User talk:Tuzapicabit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] The Nolans
Just saw the date correction for the name switch. Don't know if you saw my note re the copyright problem -- might be good not to make changes until the non-violating version goes up (should be done by tomorrow). Will make sure the corrected date goes in of course. Gusworld (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that. Didn't see your note. I didn't mention it because I considered it such a minor alteration, but it's more accurate to say before 1980 than before 1979 as they were still The Nolan Sisters all the way through 1979 (in fact still so in early 1980) - as evidenced on their self-titled album. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, no worries -- the current version is a bit rambling re the changeover, but the way you've summed it up is dead right. I was more concerned that you might make other changes and that I'd miss them when producing the non-copyright version, which would be unfair both to you and the article. Gusworld (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC) OK, the new copyvio-free version has gone up, and I've explained what's changed on the article talk page. If you get the chance to read over it and can suggest other areas that need improvement, expansion or correction, that'd be great. Gusworld (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Brotherhood of Man
Hey Tuzapicabit. Glad to hear you didn't think my review was to harsh! Also glad to hear you've already started to work on the addressing some of my concerns. The source of information is basically where the url come from. So http://www.emusic.com/artist/1171/11711781.html is from EMusic. That's what I meant. Before you start fixing up the citations, however, I'd like to highly recommend using Citation templates, as they do all the formatting for you. You just plug in the url, publisher, accessdate whatever and it does the rest for you. They're a little tricky at first, but check out the code of a few other articles and should be pretty easy to figure out. As for the birthdays and stuff, I brought that up because the article is supposed to be more about the band rather then the people. When they were born doesn't really have much to do with the band. Usually that stuff would be put into articles for each of the members themselves. The fact that the members don't have articles as of yet is unfortunate, but the info still doesn't really apply here. As for the discography, it's perfectly alright to have a discography page be pretty long. Take a look at Nine Inch Nails discography, it's huge! My point was that it's better to have super-specific info like that charts on a separate page rather than the band page. Again, because the article is about the band, not necessarily all of their releases. Let me know if you have any more questions. Drewcifer (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jay Aston
With regard to this, "What on earth have you done to this page? I was in the middle of expanding/rewriting it as well as adding a picture and not only have you changed it - you've knocked off the second half of the page - including ALL the references." What on earth have I done? Firstly I haven't changed anything other than remove spaces in sources that I added, and I also expanded the infobox to the correct format. I did nothing else to the page and have not changed anything. I previewed after my last edit and I can assure you that the second half of the page was not "knocked off" and nor were the references missing. If you check you will find that it was your last edit that "knocked off the second half of the page including ALL the references" when you missed off ">" at the end of </ref>. Your was the last edit, and it was your last edit that removed all the content you believe I removed. I have therefore reverted your last edit to restore it then you can edit it to your hearts content and add the content back in again with the refs etc correct. All I did was remove the spaces from the sources (the sources which I had added some time ago) and amend/expand the infobox to the correct format. Have fun. When doing major edits and re-writes etc it helps to add the "inuse" tag on articles. That way other users will know to wait and know that yor are "in the middle of expanding/rewriting" it and leave it alone until you finish.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And as you will now see as you have chosen to revert my edit which restored the article back to the correct format, it was your edit, not mine that removed the content as it is now again (after your last edit) back without the references and the rest of the content.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have now discovered where you (and not me) knocked off the second half of the page including all the references and you have corrected the error. Just FYI though, your reverting my edit also removed deletion of spacing which will need removing at some point. And as you have not added the inuse tag I have added it for you so that other users know.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries, but it does help to check first!!! :) I will say though that the article did need work doing on it and it is great that you are doing so. As I said though the spacing in the ref templates still needs removing. I can do that after you finish editing if you like? And the reason I expanded the infobox was so that it could have a lot more information in it than just her pic! Good work though, keep it up.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Aye, the infobox to be honest I had "nicked it" from the Alicia Keys article and just left in the solo singer and actress bits as I realised that perhaps they weren't too relevant! Missing off even one character when adding sources though virtually always has the result as you have seen where much of the content goes missing> I know as I have done it myself before now and then spent ages trying to find where I messed up so I am good at finding the missing characters now!!! I will expand the BBC source you added to one of the templayes though later. And I presume it's ok to remove the inuse tag now?!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] BoM discography
I'm sorry if my edits came across as a bit destructive. Let me try and explain. As far as the images go, there's been a huge amount of discussion and (eventually) consensus that copyrighted images (regardless of if one is claiming fair-use or not) are not allowed in lists such as discographies. The reasons for this are pretty complicated (having to do with copyright laws, fair-use laws, Wikipedia policy, and the like), but just trust me on this one. As for the track listings, these are generally discouraged in discographies simply because a discography, by definition, is a list of releases, not the individual songs/tracks on these releases. It is a discography, not a songography. As for the infoboxes, these are generally used for articles of the album itself, but, again, not a list of the releases, mainly because the infoboxes go into more detail then a discography requires and because they depend to a large degree on an image of the album cover.
But! All is not lost. It's obvious you put alot of work into the page, and I wouldn't want all of that hard work to go to waste. So, here's what I recommend: infoboxes and track listings and the like don't belong in a discography, but there's no reason why you can't move that same info over to articles for the albums themselves. So, I got the first one started for you: United We Stand (album). I'd recommend moving all of the info into individual pages, then linking the discography and the main BoM pages to the album pages.
As for the discography itself, it does look a little bit sparse now, but it too is certainly not beyond help. First, I'd recommend taking a look at MOS:DISCOG, a style guideline I wrote for people in your shoes. I'd also recommend taking a look at other discographies, particularly those deemed "Featured lists" (reviewed to be the best lists in Wikipedia). My personal favorites being Nine Inch Nails discography and The Prodigy discography.
Anyways, I hope my explanations of stuff have been a little helpful. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Drewcifer (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I'm sorry to hear if my edits came across poorly, or if you feel they were destructive in any way. I have a fair amount of experience in editing discography articles, so perhaps my edits/deletions were a little quick on the draw. That said, it was (and usually is) my intention to make Wikipedia a more consistent place, meaning that discographies as a whole usually work best written and formatted a certain way, the conventions being figured out through trial and error and alot of hard work (much of which is eventually deleted, my own edits being no exception). But like I said, all is not lost. I disagree that the BoM albums don't deserve a page of their own - charts are generally not an indicator of notability, notability being the chief indicator of what should and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. BoM are "notable" therefore I would argue that most of the albums are in turn "notable", and therefore worthy of articles.
- And the good news is that alot of the work has already been done: when I made the United We Stand article a few minutes ago, literally all I did was copy+paste the stuff you already did from the BoM discography to the new page. A few minor tweaks here and there, and it literally took me 2 or 3 minutes.
- The discography article itself is a different story, that will probably take a bit more work, but I do hope you are up to it. I'd be more then happy to help you in the process, if you wish.
- Lastly, I don't think my concentration on Nine Inch Nails articles really have any bearing on the situation at hand: I've worked on plenty of "less edgy" articles, and assisted other editors in countless more on topics ranging from Buddhism to the Solar System.
- So, I hope you reconsider leaving Wikipedia, as it seems you're the only editor consistently adding information on a niche topic. I know Wikipedia can be a frustrating place, but try and assume good faith, and consider everything I've said. I'd be more then happy to help you out with all of the above - rather then dumping a ton of work on your lap and moving on - but ultimately that's up to you. Drewcifer (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Glad to see you're back! Don't worry about the other day: I know Wikipedia can be a frustrating place for new users, especially when so much time and commitment goes into stuff that might be deleted or completely redone. I myself have been in a similar situation countless times. For example, I worked on Ian Svenonius discography for weeks: it was beautiful! But long story short, it doesn't even exist now: once I realized the many problems with the article, I was the one who asked for it to be deleted! So I guess that's my little "back-in-the-day" schpeel. I'm glad to see the BoM page back up and looking better then ever. I know I already mentioned this, but consider taking a look at MOS:DISCOG for some more advice on how to keep improving it. I'd also recommend taking a look at a few good examples of other successful discographies , perhaps even – gasp – Nine Inch Nails discography. If you need any help along the way, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Drewcifer (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eurovision '81
I saw you've been a heavy recent contributor to the Eurovision '81 article. I started the article on the presenter and I was wondering if you had any sources or would like to help me build up her article. Please let me know. Mike H. Fierce! 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and moved all the other external links to reflist style. The early life stuff is very interesting...what sources can we cite for it? If it's from the brochure you created, maybe you have some notes scribbled down either from a book you had read or if it was cited on the Eurovision broadcast. Either way, we can cite it that way and it should have refs sooner rather than later. Mike H. Fierce! 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Flagicons in infoboxes
Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) before adding any more flagicons to artist/band infoboxes. Specifically read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Not for use in locations of birth and death for flagicons in artists infoboxes and Template:Infobox Musical artist#Origin for flagicons in band infoboxes. Aspects (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eurovision '86
Now I'm trying to improve some of the '86 articles, specifically J'aime la vie, which I find humorous, since I think it's one of the worst winners...at least before all the Eastern European countries started voting for one another and racking up wins. I just added a quote from an interview Sandra Kim did with a Belgian Eurovision website. How much did '86 interest you, and would you like to help there too? Mike H. Fierce! 04:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
