Are people still using outdated single templates? Is there anything I can do — me, personally — to get the word out about the standard template? (We've just added some really great features at {{Infobox Single}}! Incentive!)
(By the way, I've been hunting down used copies some of those singles lately. Expect to see me around with edits some time.) –Unint 04:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Eric, you have deleted links to Goldfrapps moblog twice now. This is not a vanity page, it is a Mute Records created page where Alison and the rest of the band send in images whilst they're on tour, allowing their fans to comment and engage with the band on a personal level - similiar to myspace, but more personal and created by the Band. Please re-instate the link. If you havn't re-instated the link by Tuesday 25th, I will add it again.
Cheers,
(82.35.232.152 13:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC))Alfie
With all the Erasure singles articles created, I've been thinking about the need for "completionist" series of singles articles in general. As you're watching Pet Shop Boys as well, I think I should mention, for example, that I have plans to create some of their singles articles (now that we've ironed out capitalization, with any luck), but an incomplete series of articles because, honestly, there's not that much to say about some of them.
Centralized discussion is being seeded at Template talk:Infobox Single#Massive update. –Unint 22:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for destroying all of my work on Missy Elliott discography! The new layout is just awful, now there's no symmetry anymore (where's the "Chart posititions" line?) and it doesn't even fit with the rest of the page ... Thx
I have noticed just how much you have contributed to articles related to the Billboard charts and would like to let you know your efforts are greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work!
— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I get your point, but those were the album covers from what album they were off from. Plus, I was trying to put them on all the years, but it was so late. I started a talk thing about on Talk:Hot 100 number-one hits of 2006 (USA). Tcatron565 12:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
When it was tagged it wasn't used in any article (and fair use images have to be used), but I see you put it in one, so I've removed the tag. --Rory096 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
(re: Fundamental (Pet Shop Boys album)) I also prefer leaving the remix part of the title outside of the quotation marks; however, things are pretty inconsistent across Wikipedia. As such, I'd like to get a policy put down at WP:SONG at some point. However, to back this up... can we get a concrete reason why one way is better than the other? (I do question this sometimes because, well, the remix part is still part of the title...) –Unint 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for the heads up, I'll get to deleting that page. The user really, really needs help with stuff like this. NSLE (T+C) at 10:01 UTC (2006-05-22)
What makes you think that the lyrics to Tom Dooley, a folk song from the 1800s with unknown authorship, are protected by copyright today? -lethe talk + 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that is wierd, but in the article it says that they switched to "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks". I think it's safe to keep it the way it is (Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs) until there is any further indication to be found. --Ted87 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain this edit? Regardless of what the Wikiproject states, there is no other alternative to displaying the length spent at number-one on a chart for the song. Will not revert for now. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Ericorbit! I have received a nomination for adminship which can be seen here. Please feel free to add to it. :) -- Underneath-it-All 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic job on the Erasure articles friend; they now rank among Wikipedia's more concisely covered articles - and largely thanks to you! Very fine work! :) -- D-Katana 11:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I appear to be a vandal, but I assure you that I am not. It just seems that a disambiguation page for TWO articles is useless. can't there be a link to one of the articles, and then a link at the top of that article to the other article, like i did (and is shown countless times on wikipedia). surely this would be more clean, streamlined and efficient. also, i understand that there is some degree of article 'equality' involved here. but i have restrained myself from listing voyage (band) for deletion, as it is a severe stub. please revert what you have undone, unless you can think of a justification for a disambiguation page. --Paaerduag 10:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that I will put voyage (band) up for deletion. this in no way is a vendetta, but it is a severe stub and no one seems to be fixing it. it is not comprehensive enough and is a waste of space. thanks again. --Paaerduag 10:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
i just thought that if there were only two articles, the major one was the first to pop up and there was a link in italics at the top of that article to the more minor article. in relation to voyage (band), i do not think that the disambiguation page 'detracts' from my article, but voyage (band) is not just a stub, it is a severe stub. it is shorter than any article i have seen on wikipedia. --Paaerduag 12:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to be very knowledgeable about Billboard magazine, so I was wondering if you could weigh in on a discussion I'm having with another user at Talk:Cool (song). Both the Dance/Club Music Play and Dance Radio Airplay were listed in the article's "Charts" section, and I removed the Dance Radio Airplay because I get the impression that Dance/Club Music Play is the more notable one; every time I read the statement "number-one dance hit" it's in relation to the Dance/Club Music Play. Is the Dance Radio Airplay notable enough for including? I mean, I think it's a bit arbitrary to have two charts representing the same genre of song (and "Cool" isn't even a dance song; this is in relation to the remixes) particularly as one appears to be less notable than the other. But I'm not sure, so I was wondering if you could leave a comment at the talk page clarifying the situation? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 12:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't want you to think this is a vendetta. it is not. yes, because of the similar names of our respective articles, i became aware of voyage (band), and I truly, honestly think that it should be deleted. please don't accuse me of ulterior motives, because i have none, i assure you. this is in all honesty. --Paaerduag 09:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say: amazing work on these. I can hardly go anywhere without seeing one of these now — which is what makes it so great, really. –Unint 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I happen to be a subscriber to Billboard Radio Monitor. Its online site says that Nick Lachey's "What's Left Of Me" is the new number one single on that chart. They post the updated airplay charts every Tuesday, so if you're a subscriber to BRM you may want to look at that one other than Billboard. Robert Moore 08:12 (UTC) 21 June 2006
Billboard and BRM have different online release dates for their charts, so if you're a Billboard subsciber you'll won't see any changes until Wednesday or Thursday when they make their charts official, but if that's the case we'll just go with July 1, 2006 as the date that Lachey's single took the top spot. Robert Moore 18:23 (UTC) 21 June 2006
Done. But it'll take a week for me to forgive you for getting that song stuck in my head now. Jkelly 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for doing that. It already looks much better. I've been trying to clean it up a bit the last few weeks, but all my edits are continually reverted by anons. I'll definitely help keep an eye on the article. --Musicpvm 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem, it was a pleasure! By the way, why do you want to merge Ain't It Funny into Ain't It Funny (Murder Remix)? I mean, they're different singles. 200.138.194.254 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse but i worked very hard to build almost every sigle page in Cher's Singles pages, I really dont like it when people change stuff around, i specifically had a table with charts that went across, specifyin the charts in the main Music Markets accross the globe, please dont change that tables unless you have a very strong reason for doing so because it took quite some time to do all those pages.
Just to shed some light on things, I've been the one going through and removing extraneous Cher pages when the songs are, in fact, versions of other songs. I see no reason why hers deserve their own pages. I have been going through and attempting to merge the info on those pages into the appropriate articles, and I haven't destroyed any of the info - it's all available at the history of the other pages, which I've simply changed to redirects. Really, there hasn't been much content anyway, so I don't see what the big deal is, but I'd like to hear your opinion before I continue this. I'm not attempting to do anything to Cher specifically, but there have just been a rash of articles for her songs that fit this mold so as to draw my attention to them. GassyGuy 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for weighing in. GassyGuy 20:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You left the "Mrs. Robinson" song article with a sentence fragment and I can't figure out what on earth you meant to say. Mind taking another look?
are perhaps the most memorable. Paul Simon, a fan of Mickey Mantle, was asked on The Dick Cavett Show by Mantle why he wasn’t mentioned in the song instead of DiMaggio. at the line was meant as a sincere tribute to DiMaggio's unpretentious heroic stature, in a time when popular culture magnifies and distorts how we perceive our heroes. He further reflected: "In these days of Presidential transgressions and apologies and prime-time interviews about private sexual matters, we grieve for Joe DiMaggio and mourn the loss of his grace and dignity, his fierce sense of privacy, his fidelity to the memory of his wife and the power of his silence." Simon subsequently performed a live version of Mrs. Robinson at Yankee Stadium in DiMaggio's honor in April of the same year.
(emphasis mine 04:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC))
hi thnx for fixing some cher single charts are u sure some of those arent real... i do remember seeing dove as 93, but im not sure Rsf7589 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
hi could u do me a favor and check the when lovers become strangers page someone messed it up thnx Rsf7589 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
o crap wait something is wrong it wasnt onlt when lovers....there is lots of single pages messed up wat do u think happened? last timei check everything was good... there is some ppl who shouldnt touch things when they dont know wat they r doin Rsf7589 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
ok thats fine.... do u know how i can report someone? whoever this is 72.141.104.171 has been givin a lot of problems in the whole cher article and i would like to repost him or prevent him from editing anything here
Why did you delete my link on the Cher page. I mean i can understand the article for it(i was gonna remove it) but it is just as good as cherworld and stuff except i can't afford a domain name...if it was www.chercrazy.com would it get deleted? i don't get it...
hi! YOu wrote in Bananarama's article that they have "unique vocal style which features all members singing in unison (rather than three-part harmonies)". Can you please explain me more about this. I am a huge Bananarama's fan, and it's kind of intresting to me know it. thx. Vorash 10:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ericorbit: Sorry for all the history entries. It's a bad habit (because I kept losing changes) but I'll try and remember. I'm new and still learning! Thanks for the tips. Banzaiboy 00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Allo allo: Thanks for your extensive and incredibly detailed work on setting up all the Bananarama singles. I was wondering if you think that "Waterloo" should be included somewhere in the Bananarama discography? Was it ever released as a single? I know they made a video for it but am not sure where it would be included in the discography. (There is a mention of it in their Career section.) I'll leave that up to you. And keep up the great work.207.23.94.58 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Great stuff! Thanks for tracking these down to add to the articles! --feline1 13:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
hi were u the one that sent that last message to me about the charts, ok i understand now, but as of a few days ago the biggest problem has come from someone who changed everything i believe ip number starts with 195 Rsf7589 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
well i dont know if u noticed but 195 just changed something again so i had to go to ur last edit and make everything normal again... ive seen some wiki pages that have a sign on the top of the ariticle that say this page cannot be edited unless blah blah blah, it looks like the clean up sign i think we need to get that, n have u noticed someone keeps adding a fan site thats not releveant its annoying to keep takin it off Rsf7589 20:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I Have Just About Had It With You. If You Keep Removing My Link I Am Going To Talk To The Admin. Definition From Wikipedia
- Vanity site is a pejorative term referring to a website that is run by an individual or small group (such as a family) for its own amusement. A more neutral word for the same thing is personal homepage.
I Do NOT Run The Site For My Own Amusement. It Is Not A Vanity Site So Do NOT Delete It Again. I Am Really Pissed So Don't Mess Wih Me.
--Uses Wikipedia Alot 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
... I wouldn't have even tried fixing some of these lopsided Cher song articles. Blah! More hassle than they're worth. However, since I'm involved with a few of them now, I'll go ahead and let you know that, besides messing with numbers of her main article and discography page (and why do both her main article and discography page have discographies? Surely one would do.), the sales numbers and chart positions on the song pages themselves are also getting altered by your IP friend. I don't know anything about sales figures and I'm too lazy to check all the chart positions, but you may need to check those out. GassyGuy 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
does it really matter how long or big the article is? i mean the big difference between the discography out here and in the DISCOGRAPHY section is that on the cher article it includes all of the singles ever released. i understand about the forum thing i dont know who added that but does the other stuff really bother people?
Hey thanks for rv the discography it gets annoying to be changing that everyday, ive tried having both articles semi-protected but the ppl from wiki dont think its necessary, weird but thanks again Rsf7589 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It is my understanding that one version of the song is released without commas, while the other has commas, which would necessitate different pages. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice work on the article for the tune. I was going to move the page, but I'll leave it up to you. I would recommend that the title go under "He Was Really Saying Something," as that's how the versions by Motown artists (Velvelettes hit and a few others who used it as an album track) were credited. However, if you think this title is more sensible, then I would recommend that He Was Really Saying Something redirect to this page. Just tossing out the suggestion. Have a good one. GassyGuy 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I am very confused about the song vs single thing. If an article is not about a song itself, but about an actual single, why in the world would the article be called "song". For instance, if we were writing an article about the SONG "What a Wonderful World," it would make sense to call it "What a Wonderful World (song)" because we are writing about the history of the song itself. But if we were going to write an article about the singles releases for "Stay" by Lisa Loeb, it makes more sense to title the article "Stay (Lisa Loeb single)". The logic is flawed and confusing. Pacian 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comment. I'll bear it in mind for future edits. I'm hopefully going to get the succession boxes to run from 1952 to the present day, but as there's over 1000 #1's it may take some time ;-} {Yorkshiresky 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC))
Yeah I thought it was about time that articles were created for some of their hit songs - thanks for the formatting tips. Weatherman90 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Eric, are you sure "in" should be lowercase on Thieves in the Temple? According to manual of style:
Capitalization
In titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that:
Thanks for uploading Image:Bananarama Help.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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.
If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 02:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I agree with you that in both cases (Goldfrapp & Yeah Yeah Yeahs), the images I put in were poorer quality than the ones I replaced. Obviously amateur concert photographs are going to be inferior to professional publicity photos. It's just that we need to get away from using publicity photos that are incompatibly licensed.
The thing is, though... Wikipedia is sufficiently well-known at this point that we can start requesting properly-licensed publicity photos from celebrities and bands & such. I've gotten several with a variation on the boilerplates at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, most notably from the Beastie Boys' management. Since you are very familiar with these groups, I would strongly encourage you to contact their management and see if you can get them to do the same. Let me know if you need any help. —Chowbok 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The bold type face on the number one in chart trajectoris are used pretty much everywhere - Ashadeofgrey 17:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
