User talk:IndianBio/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about User:IndianBio. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Hello IndianBio,
It gives us great pleasure to inform that the Train-the-Trainer (TTT) 2017 programme organised by CIS-A2K is going to be held from 20-22 February 2017.

What is TTT?
Train the Trainer or TTT is a residential training program. The program attempts to groom leadership skills among the Indian Wikimedia community members. Earlier TTT have been conducted in 2013, 2015 and 2016.

Who should join?

• Any active Wikimedian contributing to any Indic language Wikimedia project is eligible to apply.
• An editor must have 500+ edits.
• Anyone who have already participated in an earlier iteration of TTT, can not apply.

Please see more about this program and apply to participate or encourage the deserving candidates from your community to do so: CIS-A2K/Events/Train the Trainer Program/2017

The last date of filling the form is 26 January. If you have any question, please leave your message here.
Regards. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I think you have done an outstanding job on the Madonna article. I know we've poked back and forth mostly in fun on the Madonna talk page, but I have to give you credit for a job well done. Cllgbksr (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Drowned World/Substitute for Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has GA status. It was added by Aoba47 and I didn't see it in several previous edits. I'll leave it up to you. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: please look at Talk:Drowned World/Substitute for Love/GA1. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been missing from the article for awhile, then. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: that is an oversight on your part. The article was updated to GA status on 16:40, January 25, 2017 and the reviewer Aoba47 added the GA icon at the same time. So no, it was not missing from the article. It was removed by that disruptive IP user here, which you reverted to an incorrect version. And then I reverted it to Aoba's version. Hope that clears it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Just confused as usual. Thanks for setting me straight. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'm back after being retired for almost 4 years (for how long? I don't know, lol). I saw that in 2015, you replaced the Bridgestone halftime logo I uploaded with a promo poster of the event. Considering the watermark on it, may I ask why you thought it was the better solution? It has been quite a while, so I am out of practice, but I would love to understand. I ^help_dןǝɥ I 03:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey let me get back to you, wonderful to see you again :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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 Taylor Swift discography page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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) 00:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Re this edit, can you point me to a guideline that suggests or supports widespread changes from |work= and its aliases to |publisher=? Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Mandruss: you can check User:Ohconfucius/script, it has the changes it does listed. Generally for published sources we list them as in italics (all newspapers like NYtimes, webzines), non-published online sources are non-italicized (like BBC, Fox, CNN etc).

Thanks. Again, I'm looking for a guideline or some other community consensus for such changes. I disagree with your definition and use of publisher, but I will defer to community consensus as always. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I was unclear, let me rephrase. Is there a guideline or some other community consensus for such changes? We don't make widespread changes like this on the basis of personal preference, when other editors disagree with them. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss, from the moment I have joined Wikipedia, I have been told to use such MOS, and I'm sure there was a consensus, I don't know why you are so stuck up on this small little thing. Why don't you contact the script owner? Please leave my talk page. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How did I introduce incorrect information to the List of highest-grossing concert tours? All I did was add bold faced type to Roger Waters concert tour information. I changed NOTHING. Not one letter. So explain to me what I did that was "incorrect" or "disruptive". Many bands have their typeface in bold lettering. So for that I'm threatened with being blocked? The only thing I'm guilty of is being a huge Roger Waters fan who attended shows from that tour. You owe me an explanation! PKDASD (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones Bruce Springsteen The Jackson??? U2 Pink Floyd (ironic?) Are the list of bands in bold typeface. Why them? What's the criteria? Seems from looking at the history you've been quite busy on that article. Don't like any interloper messing with "your baby"? All you hand to to was delete the bold and that would have been the end of it instead of throwing a hissy fit and threaten me with draconian measures.PKDASD (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Try to read can you? It is clearly mentioned in the last para "In bold, the tours which, when completed, became the highest-grossing of all time." —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, my mistake.PKDASD (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The article Lady Gaga and the Muppets Holiday Spectacular you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lady Gaga and the Muppets Holiday Spectacular for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The article The Fame Monster you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Fame Monster for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello and good day! May you please review this article titled Hopeless Romantic (Michelle Branch album)? Thank you and also I trust that any edits from you are welcome. the other ryan (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Smarty9108:, I can see that the whole first two paragraphs are basically a life story of Branch and is extremely WP:UNDUE. Rest of the article there's no point of reviewing now when it has not been released. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see the discussion I have started here. I see no reason to continue to use an ambiguous, non-specific section title simply because the project has no guidelines on article structuring or because the section title has been copied over from tour article to tour article. Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Its absolutely brilliant that you have started a discussion with your thoughts about this. Wait for the discussion to conclude and achieve a consensus. As Livelikemusic stated, your change will impact massive number of articles. That is the reason you were reverted. Let it organically grow into what people feel are approrpiate as section headers and then we can change it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:ALBUM#Categorization,

Consensus is that "Albums produced by X" categories should not be included unless that particular producer worked on a significant portion of the album.

So there is a precedent for removing those categories. Is it really an album produced by X if X only worked on one track, and the album had 9 or 10 more producers? Is Fuse (Keith Urban album) an "album produced by Dann Huff" or an "album produced by Benny Blanco/Stargate" even though both of those only worked on one track each? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• ETA: I did restore the Martin/Shellback categories since they worked on most of the album. IMO, per the above quoted policy, the other producers should not be categorized. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaning TPH :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Super Bowl LI halftime show poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I would really appreciate you voicing your opinion on an AHS writer's article that is being considered for deletion. Thank you so much! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akela_Cooper LLArrow (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Can do you gimme some reason for deleted the screenshot from official music video on John Wayne (song)? Screenshots just can be add on the article when show some important information?

Waiting answer! LikeGaga (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bud in, but saw this and thought I should answer since I nominated it for deletion. LikeGaga, the image just isn't beneficial at all to the article. Gaga's face isn't even visible in the photo. It doesn't describe anything going on the video itself, in fact, the reader likely would not be able to tell what is going on just by looking at it. Possibly a new photo will be added in the future, but this one is not beneficial for the article. Hope this helps, Carbrera (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC).

Hey, I think you should take a look at Bad Romance's Weekly charts section, concerning to it. Oh, and thanks for correcting me lol GagaNutella^talk 05:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@GagaNutella: I have removed it, you already added in the prose and that should do it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, have u seen this? It's huge, we definitely should add it on Joanne World Tour's article. I hope it gross a lot, like Monster and BTW Ball. GagaNutella^talk 05:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Haha, I'm already going to see her in London @GagaNutella: :P —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's great! I'm gonna see her at Rock in Rio, here in Brazil \o/ can't wait, she doesn't come here since 2012. GagaNutella^talk 05:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It will be my first Gaga show too, I missed watching her in Cheek to Cheek Tour, although not sure that would have been worth watching haha. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here, how exactly was the document a copyvio if the data is from Neilsen Soundscan itself? Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS:, who copied it? Was it a publicly available document from Nielsen? Was it made available from the company itself? Nope, some one (maybe internal to SoundScan) might have got a duplicate of it and uploaded it on Google drive, which is a blatant case of WP:COPYVIO. Hence we cannot use that link. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case, Firework (song) will also need to be changed Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, and we should replace with the Billboard link. Can you find out who actually added this copyvio url @SNUGGUMS:? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be a user named Josegerman188. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: no surprise here. Look at the user's talk page, blatant erroneous and purposefully false edit addition warnings. I can't believe this shity user is not blocked yet. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

O_O Dear god, that IS shocking, and the next incident not leading to some sort of block would be even more so! Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Checking with the blocking admin. Bbb23, the account, Authorsagar (talk · contribs), was blocked for violating WP:SOCK. I see no evidence this user was involved at all except that the original block on Authorsagar was a checkuser block, and now this account has hit an autoblock. --Yamla (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how problem she is.

• Should've Said No - she reverted back to its bare URLs and "mixed reviews" without WP:SYNTH.
• Wishes (Rhodes album); Rhodes (musician) - The point is Sputnik does not have any reviews or biography.

183.171.181.123 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Already reverted. Never mind. 183.171.180.41 (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The article Lady Gaga and the Muppets Holiday Spectacular you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lady Gaga and the Muppets Holiday Spectacular for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The article The Fame Monster you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Fame Monster for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kees08 -- Kees08 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Was this edit summary directed at me? I didn't "forget" it—I don't update every Billboard chart, and I don't care about the Dance Airplay chart. Ss112 12:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was, any problem? I assumed you update every chart. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting assumption, because I don't and never have, but I just updated the other Canadian charts, which were "forgotten" about too. Ss112 13:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Great job! —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Aleccat undid to keep unreliable sources and saying "woah, discuss in talk page first before mass-removal of information, especially from sources such as PopCrush, who have been used b4" 183.171.183.253 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did, the removal was unwarranted and removed some credible sources, such as PopCrush, in the process of removing other things. --Aleccat 00:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Read discussion, removing source. --Aleccat 00:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aleccat:, PopCrush has been considered an unreliable source since it does not have any journalistic credibility. It was deleted as A7 see this. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I added info verifying a Canadian issue of this 45 with a link to MadonnaRecords for verification as to it's authenticity.

Here is the link again: http://madonnarecords.com/data/record.asp?id=13373

Please explain why this is a bad source.

Perhaps this is a better source (no photo): http://www.45cat.com/record/9199867

If I were to edit my revision to this link instead, would it be acceptable to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.42.64 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi 50.72.42.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), you can definitely use 45cat.com, just include their catalogue number. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I used the the link provided which references the catalogue number as per your recommendation. Going forward I will submit info to you first before adding to wikipedia articles.

I saw your revision. Just do like was done for US release and reference the catalogue number. I will do so going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.42.64 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm the woman who revised the "Ray of Light" article. I would have done this before reverting your edit but I wanted to message you privately, and could not find a place to. I feel that Wikipedia, with regards to music articles – namely, from what I've seen, those regarding Madonna songs, with musically interpretive information – especially when related to chord progressions, vocal ranges, and even keys listed. I feel that this is actually a problem beyond Wikipedia, to be honest: music is almost treated as inscrutable, and thus only the most fundamental is treated as worth discussing, and might not even be looked into or treated as provable without some arbitrary source. Pitch and harmony are directly observable. "Ray of Light" is in B♭ mixolydian major (with a Dorian mode interlude and an Ionian mode intro), and Madonna peaks at B♭5, which can be proven because the frequency of the note is equivalent to the key of the song, which is B♭. The chords B and E would sound horribly dissonant in this key, which means that they could not possibly occur in this song – they do not occur naturally in any B-flat major mode. I just feel like it's overly prescriptive to say that we need to cite easily observable information... would we cite that the ln of e^2 is 2? If math that would require cursory expertise doesn't need to be cited, then why should musical information? It really frustrates me when I see stuff like that because it propagates false knowledge and belittles the value of being able to interpret art independently. And pitch, while technically subjective, is still scientifically quantifiable, so it especially shouldn't even be an issue here.

I apologize for suggesting that I wanted any trouble through reverting your edit – trust me, I absolutely don't, and I respect that you uphold the integrity of this encyclopedia. But I feel that the information it feeds people is more important, and I don't like it when false information is upheld for the sake of prescribed rules.

– Soji CPGACoast (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@CPGACoast: glad you messaged me. Regarding to the article, what we need from you is a source that specifically states the change that you want to make. Currently it is sourced according to the musicnotes sheet music present. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

With regards to this edit, what exactly makes Latvia an "irrelevant market"? Does it have something to do with the listings at Global music industry market share data, perhaps?? Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely Snuggs. If we keep on adding irrelevant markets like those in the main bio article just for the sake of the song being successful there, then sorry to say, this FA will deteriorate into something a member from ATRL has written. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(Cringes) Talk about a disturbing thought! Definitely don't want to happen. >__< Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

We will never let that happen haha :D —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: just noticed another thing in "Chained to the Rhythm". Please keep in mind about WP:CHARTTRAJ, and now that the song is descending the Hot 100, don't need to mention every week. Rather focus on the Pop Songs and Radio Songs where its gaining. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm..... if it goes up higher on the Hot 100, then I was planning to do something similar to "Rise" for the US where I mention it falling down for (insert number) weeks before rising up to (insert higher position). Canada on the other hand so far has been an interesting case by going up and down. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It does not look like it will go up I'm afraid @SNUGGUMS:. Mediabase shows that its close to peaking on the radio, especially on Pop. Of course stranger things have happened and it may get a second life again. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if unlikely at the moment, I personally hope it does go higher, and would love to see KP get another number 1 in the US as well as other nations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I was sure that she would get in the UK after the BRITs. It was an awesome performance, but Ed Sheeran is just too strong. @SNUGGUMS: did you hear that 15 second clip of the leaked track "Deja vu"? Chills *__* —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Damn right that performance kicked ass! At least it did go up in the UK afterwards (even if just from 7 to 5). I just listened to that clip now. Sounds intense!! Wouldn't be surprised if she's going for an overall political theme for her fifth album given that and CTTR's lyrics..... speaking of which, Draft:Katy Perry's fifth studio album has been started up. Feel free to add more relevant details as they come up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for the edit with Perfect Illusion single and its Platinum. I haven't seen your renspond in the article talk page here so it was my bad. But I don't understand, why have you deleted the edit with new main photo in "Lady Gaga discography" article. Sorry but the current photo from The Cheek To Cheek Tour is terrible. She looks so old, fat and ugly (poor snapshot). So I think that should be use some better photo, please. And the same is in "List of Lady Gaga live performances" article. Yes I have done 6 editing, but I have updated only the number of shows of The Joanne World Tour (+ current last show of this tour) and I have changed the main photo with new description. So I don't understand where's the problem, if this wasn't any (as you said ) "bloody changes". Thanks. - DanGaga (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2017 (CET)

Hi IB – But I dif in fact look at the source cited; only the two chords I posed form the primary chord progression. I think it's worth it that you take a direct look at the source. My guess is that the chord progression listed is a typo. CPGACoast (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a reliable source, whats the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josegerman188 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, my article Margaret (singer) recently achieved GA status, however I keep working on it and get in touch with other editors to make sure everything is good. Could you have a look at it and maybe review it when you find some free time, it would be much appreciated. ArturSik (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi ArturSik, congrats on making this a GA, however my time on Wikipedia nowadays is really limited {{small|(Blame on a new job and shitty England weather making me sick!) so I would have to pass for now. :( Really sorry. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 02:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the reply. ArturSik (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, IB. What about this spanish article for the Politic view "section" in the main article?. I think that can help a little bit with references or ideas to make the "section". Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical about adding a political view section. She's not totally engrossed in politics, like any other celebrity she just voices her views and gets controversial. I see no point in adding anything now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but became probably the first [female] artist and the media attention is different from other artists, is something that should not be treated lightly. It may not have as much impact on the activities of politicians, but in Madonna's personal career has an impact. Also the evolution that she had with political issues since Rock the Vote, concerts, comments etc. However, I don't will follow with the topic. I wanna ask you about this reference. This is using in some feature/good articles. How reliable is?. And this other one with other certifications and peaks for True Blue. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 20:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would you wanna delete SloTop50? It's official, standard and most important singles and music chart in the country. It accumulates results from over 60 stations (over 80%) from all around the country. Sportomanokin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I told you --37.117.20.73 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It was released by the Stefani Germonta Band (sometimes called SGB). In other words, it was Lady Gaga before she became Lady Gaga. The article is currently in a user's draft space (I will CSD if it goes public for being non-notable). After the release of the real Gaga albums, Red and Blue did chart in a couple foreign countries. I disagree with it being in the infobox chronology because it was not a Lady Gaga album, the same as the Mistress Gaga releases are not included. But, I also think it is obvious that I disagree with mixing the EPs and Albums in the infobox chronology.

Either way, now you know what it is. You can choose to include it or not. I wouldn't. In fact, someone adding it to the infobox is how I took notice that the EPs and Albums were mixed. Kellymoat (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Kellymoat, where did I agree with including Red and Blue in the chronology? I only reverted because for major artists like Gaga, Madonna, Mariah etc all their releases have linear chronology and thats how it has always been. I have no clue because I never added this. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that you wanted it in there. Your edit summary asked what it was. So I was telling you. Kellymoat (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Music Week wrote "The Cure opens at No.23 (18,705 sales) to become her 22nd hit". Isn't it a mistake? She has 11 top tens, 19 top forty hits, 21 inside top75, 27 inside top100 and more inside top200. How did they get "22nd"? Maybe we should delete this sentence in the article or change it? What do you think? :) Max24 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Max24: just checked this, Music Week normally refers to top 100 positions, and this entry seems dubious. We should remove it for now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Per this, a second album cover can only be included in an infobox if the alternate image is specifically referenced in the article, "There should be one item to illustrate the work unless there is some source-backed rationale for why an additional cover must be visually shown (such that its removal would be a detriment to the reader's understanding)." Plus, the FUR for the image as it currently stands is invalid, because it claims it will "serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. What's good for the gander is good for the goose, I'm afraid. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: check my edit summary, I agree with all of this. I had nominated it for deletion previously also, it resulted in no consensus. If nominated my stance has not changed, this image is of no use per NFCC. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The onus is on the uploader to provide a valid FUR and then provide proper contextual significance to ensure it complies completely with NFCC. Consensus doesn't negate that. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Just saw your edit summary at Chained to the Rhythm regarding a user adding a chart sourced to Billboard Brasil. I don't mind the chart being removed because there's already a Brazilian peak there, but it's not a false website—it's the official licensed Brazilian version of Billboard. It has its own unique website (that is quite badly formatted as I don't think there's a way to access previous weeks' charts, but official nonetheless). The far more well-known American Billboard's Brazilian charts are different from Billboard Brasil's. Ritchie333 and I previously talked about it at Talk:÷ (album), where, like you, I was initially under the impression that a user had added a fake peak when it actually reached number 1 on Billboard Brasil's chart, and not American Billboard's Brazilian albums chart. Ss112 11:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: thanks for explaining, it seems weird that a Billboard affiliated website is so poor;y constructed. I tried to find its allegiance at billboard.biz and its not listed there, so thought it was fake. Just like that Billboard Russia website we had previously. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

25_(Adele_album)

why did you remove Cameron Craig - engineering from the personnel/engineering section?

It is verifiable https://www.grammy.com/nominees references 131, 132

and on the booklet that comes with the CD track 8 "Love in the Dark" reference 193 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronscraig (talk • contribs) 06:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, IB. I started with the Legacy section in this page. Can you help me clean my disaster :)?. You know, maybe add, remove, fix the English grammar, etc. Thanks, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, would love to. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate always your help. Also, I was thinking after searching and searching that the Music album can also have a Legacy section. Maybe in the future, I will try to develop the idea haha. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 07:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras: I have copyedited the article as requested. :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, IB . It looks better. I think that I will copy+paste in the article. If you're in disagreed with something, please let me know. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 15:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)