planned to be. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, in that case, if you can prove that it's a standalone album, I don't see why it can't be its own article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've run into some very stubborn editors and there is a past AfD that complicates things. The AfD for the page about the re-release is being used a reason to delete the page about the new album and no one seems to realize the difference between the two. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. If you can prove the standalone album and cite it, we'll be inclined to agree. AllMusic has no such note ATM, however. I'm going to be looking at Lady Gaga's site for something else this evening, though, so maybe I'll find the info myself. CycloneGU (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition to what you may find, here is what I have compiled since yesterday: MTV [1], Interscope [2], and the New York Post [3]. People need to remember that there is more than one version. There is a re-release of The Fame with the extra songs (tho that might change according to NY Post) and there is also the separate disc release. Sure there will be sources for the re-release because there are plans for that in addition to the single disc release of the new album. Those re-release sources do not cast aside the sources about the separate album because they aren't talking about the album, they are talking about the re-release. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie, this is a tricky one. I found a page on Lady Gaga's official site [4] that confirms the single CD. However - and this is a big however - it doesn't list the tracks there. Neither do any of your three links. To be honest, I don't think we can list the separate page UNTIL the track listing is published separately. I'm sure it'll appear on AllMusic or something in the future, but until it does appear independently with the tracklist, I'm wondering if we're better to leave it merged for now.

What I do know; even when the single disc version page can be sourced, we're still going to have The Fame Monster referenced on The Fame. It does, after all, use the same first disc as the original The Fame. It will simply reference both albums with the Wikilink to the second page. A similar section will appear on the new album's page. That is my suspicion. So until it's decreed what to do with it, let's leave it alone until the tracklist appears independently (probably next few days). At that point, you can source it and create the page and know that this time, it'll be verifiable. It may be that the Deluxe Edition bit will leave The Fame and go to the new page, or just get a blurb on the page that Wikilinks to the second album. We'll see what comes about, I guess! =D CycloneGU (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, inmusic.ca might be your break to recreate the page. Just make sure when you introduce the album as a single-disc album that you reference that, then reference this for the tracklist: [5] When better sources become available, they can be linked to. CycloneGU (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi, can I ask a question of you? Wouldn't you agree that the Pop Songs chart is acceptable on articles on songs? Candyo32 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment since you are still on my watchlist ;) Generally yes, the pop songs chart is acceptable. However, if there is already another chart for the same country, only the more substantial should be there. For instance, if a song charted on both the Pop Songs chart and the Hot 100, include only the Hot 100 since it is the larger and more substantial chart. There is no need for multiple charts for the same country. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was busy with dishes, so you beat me to it. *LOL*

Yes, the Hot 100 is a more acceptable chart. Sometimes articles will include, say, the Hot 100 and the Country Charts, though (Kenny Rogers albums commonly do this, I've worked on these myself...and Bonnie Tyler has a couple of these too in her early career) - I guess it depends on whether the charts measure the same thing and which is more notable. Is the Pop Songs chart from Billboard? If so, it might be worth noting the Hot 100 first and the Pop Songs chart second...but in a table of countries, only use the Hot 100. Something along those lines. You CAN use tables spanning multiple charts if some songs chart, say, on Adult Contemporary and others, say, on country, and in select cases you can use a digital chart (i.e. non-singles, radio airplay just done). CycloneGU (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster

Some people here are just rushing with adding some information and trying too hard to change some things they think are correct (on the controversial issues). Everyone should just come down and wait and everything will show up and clarify. --PlatinumFire 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note that my rewrite of the lead was more to address grammatical issues - I did not visit any additional sources and was primarily getting it to read in English. If someone could review it to ensure I have understood/represented it correctly that would be great. Orderinchaos 00:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The re-release

I'm extremely sorry. In the midst of all the discussions regarding whether Mister should be a separate release, I completely forgot that you had asked me something. Well, it seems you can easily add the tracklist in The Fame. Don't need to source it. :) And why do you think that I'm disrupting The Fame Mosnter? I was only putting back the information in the LEAD, which were deleted by Grk, instead of re-wording the grammar. You should see my work in the other Gaga articles to know that I do conform to a specific structure which makes articles more or less GA worthy. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. now we can all behave like Wiki-adults :) But seriously? Monster has leaked?? Woohoo, Christmas came early today. Have you heard all the tracks? Which is your favourite? I love "Alejandro" ar present. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually we can write anything we can as long its our user talk pages. So you can shoot anything you want! :) I was going for the deluxe one with Gaga's hair but oh well. I'm not filthy rich though... But I think releasing "Telephone" so soon will hurt "Bad Romance's" chance of hitting no. 1 in US though. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: hey

The song is digital bonus track, but i don't know where actually. The source has Zing. The song built on the same structure as Britney Spears's "Quicksand". Charmed36 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster (Again)

I removed 'No Way', because actually owning the album and seeing it's digital tracklisting proves it is not a Bonus Track. The reference you provided just offers the album as a free download (which is illegal so probably isn't a valid reference).

There is no valid reference saying 'No Way' is in fact a bonus track, and until one does come up I think it should be omitted from the tracklisting to remove any confusion about it's official tracks.--TheRevolution7 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it was offering a free download - I thought it just played the tracks as videos in the Web page. My bad if it offers downloads directly from the site (like a rar file).

Either way, I have witnessed many comments at ladygaga.com (forums) about the song saying they received it with a digital purchase. I know it's not through iTunes as that version does not reference it. I'm trying to figure out more about this, so when I see it, I'll link it. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you

Explain the meaning behind this edit? Please read WP:ALBUM and the infobox formatting norms. If you have been doing this for other albums please revert such changes. And what is the meaning behind removing all sourced facts regarding the development of the songs? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page since I had another discussion going there. Please reply further there. CycloneGU (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)