User talk:JohnFromPinckney/Archives/2011b

The Neptunes discography

Any chance you can help out a The Neptunes discography? I've succeeded primarily in frustrating another editor, and it would be better if things were ... well, better.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just paging through the history when the orange "You have new messages" banner popped up. That page is a disaster (I thought it was a bad sign when I read "none of the other discographies have been written like this one" on your Talk), butI can understand the frustration of the editor. Would you like me to drop a message at hir Talk, or would you prefer I try some cleaning up at the crash site? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Use your proven diplomatic skills to the best of your ability. I'd engage with him on talk first, probably.—Kww(talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and add reliable source material for the tracks but it's not possible to get a reliable source for every added track because most of them have been confirmed by their artists blogs/twitter/facebook and they're not a reliable source material —MikaSan(talk) 23:03, 21 October 2011

Thanks for your note. It's too bad you don't have a file cabinet full of reliable sources for everything right there, but since you don't, please understand that all the other, unsourced stuff will have to go again. Painful, I know, but true. As you keep looking for sources over time, you'll find some good ones and can replace the material bit by bit. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John, thats exactly what I meant, that looks great ! —MikaSan(talk) 15:42, 10 November 2011

Hi John, on that Surrounded By Idiots sample you quoted, the reason why Michael Jackson is bold is because he's an artist, so ive started from the beginning of editing to make artists bold but if the whole song name is bold, then that means that its been released as a single, so I guess the text from the Introduction could be changed again to "song names that are bold are Singles", and about Surrounded By Idiots, before Timothy Mosley aka Timbaland and Pharrell Williams became the most sought after producers on the globe, they formed a group called Surrounded By Idiots dating back to their time in high school in 1991. S.B.I.'s 1991 recordings are said to be the first time they ever stepped foot into a recording studio. At the time, Timbaland went by the moniker DJ Timmy Tim and Pharrell called himelf Magnum. Three unreleased songs from S.B.I. have surfaced and it is definitely a rare piece of musical history. —MikaSan(talk) 19:59, 13 November 2011

What's up John, the single section at the end of the page is a list of all neptunes produced singles listed by year, but to get rid of the confusing apostrophe, I was thinking of calling it simply 'Neptunes Singles', have a nice day, —MikaSan(talk) 04:02, 19 November 2011

Yeah, thats what they are, Neptunes Produced Singles, thats what Ive meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikaSan (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Please stop changing everything i'm adding on the site, and make sure you remove every single track on there that doesn't have a source starting from 1992, ah what the hell just delete the whole thing though and don't forget to delete also other discographies such as Timbaland Production Discography because that thing doesn't have any sources of the added tracks MikaSan (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography Ireland,

Hey I was wondering if you and I could collaborate on replacing the Ireland chart with the Italian chart. It makes sense and Gaga has never gotten an Ireland Certification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslover1213 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if she ever got a certification in Ireland. However, that's not the only thing to consider. There is certainly an argument to be made in terms of relative population, as Italy (pop. 60 million) is much larger than Ireland (4.5m). But before you make such a change you should check that there is consensus for it. Present your reasons on the Discussion page; persuade other editors that this is a good idea, and I might be willing and able to help you with the technical bits if you have trouble. I wouldn't begin without knowing there's consensus for the change, though. You'd have to dig up the references to support whatever material you intend to add, of course. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Hung Medien's italiancharts.com site shows Gaga managed to chart only 9 singles and 3 albums in Italy, fewer than we currently show for Ireland. (Maybe she should change her name back to Stefani Germanotta.)— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

its not about the certifications, all lady gaga songs has charted in ireland, but in italy it hasnt, so its not logic to replace it. --Mathiassandell (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rehab

Hey Pinckney man :) How are you? We had some reverts/conflicts, but I forgot all of it. Sorry If I was rude and offended you. I actually need a favor from you. Can you create the Release history table chart in the "Rehab" article per WP:ACCESS please? Thanks — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to look at it later. I'm into a couple of projects at the moment. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There, I finally got to it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For the finest edit summary I've seen in a long time! RexxS (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Mmm! Thanks! That hits the spot. Speaking of drinking lots (and lots) of beer (ahem), I almost added a "crikey!" or a "G'day, mate!" for a real authentic Aussie finish, but then I thought, "naawww, let's avoid rude stereotypes." — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits against policy

While I don't mind you changing some of the table formatting back please don't go against policies such as WP:NUMERO and remove completed references in favour of bare URLs as you did in this edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Walter. I've just re-read the guideline (not actually a policy) at WP:NUMERO, where I see Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No.". I still do not see where I violated policy (or guidelines/rules/etc.).

As for the bare URL thing, I was in the process of fixing that while you you were reverting and then writing me here. I had an edit conflict but overrode it, brutally replacing your last reversion. Sorry about that. I spent quite some time on that dead link at the end but I couldn't find an alternate URL at the Owl City site. So we're stuck (for now) with a bare-URL dead link. And a tag at the top. That marvelous tool Reflinks, BTW, gave us the ref title it gleaned from the ARIA page's <title> element, which happens to be the big, ugly URL itself. So I wanted to fix that (and did so in my last edit).

I see now that a lot of my edit summary got clipped, thanks to limitations in Twinkle (I don't mind a limit on summary length, I'd just like to know when I hit it). The idea of similar-widths for similar columns in similar tables is part of the accessibility initiate, worked up in some examples at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. The specific widths aren't set in stone, but they should be consistent on any one page.

Lastly, I don't understand your suggestion to delete the article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You're using number instead of No. Fine. You're using one instead of 1. Not so fine. It's better to use No. 1.

Barelinks did its job correctly, but I made additional edits along with it.

You're showing page ownership. Stop. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait until you're done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I should explain the "one" v "1" comment better. WP:ORDINAL

*Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.

So that means either always write out the chart positions or use the numeral. It's mixed. Ergo, better to use No. 1 ... No. 12 ... etc. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. How would you feel about going with written-out numbers on that article? The "twelve" and "thirteen" shouldn't be much of a problem; the worst (that I see) would be "number ninety-five". What do you think? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My preference, would be No. 1, for the simple reason is it stands out when scanning, but if you're in favour of writing "number" I have no problems with writing out larger values. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to make the "last edit(s)" as I seem to have unkowingly stepped on some of your earlier attempts, and I explained properly as I worked. All that bugs me about "No. 1" is the uppercase letter in the middle of the sentence. (I just tend toward "number" because "no. 1" doesn't seem good either.) I can certainly live with it, too. Your choice. The runway is cleared for you. Happy editing and thanks for talking with me. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen your edit summaries here and noticed that you were also editing while I was doing my table thing at Owl City discography. I think worse than edit-warring must be participating in an edit war and not knowing it. Sorry if it seemed I was stepping on you. Did you get a lot of edit conflicts?

I agree with you about leaving table columns unfettered. I especially try to leave right-most columns on a table unconstrained. But apparently there's been research into usability of pages with multiple tables, and users do better when similar tables have consistent widths for similar columns. I guess that's true for me, too, although I'm just the one guy. In any case, it's also true that the tables resize their columns as the browser width decreases anyway (and then we have unequal columns again), once the viewport is narrower than the content's "natural" width. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one, and then I said I'd wait. What you've done is good. I'll leave it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, did you know that Owl City is considered to be a hardcore band? See List of Christian hardcore bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know, not much interested. The band/guy doesn't hold any interest for me (except the academic concept of how a one-man "band" operates). I don't think I've ever heard any of the music. What does astonish me about that list though is: It has sources! what I'm used to seeing is something like List of New Romantics or List of acts who appeared on American Bandstand. Not a reference for miles. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hosiery

You need to learn to check out people's sock drawers.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Too often I find I've confused their sock drawer with one of their other drawers, and then I'm all nauseous-like. Anyway, you're the one who likes hanging around with this sort of hoser; how am I supposed to keep track of all the big league stars? Okay, the good part is that I've read through the SPI archive and I should be able to at least recognize the IP range if it pops up again, not so sure about named socky accounts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually recognise most socks through their edit summaries first, and then confirm them with the other stuff.—Kww(talk) 10:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And when they provide no summary...? — JohnFromPinckney (talk)

What can I say? Harder to detect.—Kww(talk) 11:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

JLO discog

Sigh. As you probably saw, I left that user a message too, and got no response. The user isn't even using edit summaries. If s/he persists, it should be reported. I don't see how this could effect FL, as it already passed, but a new format was also just put into place, so there's bound to be some people who disagree and/or think it's wrong and are trying to correct it to how it was before. (Long enough sentence?) Even if they didn't revert it, they still undid the edits, so technically are way over WP:3RR now anyway. — Status {^talk_contribs 23:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

LOOL! Oh well. xD Ah, I never saw that. I just assumed it was changed back to the old way (yet again). Honestly, if someone keeps doing the same thing repeatedly and just doesn't get it there's nothing you can do. I've come into contact with some many people like that I have become Judge Judith "No-Nonsense" Sheindlin. xD — Status {^talk_contribs 23:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	You were the first person to edit on 6th November server time. Puffin Let's talk! 23:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So that's why I never go to bed! But now I've achieved my goal, and can get some sleep instead of editing. Thanks! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

76.*

Not a sock that I recognize. I'll semi-protect the page for a bit.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, K. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome-to-Wikipedia Template

Did you see the message I left on the w2w template talk page?  Magister Scienta^talk (10 November 2011)

List of Jennifer Lopez songs

What do you think (so far)? — Status {^talk_contribs 01:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The format isn't too bad, and the tables appear to have good accessibility for screen readers (not sure about color contrast issues, though). My problem with the page is really just that I question the usefulness of this kind of article. There seems to be too great an overlap with Jennifer Lopez discography. The List of Jennifer Lopez songs only gets interesting to me down at the Unreleased songs section, and then, of course, we'd need really good sourcing (and which unreleased songs are notable enough to mention?). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you plan on taking this to FLC? Because when I took List of Rihanna songs to FLC they said that there was no point in the article. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 13:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't. In fact, I believe I mumbled some arguments of my own against that FLC nom. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How is the list of Rihanna songs any different to the list of J Lo songs? Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 12:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't see any real difference. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I never saw this. I've been waiting for your reply John. :L Mind leaving me a talkback when you reply on your own talk? I watch so many pages. I honestly don't see the problem. This is what a discography is to songs. It is showing all the relevant information, in a nice little sourced list. It displays all of her known recordings, whether released or not. And believe me, when and if I bring it to FLC, I will leave a nice long statement about its relevance. I read Rihanna's FLC even before I began work on this. That's why I decided to spruce it up a bit (I was originally basing it off the Rihanna one). — Status {^talk_contribs 12:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If J Lo songs becomes an FL, then the FLC actually have no valid reason to tell me that the Rihanna songs can't be an FL or be should be deleted. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 12:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing also seems to have been an issue, as well. If it becomes a FL, I will vouch for you in the Rihanna one. I'm not saying I can convince them otherwise, but I have some points that you didn't address in Rihanna's FL. — Status {^talk_contribs 12:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Status. I'll try to remember a special Talkback for you. It might help to ask me for one, too, if you remember. I just prefer to keep conversations together.

As for your List article, one problem I have with it is the duplication of Discography content. That is, the overlap ... perturbs me. More, the list contains songs which are either: (1) singles, certainly covered in the discog; (2) non-single songs which charted or were otherwise notable enough to also be covered in the discog; (3) non-single songs which aren't notable enough for the discog (and so why are they in the List?); and (4) songs which weren't even released (the epitome of non-notability, generally, unless there was some lawsuit or murder case hinging upon them). Seems like Group 4 songs would be really hard to source, too, but why do we need them? I mean, I've got an unreleased song right here on my desk, next to my unpublished novel and my published symphony (it's mostly finished; I need to tweak the piccolos). Why shouldn't we list these works in a List of unreleased works by JohnFromPinckney? See what I mean? Okay, I admit I'm no Jennifer Lopez. But still. I could be Malia Obama or Abe Vigoda in real life, you don't know. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but I still don't see how it duplicates her discography. It is a discography, for album and single releases. This is more of a songography, which shows all of the songs she is known to have recorded. If you were famous enough, why not? ;) Michael and Britney (for example) have FL unreleased songs articles. — Status {^talk_contribs 20:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Chart templates

Hello, JohnFromPinckney. Your revert of my recent and faulty edits on Love the Way You Lie was indeed the right thing to do; surely I would have done the same. I should have explained my edits better, sorry. The reason I replaced them was that Template:Singlechart has a tendency to link the ref publishers on every occurence, which disrupts my consistent wikilinking for publishers and works. I had a discussion with Nikkimaria, who said that this inconsistent linking will be raised as an issue during FAC, to which I plan to take this article. She said there is no workaround other than replacing the template, I believe. I do not plan to revert your revert at the moment (or ever, maybe), but do you believe there is anything I can do to deal with the linking issue? Thanks! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignore it?

I'm sorry if that comes across as smart-alecky, because it's certainly not meant to be. And I've never in all my time here used WP:IAR in any discussion, until now. But the linking of works and publishers in the refs seems to me a very minor issue, and it really doesn't upset me much. If links are repeated in the body of an article, it can be annoying, I agree absolutely, but I assume nobody is reading just the references, so if they see The Official Charts Company in Ref 43, they won't mind being able to click right there rather than scanning backwards through smallish ref citations to find where it was linked in Ref 8.

Surely the worst case for music articles will be the repetition of Billboard and Prometheus Global Media repeated in maybe 6 or 7 refs in a row, with a few (max 4) other Prometheus links higher up. I truly don't think that that's so bad, and should not keep the list/article from becoming n FL/FA. Especially when the alternative is to have (after a lot of tedious work) more complicated code in the article with potentially several errors (as we saw in the "Love the Way You Lie" edits). A page with error-ridden (or error-prone) refs doesn't fit my idea of a featured list, either; it's worth the trade-off to me of having repeated links within a long list of refs (and Dude: Love the Way You Lie has 211 refs).

Penguin, my serious suggestion is to present that argument at FAC, even pointing to the situation at the outset right in your nom. I like to think the FAC reviewers are reasonable people ready to enter into discussions and will negotiate what's best for an article and WP in general. It needn't be supplicating nominators scurrying to blindly enact the commands handed down from the reviewers on high. Nikkimaria seems to be particularly sensitive to this issue; I don't see that other reviewers are as concerned about it. Maybe they'll see the problem and accept the compromise when you explain it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like an assuring rationale, definitely. Thank you for your time. I am hoping this article will not grow anymore than it already has. I have enough to worry about. :) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty in being reassured; I seem to have forgotten something (although it doesn't completely change my recommendation for FAC, just deflates the reasoning for it a little). Read on...

I was thinking about this some more, and there may be a technical solution that could satisfy many folks. The problem is that, if it's even possible, it would mean making complex code even more complex. And that's sure to be something that Kww, main caretaker of {{singlechart}}, would like to avoid. But maybe he could be persauded.

The (still half-baked) idea is the addition of a new parameter to the template, maybe noreflink, which, if present and set to yes, would leave everything except the ref title (linked to URL for verification) as unlinked text. The default would therefore be standard complete linkage, but editors could turn it off to avoid the dreaded OVERLINK in the refs section. So instead of

1. "Alicia Keys Album & Song Chart History" Billboard Hot 100 for Alicia Keys. Prometheus Global Media.

we would get

1. "Alicia Keys Album & Song Chart History" Billboard Hot 100 for Alicia Keys. Prometheus Global Media.

In my earlier comments, I concentrated on the refs list, stupidly ignoring that a song article typically has a table of charts with peaks, and that these would have (Billboard) repeated in it multiple times. (And so much for my only-in-the-refs argument.) But if the extra parameter idea is doable, then we could throw on another one, maybe noproviderlink, which suppresses the linkage in the Charts table. So instead of

US Alternative Songs (Billboard)^[43]

we'd see

US Alternative Songs (Billboard)^[43]

The chart title would remain linked, on the premise that it's earlier linked use, if any, is farther away and outside the table.

Again, this would be a mess of work (and maybe a mess), so would need to be well thought through (looking at Belgium, UK, Australian cases, e.g.) in advance. It might be a worthwhile idea, though, when it's fully baked. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I too was thinking of bringing this up, but thought it would be too cumbersome of a task. I see your point; however, this would not happen at all before weeks (or months) of sandbox work. And then there is the question if it would be worth all the work. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hill Street Blues

Thanks! Good job with the schedule chart, it's a start anyway. Later, I intend to do some rearranging with cast (actor's name first, etc.), but it's better than it was. With some work, we can get that article in shape. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. We've currently got two "Other characters" sections, but I was afraid you were still working on that area so I decided to stay away for a while. I'm out for now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about...

I know you aren't exactly a fan of List of Jennifer Lopez songs being an article, but do you think List of songs recorded by Jennifer Lopez would be a more appropriate title for it? As it's mostly focused on recordings she has done? (Both released and unreleased) — Status {^talk_contribs 03:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think there's much of a difference (although there might be if she were actively writing a lot of songs for other people, like a Carole King or a Kris Kristofferson). Otherwise I'd take the titles to be equivalent, as I know Lopez only as a singer (and actress, I guess, and maybe kisser after that one party when she spent the night here after my party, but I guess that doesn't count). I don't think I'd have a preference for either, except maybe that the former title is a bit shorter (and therefore has an edge). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as she doesn't write very many of her songs, I think List of songs recorded by Jennifer Lopez would be a more accurate title. And it definitely strays a bit away from just the article just being a list of songs. Shorter titles aren't always better. ;) — Status {^talk_contribs 04:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD Template

Thanks for spotting that error in the template. The old saying is true, it's the little that get you. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 05:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Birdman discography

Thanks for your edits on Birdman discography. I changed the column widths because I read an edit summary you'd written recently on Gucci Mane discography that said that the featured artists in the notes under the song titles should only take up one line. However, this is clearly an issue on many rapper discographies, as loads of rap songs have tons of guests (can you imagine this one in a table with only one line?). But yes, I did think it was far too wide. Perhaps I should write something about this at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember ever saying they had to be on one line (although if it was just an edit summary it would have been a page-specific approach.) Man, with all the "featuring" that goes on, some songs would never fit. Usually, I'm happy when the actual title fits without breaking (and of course, that's using my default font size, in my usual browser width, on my usual display, ...). If all the "withs" don't fit neatly, I'm not too concerned. I probably wouldn't change anything unless just adding 1 or 2 em to all the tables would mean a title fits okay, without doing more damage elsewhere. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My mistake - for the edit (viewable here) you did, in your edit summary you wrote, "Equal-width (Title) columns per WP:DISCOGSTYLE.", which I must have misinterpreted. Well, I know now. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds more like me (terseness obscured in verbosity). :-)   Best regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The One That Got Away

Tell me what sense it makes to follow a source by a "citation needed". It looks stupid. If you have an issue with the source, a.) remove the source and replace it with a citation needed, or b.) use {{verify credibility}} instead. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ookay, I agree about the stupid-looking part. Thanks for the usage advice. Maybe somebody can find an actual news story somewhere. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Jennifer Lopez filmography/archive1

Care to comment? :) — Status {^talk_contribs 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Indosiar, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages SCTV, Kediri and Boys Before Flowers (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 11:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you're review

Thanks for you're review on the List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s. I've fixed some errors, but many more exist. Could you, let's say, "expand" you're review a bit? Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, at least I think so.... --TIAYN (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to be rude, but are you still opposing the FL nom or havn't you been able to take a look at it yet? --TIAYN (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude by ignoring you. I think I assumed you were still working on it. Will look now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I ment, my apologies.. Anyhow, I'm finished. --TIAYN (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Eric B. & Rakim discography

Hello, John. You're one of the few people I know who work well with discography articles. Firstly, I want to thank you on commenting/supporting K-Ci & JoJo discography.

Also, I have been working on Eric B. & Rakim discography, and I wish to submit it to FL. I was wondering if you could do a quick peek over the article to see if there are any problems? If not, I can understand. Have a great day.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 00:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you make it hard, really hard, to find anything to complain about.

The biggest thing I can come up with is the big red swath of unborn article links. Since the titles are so long, the redlinks really catch the eye (in two places). So, considering that those three compilation albums didn't chart, maybe it's not likely that they will have WP articles soon, and you could quietly delink them. (I see them glaring from the nav template down below, too.)

Um, I think that's also the smallest thing I can come up with. Nicely done. Go for it! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I lied. I think there's something wrong with "Eric B. & Rakim formed and signed by Zakia Records in 1985". I think the word "were" right before "signed" would satisfy me nicely. You? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it; I appreciate it! I un-linked the compilation albums. I guess you're right; they don't seem to be that worthy of an article. I also added the "were". I'm going to submit it to FL tonight. Once again, thanks, John.
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Rihanna Discography Edit

Hey John, there was a source saying that Rihanna's new album had gone double platinum in the UK, meaning the album has had over 600,000 sales. Sorry for forgetting to change the source! Jewls1993 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

access

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Record_charts&diff=465988830&oldid=465987488 —Kww(talk) 12:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Smarty. (For some reason I thought we were sort of waiting to start using that. Maybe I've confused it with a comment you once made about changing the default some day after wide acceptance. I confuse a lot of things these days.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I can change the default in a flash, but I'm worried people have already started to add the !scope="row" stuff manually and I'm not sure what will happen. Guess I'll go see.—Kww(talk) 12:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Doubling it up is harmless, so it doesn't hurt to have !scope="row" and rowheader=true, but unless the plainrowheaders option is specified in the table you get centered bold headers. I won't be flipping the default any day soon.—Kww(talk) 12:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Two things...

1. Are you a subscriber of Billboard, or do you know another user who is? If so, this would be of great help to me, as there are several charts on the Billboard.biz website that I am unable to access (such as Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles), and there are several positions on these pages I could otherwise incorporate into the pages I edit. If you know anyone who is a subscriber, please tell me, but it doesn't matter if you don't.
2. On Drake discography, do you need all of the Bubbling Under positions referenced in the cells containing the positions themselves? It would make the table look far less cluttered, in my opinion, to link them into each individual footnote, as is the case on 50 Cent discography and K-Ci & JoJo discography. That's just my opinion, though.

Thanks for all of the help you have given me - discographies are looking as they have never done before thanks to you and Michael Jester (and others, of course)! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rufus.

1. No, I'm not a subscriber. That keeps me from verifying a lot of stuff I see float through here, but I must confess that I don't actually have enough interest to pay Billboard for anything. After seeing what a disaster their Billboard.com site is, I am disinclined to reward them by paying for Billboard.biz access (which indeed looks cleaner) or their magazine. You might try asking Kww (talk), though; I think he had some special programmatic access at one time, although I understood him once to say that Billboard stopped updating the database of Bubbling Unders without any notice, so I don't know what he can offer you.
2. Ooh, you're not going to like this answer, and I'm sorry, but I'd just as soon not have Bubbling Unders on these pages at all. At least, I don't like them in the Hot 100 and R&B columns, masquerading as peaks on those same charts, because we've added 100 to them. I'd accept them being in separate columns, appropriately labelled, if we had the room, but a "116" makes me all itchy. So I'm going to punt on giving you any definitive answer on this, and sorry again. I'll say this, though: The clutter of a footnote link in the peak cells doesn't bother me much personally (a lot of the hip-hop songs have a second line of "featuring Drake, Dolly Parton and Tom Jones" anyway), and I haven't yet learned to look for a ^[C] in the song title field when I see a peak that doesn't verify. But don't rip the BU's out solely on the weight of my remark; I recognize that consensus is against me on this one. I believe we finally agreed to include/accept BU peaks, as long as they're properly sourced and labelled. That'd be the footnote work you're doing.

Glad to help, if you can call what I do helping. I'm really quite impressed by the work you and Michael do; you're both quite busy beavers and I appreciate your attention to detail and your willingness to do all the necessary research. Keep up the good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, can you revisit Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/50 Cent discography/archive4 and clarify that your concerns have been resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up on Jennifer Lopez filmography

I would appreciate it if you were to look over the article one last time before I close the peer review. Thank you, — Status {^talk_contribs 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC) (This message is being sent to everybody involved in the PR.)

Nag, nag, nag. ;-) I had this on my list between Watchlist-dredging and RL obligations; now I've finally had a look. Thanks to your incessant whining. Heh. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I just copied that message and sent it to everyone who commented on it. ;) I was going to close it, but I just wanted to make sure everything was fine. Really don't want a do-over of her discography. Response. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Young Jeezy discography

Woops, I did accidentally switch the "F.A.M.E." and "I Do" refs. I've switched them now, thanks for the notification (and for the "Enjoy your holidays" message). Holiday56 (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Birdman discography

I've pretty much finished my main redevelopments of this page: I'm hoping to take it to FLC soon, but before I do that, I wondered if you could point out anything you think is clearly wrong or that should be changed (especially in the lead, as leads have not been my strongest point historically), just to be sure I am not missing anything massively obvious. Thanks! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Phantom

Thanks for fixing the link to Chris Martin. If I can help answer your question in the edit summary: He is in the New Zealand team as bowler, but his inability at batting has made him something of a cult figure. He is often unable to defend his wicket for long making his stay at the crease so short that we say that we could barely see him at the crease (as if he were a phantom which appeared and then disappeared again quickly). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s/archive

Can you take a look this now? You still oppose it, even when I've responded to you're comments and fixed several faults with the list. --TIAYN (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's gone now. What happened? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani discography

im not done it still under constuction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiassandell (talk • contribs) 13:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

im trying to have same chart for both singels and albums and its not done, with sources etc... --Mathiassandell (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to make 12 or 15 saves to Gwen Stefani discography and still not be done. It looks like vandalism when I see so many edits clogging up my watchlist, especially when there is no edit summary and the page is broken when I look at it.

If you are doing a lot of work on an article, you can use your sandbox and copy the results over when you are done. Another option is to add {{Underconstruction}} or one of the other templates from Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance while you are working. There's also the Show preview button, which is more than a little helpful.

In any case, please remember to use an edit summary when you edit. It is the minimum communication you should be providing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Help

John are you there? I need a quick major help from you. Can you fix the Charts table in Unfaithful (song), cause I am working on the article and they are mess. I also know you are against removing the {{singlechart}} but I don't really manage to work on them. Can you help? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 21:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well on the tables should be applied WP:ACCESS, however that's not the biggest problem. Some of the references does not retrieve accessdates and stuff like that, meaning weeks of peak should be added on the template. Can you do it? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 23:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) ! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 23:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Again thanks for assistance with the tables. About the Canadian Singles Chart, do you know where I can find the source for charting? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Note on your talk. You can just Google, or try Billboard' search "feature" on their site. I didn't do either. I also did not look at Rihanna's page on AllMusic, which might be just the thing. Good luck! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Responded you on my talk page. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 01:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Jennifer Lopez filmography/archive1

Mind commenting? — Status {^talk_contribs 01:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what (more) to say. Am I allowed to chip in after I worked on the PR? (And BTW, a happy new year to you.)— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISCOGSTYLE

Hello John, it's Michael again. I know you said about a month ago that we should try to get WP:DISCOGSTYLE a policy. I strongly agree, too. Neither of us knew how to get it started, but I recently found how—Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I honestly believe one of us should start the proposal to make WP:DISCOGSTYLE a policy.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm keen, but I have some thoughts about it I want to share with you first. Not enough time right now, but I'm not ignoring you. Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Why is this? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 02:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Calvin. I'll be glad to explain, although I don't know what else to say beyond what I mentioned in my edit summary.

For "We Found Love", three US charts had peak changes this week: Adult Pop Songs, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, and Latin Pop Songs. All three of these Billboard charts are dated January 7, 2012, so we make a new table for the 2012 peaks. I just moved them down from the 2011 table; I didn't change the peaks themselves (they verified alright).

The guidance for making a separate table is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts. I used WP:MUSIC/CHARTS as a shortcut, but I guess I could start using MOS:CHARTS instead, since it's shorter, and makes clearer that it is part of the Manual of Style.

Does that clarify things for you? There were a couple of other minor things in that diff (accessdate update, unneeded alignment removal), but I assume you were wondering about the table split. All clear now? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I just didn't get what you had done. So how come the 2011 peaks can't stay? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The peaks are still the peaks from the same trajectory, they're just listed in separate tables, depending on the year they occurred. If we tried listing peaks during 2011 and peaks during 2012, we'd have three problems:

1. the articles would be even longer, loaded down with a rather INDISCRIMINATE load of data;
2. we'd be giving a somewhat distorted picture for works which have a single, smooth chart trajectory, as e.g. a song released in mid-December that starts climbing to its eventual peak at #2 on February 8. Listing its peak of #22 on December's last chart doesn't help anyone; and
3. we'd have a referencing nightmare. The Hung Medien sites are pretty good at providing trajectories, but think about keeping track of separate peaks for two years with only Billboard and AllMusic to help us. Ick!

Of course, for re-releases, we ought to (and do) repeat charts in separate tables, as for "Billie Jean". This makes sense, because we're talking about separate peaks (separate trajectories) on the same chart(s).

I hope that helps. I also hope you have a good jump into the new year. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. So does that mean We Ride should have three separate tables? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. (I have to confess I don't always actually split them myself when I see them; it actually depends on how much time and energy I have at the moment. But since we're just at the changeover, I've been watching carefully to try to keep the 2011/2012 charts straight. That "We Ride" table has been there for a little while, though. Good luck.) And now I'm off to celebrate with friends. Have a good one, Calvin. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol well I've just c/e the article, I did wonder if there should be three seperate ones. I am on holiday atm, so I will fix it whenever I get the time. Thanks, you too. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)