User talk:Chasewc91/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Genre change

I wouldn't call one subjective review a "reliable source". Besides, it says there that the genre is pop/rock and STYLE teen pop/dance-pop. But seriously, if you listen to the album, you can clearly tell that there are no dance-pop elements. It is a pure pop rock album. PaRaDeaD (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On Allmusic, "Genre" is considered the wide scope of genre, and "Style" gets down to specifics. On that website, "Pop/Rock" (when listed as a genre, not a style) is a combined category for all pop and/or rock music. The styles are normally what you are looking for when getting sourced genre information from that site. Allmusic is often considered to be a reliable source for music information and especially genres, and "if you listen to the album" is not a valid argument as that violates our "original research" policies.

Sometimes, "Pop/Rock" is listed as a style. This means that Allmusic is referring to the artist/song/album as pop rock and not listing it under a combined category. But that is not the case for Here We Go Again. I noticed that the actual review (not the sidebar) mentioned power pop as a genre, so you could add that instead. But in the future, please do not remove sourced information just because you want to portray an artist/album in a particular way. Unless, of course, you have reliable sources. Thank you! :) Chasewc91 (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the professional reviews mention the dance-pop style, nor have I ever seen anyone referring to it with that genre. I noticed Allmusic is quite a reliable source, but it isn't always right (here it says the genre is country, while here and several other places it clearly states that it's pop with alternative rock edge). Therefore, I suggest that the dance-pop tag should be removed from the page. PaRaDeaD (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Emily Osment's album hasn't even been released, I'm sure that will be updated when it is. But that is not what we are discussing here, is it? We're discussing Demi Lovato's. Allmusic is a very reliable source for genre information and most Wikipedians will agree. The people who review albums there are professional music critics who know what they are talking about. It is not your place to decide which genres should be there and which should not, unless you have a source.

A quick Google search will likely find a reliable source that calls Lovato's album pop rock, if it is so obvious that it is. In fact, I'll begin looking for one myself. Feel free to assist. Chasewc91 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Found one that I just added. Chasewc91 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to be rude. I'm just expressing my opinion. I found several sources saying it's pop rock, but didn't know what exactly is cosidered reliable. I guess I can't prove the album isn't dance-pop, since why would a reviewer state "This album is NOT dance-pop". But no review states that it IS dance-pop either and you don't have to be a professional to hear it with your own ears either. PaRaDeaD (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude and I'm very sorry if I'm coming off as so. "No review states that it IS dance-pop"? I'm pretty sure the Allmusic review did. I'm sorry if it's really that obvious that the album isn't dance-pop, but a reliable source claims that it is. If an equally reliable source says otherwise, then it can be removed. Chasewc91 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean there are five or six reliable sources (the professional reviews) that say nothing about dance-pop. And only one mentions it and even that one in a sidebar only. Not in the actual article. "If an equally reliable source says otherwise, then it can be removed." So aren't there five or six eaqually reliable sources saying otherwise? PaRaDeaD (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No. If they directly said it wasn't dance-pop (something along the lines of, "Lovato's last album was dance-pop but this one is not"), that would be saying otherwise. Chasewc91 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I'm going to get back to this, do more research and try to find a source that proves dance-pop is an incorrect genre. Because I really do think it's that obvious dance-pop has nothing to do with Demi Lovato or her albums. And btw, I noticed Allmusic has exactly same genre and style for Demi's first album, Don't Forget, but here in wikipedia it says Pop rock and power pop. PaRaDeaD (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I'm not going to bother, sorry. I'm not going to waste my time searching for something that's going to be near-impossible to find. You're the one who wants dance-pop removed for whatever reason, you do the research. Chasewc91 (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That was what I meant, that I'm going to do some more research. I wasn't asking you to. Came out wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaRaDeaD (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Genre on HMTM

Hello, I saw your edit and it's not a rule. It's just that in my opinion subgenres are best in songs. Albums have wide variety of songs and influences and broader genres best fit it. In this particular case, the soundtrack has a lot of different sounds that are very drastic. So its best to just leave it as "Pop" and "Country" - - more specific genres can be found in the pages for "Let's Get Crazy" or "Hoedown Throwdown". The way it is right now has too much subgenres. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you don't need to be reverting changes just because you think something looks best a certain way. And I'm pretty sure that three genres is not too much. Chasewc91 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, that last comment came off a little too rude and threatening. Sorry, and I hope you know that's not my intention. :) Chasewc91 (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough. I meant to say that the way it is too specific on some songs and doesn't describe others. "Country pop" describes "The Climb" and "Hoedown Throwdown", "Country" describes "Backwards" and "Crazier", and "Teen pop" describes "You'll Always Find Your Way Back Home" and "Let's Do This". But there is nothing to accurately describe Steve Rushton's songs or some by Hannah Montana, like "Let's Get Crazy". See what I mean? Pop describes more in a broader sense. No worries, I didn't take it offensively. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, I guess. But Allmusic is a reliable source for music/genre info, and they consider the whole album to consist of those three genres. And my opinion really doesn't matter, but I would say I'd agree with them, at least from what I've heard of the album. If you disagree with Allmusic's opinion, there are other reliable sources out there that could describe the soundtrack's genre. Chasewc91 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that allmusic does state pop and country and those two are the best fitters. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've initiated a discussion on the talk page for other editors to voice their opinions, since this argument is really going nowhere. I've brought up pretty much this entire debate there, but feel free to discuss further on the talk page if you have anything else you'd like to say. Chasewc91 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Good choice. Thank you. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Romance

Hey Pokerdance, I have removed the addition of source as twitter for the music video section. Any social networking sites are unreliable and hence not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please donot re-add them. For further info please see WP:WAX, Talk:WP:RS. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I guess, but who is Pokerdance?? Chasewc91 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind you. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Genres

"Bay area thrash metal", that would be being overly specific. Just "thrash metal" is not. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That policy does not apply only to subgenres pertaining to particular regions. "Bay area trash metal" and trash metal are both subgenres of heavy metal music. Specificity is specificity. You really shouldn't misinterpret guidelines to suit your own preferences... Chasewc91 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpreting to fit your own agenda is exactly what you are doing. If you read the example, it actually uses "East Coast hip hop" as an example. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. An example. East Coast hip hop is an example of a subgenre. Both that and rap rock would be examples of subgenres of hip hop music. Just like trash metal is a subgenre of heavy metal and hard rock is a subgenre of rock. Chasewc91 (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"East coast hip hop" is not as much of a subgenre, as it is a regional thing/scene. NWOBHM, Norwegian black metal, Gothenburg metal, etc is all examples of the same thing. If you disagree, feel free to bring it up officially elsewhere. As of now, this is the consensus. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also see where it says "aim for generality." What is more general, heavy metal or trash metal? Also, please show me where there is consensus for this. You cannot just make it up out of thin air. Chasewc91 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus_as_a_result_of_the_editing_process. If you look around, you'll see that most of the infoboxes reflects the view that I am stating. Metallica is even a featured article, which means that it has been looked at from every angle very carefully. Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That does not reflect any consensus regarding this issue. The only opinions in this right now are yours and mine. As for the other infoboxes, see WP:WAX. Granted, this isn't an AfD, but other articles should not be used as reference because they might be flawed as well. And just because the article is featured does not mean it is perfect. Chasewc91 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is most definately a consensus through editing, or it wouldn't have looked like it does right now for well over 2 years. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) But the thing is, you are the only one who seems to oppose my edit to that article. When more editors show opposition, there would be a consensus to not have it that way. As of now, there is no consensus since there are only two opinions, with both opposing each other. Chasewc91 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, never mind. But still, more opinion would be great before there is actually a "consensus." Chasewc91 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, various people has tried to change it over the years, and this is what it has been returned to every single time. That's not to say that it can't be changed, but it would have to be done through the talk page. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:

And what do you have to do with it? I spoke with a admin about it. Thank you. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be impolite. I'm just warning you about edit warring so you don't get blocked... Chasewc91 (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Faith? I'm not fighting with you and not have to tell me anything, since neither is within the subject. Have a good day, thank you. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

allmusic & genres

If allmusic is reliable for genre classifications, how is that the site has 808s & Heartbreak labeled as hip hop when critics and even Kanye West have refuted the claim, calling it a pop album? Dan56 (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also listed as pop. And Allmusic calls it hip hop because some of the songs on there are, like "Heartless." Chasewc91 (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do u know what hip hop even is? Lets say u do. Aint it original research? How do U know some of the songs are hip hop? Did u listen to the album; he sings on the songs. Arent there only supposed to be genres and not subgenres in the infobox? Instead of using one source for an album's genre, just make a section in the article that discusses the genre/style of the album and use that section as the basis for whatever is in the infobox.

Dan56 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a genre expert, but I know what hip hop is. Am I using my knowledge of what hip hop is to source these genres? No. I'm using a reliable source that you have absolutely no right removing. Sorry, but the people at Allmusic are professional music critics – I'm sure they know more about what genre something is than you do.

A section for the genre would be pretty pointless because it would only be one or two sentences. Chasewc91 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Love Me (Justin Bieber song)

I put the revamping template on the article, as I am working on it and more information will be on it in the upcoming days. Candyo32 (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Create a user subpage and work on it there. As of now, there are no reliable sources reporting about this song and it has not charted. When one or the other occurs, the article may be recreated. Chasewc91 (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Prod2

May I point your attention to the documentation of Template:Prod2. It says very clearly

Debresser (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice that. Thank you. Chase wc ⁹¹ 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

umm, its rock!

I no that its sourced, but dont forget and here we go again are POP ROCK. not teen pop, yes it may be sourced but from what i see you go around changing all album genres. block me from wikipedia if you wish, but i now no that its not the right place to be when im looking for a genre of an album!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.223.118 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your opinion does not matter compared to the opinions of the professional music critics at Allmusic. I haven't taken the time to listen to much of Demi Lovato's music, I just go with sourced information. Yes, I do go around changing genres on many articles, but all of them are sourced. If you have a problem with the way we do things here at Wikipedia, you can start your own website where you list genres whichever way you choose. Here, we go with what's verifiable, not necessarily what's right. In this case, genre is a matter of opinion, and we prefer the opinions of professionals compared to fans. Chase wc ⁹¹ 23:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, personal attacks such as where you replaced my warning with "im gayyyyyyyyyyyy" are unacceptable, and – especially when combined with disruptive genre warring based on original research – are a quick way to get yourself blocked. Chase wc ⁹¹ 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i gathered, and if you listened you would understand the genre! That source is rubbish, i could give you LOTS more sources that say POP ROCK and ALTERNATIVE, and i will start my own website thanks :D great idea. And oh hush upp, you sound like a 99 year old man, block me do whatever, wikipdia is not giving the right genres. and im not happy. :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.223.118 (talk • contribs)

"If you listened" is not a valid argument when trying to obtain sourced genres, that is called original research which is not allowed here. Your opinion may be that Allmusic is rubbish, but it is often regarded here on Wikipedia as an excellent source for music information, especially genres. If you can find reliable sources that claim that this album is pop rock and alternative, go ahead and add them. But if you keep adding them with no source (and also removing ones that are sourced), you will continue to be reverted.

I'm not in any position to block you, but if you keep up your disruptive editing, I would be glad to report you so that an administrator can. As I said, we're not about getting things correct. We're about getting them verifiable. Chase wc ⁹¹ 23:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay i will add my own genre AND source thanku! All music is rubbish end of. And what does reverted mean? Oh so you cant block me? So why are you acting like you own wikipedia, how old are you anyway? And you can report me if you wish, because wikipedia is CRAP for genres thanks to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.223.118 (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) You do that; please do take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources before you do. As I said, find a reliable source and I will have no problem with you adding it. And also, Allmusic is a reliable source regardless of what you think of it, as I previously told you. I'm not acting like I own Wikipedia, I'm warning you about our rules so that you don't end up being blocked, you should be glad that I haven't reported you already for your continued disruption. My age is of no matter to you or to this project.

Finally, you may think Wikipedia is crap – well, you don't have to use it. Lots of people don't use this project, you can join that group if you wish. May I please remind you once more about personal attacks? If you keep up this gross incivility, you will be blocked from editing. Chase wc ⁹¹ 23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I will do dont you worry! No its not a good source. Yeah okay whatever, your prob 30 im guessing by the way your speaking. And yes it is crap and i will decide if i want to continue using it or not. Oh anyone would think ive said something VERY rude, gee calm down!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.223.118 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Here We Go Again

Remember me? I talked to another user (Wolfer68) about the dance-pop genre on Here We Go Again article and here's what he said: "I'm not in favor of once source being used as fact, especially in cases that could be controversial. As you noticed, though, with the Allmusic review, the genre/style classification isn't even part of the review and is definitely not done by the reviewer, but probably by Allmusic staff, so it is misleading to use that as a source. For the Demi Lovato album, power pop is mentioned in the actual review, dance pop is not. You might be best in this (and similar) case to take this to the talk page of the article in question." So as I said before, dance-pop shouldn't be listed as a genre based on one out of six articles only mentioning it on the sidebar. --PaRaDeaD (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A source claiming something is a source claiming something, simple as that. Trying to interpret a genre to get one you desire goes against our "no original research" policies. Power pop is mentioned in the review, but dance-pop is also mentioned, regardless of its location on the page. I'm sorry, but Allmusic is a reliable source, and you can't remove reliably-sourced information based on an interpretation of your own simply because you don't like the way they describe the genre of an album/song/artist.

However many sources claim something is irrelevant. At times, I've spent a long time looking for a reliable source for a genre I believe to be correct, and found one. Sometimes only certain reviewers say certain things. So it doesn't matter if one reliable source says something or if twenty do – one does the job perfectly. Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes Allmusic such a reliable source or more reliable than the others? Just you claiming and believing it is, doesn't make it reliable. And like said before, even if it is reliable, it isn't necessarily always right. Like in this case, dance-pop is not mentioned anywhere in five other reliable sources. So you shouldn't blindly rely on one source you've found helpful before, if others are saying otherwise. And quoting Wolfer68 "the genre/style classification isn't even part of the review and is definitely not done by the reviewer, but probably by Allmusic staff", so it's not even mentioned by a professional critic. --PaRaDeaD (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not what I believe. The Wikipedia community considers it to be a very reliable source for music. That's why you see something sourcing it in almost every article on songs, albums, and sometimes artists. And again, your definition of what is right doesn't matter. You may think it's not dance-pop, but Allmusic thinks it is. Regardless of whether it was the reviewer or someone on the staff who added that genre, that's what it claims. Again, it does not matter that no other review says this.

I don't know Wolfer68 and I don't mean this as disrespect to him, but he is not an admin and his opinion is not the final say on things. I think he and you are both wrong, you can't remove sourced genres because it apparently wasn't added by the actual reviewer, because you have no proof of this and that is original research. I'm sorry, but unless a source explicitly says that this album is not dance-pop, then this genre is not controversial among critics, and it cannot be removed without good reason. Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Allmusic also mentioned jazz-pop, so I'm gonna add that one as well. --PaRaDeaD (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

They only said one song was of that genre. Power pop was mentioned for several songs, and the genres on the side I'm presuming cover the majority of the album. We look for predominant genres, not every single genre covered. Chase wc ⁹¹ 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are presuming? Unfortunately that doesn't make it so. --PaRaDeaD (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

By presume, I mean that Allmusic's side-genres normally provide the overall genre for things and that's probably the case for this album as well. But of course, as it's listed under the field for genres, so the only way to really interpret that is that way. But your example of jazz-pop, the review explicitly only mentions one song is of the genre. Chase wc ⁹¹ 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviews are always subjective and that's why you shouldn't list genres based on only one of them, but look at them all and see what's the most popular tags. Just because one person thinks it's dance-pop, doesn't really make it that. However, several critics mentioned pop rock and power pop, which kind of makes them the clearest way to describe the album. --PaRaDeaD (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) It seems to me that your problem is that you don't want Demi Lovato's music described as a certain genre. I'm sorry, but that is genre-warriorism, which is frowned upon here. I'm done arguing with you about this – I'm not going to argue with you about what is reliable and what is not due to you not wanting this album described a certain way. Take it up on the talk page, but I doubt you're going to get your desired outcome out of this. But arguing with me is really going nowhere. Chase wc ⁹¹ 23:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want it to be described in an incorrect way. Also, you are in no position to tell me what I think or want. I will take it up on the talk page, thank you. --PaRaDeaD (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Incorrect" seems to be synonymous with "not-the-way-I-like-it" here. Please learn what a reliable source is. I'm not arguing about this anymore, but I will tell you that your opinion will likely not gain much consensus due to the fact that you are trying to say reliably-sourced information is not correct. And may I ask where I told you what to think? Chase wc ⁹¹ 23:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it, true. But that's only because I strongly feel it's incorrect. I know exactly what a reliable source is, thank you very much. I did not say (or mean) that you told me what to think, but you obviously seem to think you know what I think and want. --PaRaDeaD (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Wanted

When the album was first released, Hilary Duff stated that it's a compilation album not a "greatest hits" album. And she released that album in the first place because her label pushed her to do it. Why would a "greatest hits" album be released after only two studio albums. Quasy Boy 9:16, 06 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources? And it doesn't really matter what Duff considers the album to be. A compilation album is something like a B-side collection, rare songs, a collection of an artists' certain-style songs (for example, The Ballads by Mariah Carey). Most Wanted is a collection of Duff's singles, and miscellaneous album songs since she didn't have that many singles. It is quite simply, her hits. Nothing more, nothing special (with the exception of new songs and remixes, which are standard for albums like these). That is what I and many others would consider a greatest hits album to be. Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

These sources: [1] [2] specifically refer Most Wanted as a collection, in no way did they use the word "greatest hits". The only "greatest hits" album that Duff has released in her career so far is Best of Hilary Duff which was released last year. The title is self-explanatory if you are refering to a "greatest hits" album. Also you just putting greatest hits on the page is matter of your own opinion and not a general belief. Quasy Boy 13:12, 07 November 2009 (UTC)

Likely they were referring to a collection of their hits. Listen – this album is a compilation of Duff's hit (and not-so-hit) songs... what else could this be? What other kind of compilation album could this be, other than a greatest hits? Chase wc ⁹¹ 19:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Wanted is a compilation, Best of Hilary Duff is Greatest hits, period. How about another example Samantha Mumba only released one studio album (Gotta Tell You) in her career, Later she released The Collection, which obviously a "Compilation" not a "Greatest hits". Quasy Boy 14:38, 07 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. Take it to the talk page and gain other editors' opinions there. This is normally what would be considered greatest hits and there should be consensus before it is changed to just a compilation album. Chase wc ⁹¹ 19:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for arguing sake, I just want to make the information on the page factual. Quasy Boy 14:43, 07 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now, you're just trying to make it your opinion. And I don't have a problem with that, because my argument is supported by my opinion as well. But think of the broad term "compilation album" – a collection of certain-genre/style songs, B-sides, rarities... "greatest hits" most accurately defines what this album is, and most people would consider this album to be one. But if you can gain consensus, I won't have a problem with this being changed. Chase wc ⁹¹ 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll think about it. But considering the album is a few years old, and the article isn't too active anyway. I don't know about getting users to do a consensus. Quasy Boy 15:15, 07 November 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello Chasewc91, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 23:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:

In that point, i agree with you, but I'm so sick of you I forgot. Read the source 'Digital Spy'. PS: Do not answer it in my talk page, never again please. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Digital Spy isn't really that reliable of a source. Chase wc ⁹¹ 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding with me... Do not get excuses for their bias, and when you want to talk do it on the talk pages of articles. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, it's nothing more than a gossip site by the looks of it. I generally refrain from using it as a source and other editors do as well. And I will talk wherever I want to, especially since my comments are really only directed at you and since this is my talk page. Chase wc ⁹¹ 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster

The link is MTV [3] published today. Please provide a source for most editions being the included on the deluxe edition. Also notice that there is no consensus to redirect The Fame Monster album page, only The Fame Monster extra disc page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Component Charts

Just to let you know, even though Pop Songs and also R&B and Hip-Hop Songs are component charts, they are charts used in articles for songs, depending on which genre the song pertains to. Also in the discussion of the talk page you cited on One Time's talk page Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/U.S._Billboard_chart_inclusion the chart is recommended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.166.29.77 (talk • contribs)

R&B/Hip-Hop Songs can be used per that page. However, you are confusing Pop Songs with the now-discontinued Pop 100. Pop Songs is the new version of Top 40 Mainstream, which that talk page says not to use. Chase wc ⁹¹ 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not confusing Pop 100 with Pop Songs, I realized that the Mainstream Top 40 and the Pop Songs chart are one in the same. Also, according to the talk page, the chart is recommended on song pages. It says don't include Rhythmic Top 40 and Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks, BUT DO include Top 40 Mainstream/Pop Songs: http://i33.tinypic.com/10yhu1v.png. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.166.29.77 (talk • contribs)

That was the opinion of only one editor, and it did not gain consensus. As of now, the consensus is not to use that chart. Chase wc ⁹¹ 01:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not have bad faith, or assumed that you were trying to harm the article. I just think that arbitration is needed to resolve our dispute. Candyo32 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The way you were speaking about me on EnDaLeCoMpLeX's talk page was rather rude and you did seem to assume that I was trying to harm the project. And arbitration is normally reserved only for serious matters, not minor content disputes. Chase wc ⁹¹ 01:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I was misinformed. I had been told that Top 40 Mainstream was used in the past on discographies, but maybe it shouldn't have been. Is Pop Songs truly a component chart? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if the manner I was talking in seemed rude. However, if arbitration is not used, then the conflict will become ongoing. Candyo32 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Pop Songs chart could be used since almost every post-Pop 100 song that has charted on the chart has the chart in its discography. Candyo32 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer: Billboard remodeled its website and changed many of the charts' names a few months ago. Pop Songs is the new Top 40 Mainstream, which is a component chart of the Radio Songs chart (it would seem), which itself is a component of the Hot 100.

Candyo32: The Pop 100 was the pop music equivalent of Hot R&B/Hip-Hop/Christian/Country/etc. (which were essentially the Hot 100 for specific genres) charts before it was discontinued. The Pop Songs charts airplay on Top 40 stations. Chase wc ⁹¹ 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have welcomed you properly, so...

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Chasewc91, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Stifle (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

All The Wright Wrongs genre war

Hi, after looking at the numerous amount of edits in All the Right Wrongs, I have recently discovered a genre war in the edits, namely between Yourself, a number of unregitered users and I. We can all agree that the EP/Album falls into the genre category of Teen Pop because:

AMG correctly states this as a genre
Most listeners of the album can agree that this is Teen Pop
Most users of Wikipedia can agree that this is Teen Pop

However the main war seems to be going on with the fact that (as far as I can work out) you have put rock and roll as a secondary genre. Many editors, including myself, oppose this. Simply because the collection of songs on the EP (or any of the songs on the EP) do not sound like rock and roll as a musical genre.
From also what I could work out, you have added rock and roll because AMG mentions this in their review. Which at first glance would seem fair, as AMG is credible source. However AMG has a habit of mentioning musical genres that have nothing to do with the album as a whole. For example, AMG's review of Iron Maiden mentions (to some extent) Progressive Metal "There may be no better place to hear how both punk and prog rock informed the New Wave of British Heavy Metal...", "Maiden had all the creative ambition of a prog rock band", "the band's earliest progressive epic and still among its best".
AMG also mentioned punk rock in its review "sessions with Eve 6 and Plain White T's yielded enough punky fodder", which you haven't added to the album genre itself, because the album isn't punk rock. Added to that AMG also talks about rock and roll as more of a fashion/culture style rather than a musical genre. "After flirting with teen pop on her early recordings, Emily Osment underwent a rock & roll makeover". It is mainly referring to her attempt to break out from the Teen Pop-style music (though not a very good one). Simply put, the EP, does not correctly fit into the rock and roll musical genre, and is misleading. So unless you can find another credible source, as one source - which doesn't even mention any form of rock and roll as a musical genre - isn't enough. I am removing it.
tsunamishadow (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be re-adding this, and I strongly advise you gain consensus before removing it again. I'm sorry if it sounds nothing like rock and roll to you. Allmusic has professional music critics, one of which has said that the album carries a "rock and roll makeover" from Osment's previous work. Since it doesn't refer specifically to image, one can presume that they're referring to her music. Don't like it? Tough. You're not a professional. I will seek administrative action against your disruptive editing if you continue your original research. Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani

Firstly: Wikipedia:LEADCITE#Citations states Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Stefani's sources are discussed throughout the body of the article. The band released its self-titled debut album in 1992, but its ska-pop sound was unsuccessful due to the popularity of grunge...No Doubt released the less popular Return of Saturn in 2000, which expands upon the New Wave influences of Tragic Kingdom...The band's 2001 album, Rock Steady, explores more reggae and dancehall sounds while maintaining the band's New Wave influences, generally receiving positive reviews...Stefani created the album to modernize the music to which she listened when in high school, and L.A.M.B. takes influence from a variety of music styles of the 1980s and early 1990s such as New Wave and electro.

All of this was discussed long ago on the talk page as I'm sure you've seen by now and because the template for the infobox states aim for generality rock (overarching genre for pop/rock, new wave, alternative, grunge) ska and pop were what editors agreed were acceptable for the infobox. If you are seeking to challenge that consensus, please do so on the talk page, but I'm acting perfectly within wikipedia policy. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand at all why consensus should override verifiability. The opinions of editors/fans who are most likely not professional music critics should not be used, when there are professional music critics discussing Stefani's genre. For example, would you rather prefer information about, say, breast cancer from either reliable sources or random people off the internet? Wikipedia is about verifiability, and what you are doing is going against that, which is called original research. Chase wc ⁹¹ 04:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read Talk:Gwen_Stefani#Template:Infobox_Musical_artist.23Genre you would have seen I used the biography pages of Allmusic and Rolling Stone for both No Doubt and Stefani as a solo artist as a basis for my argument. Sources which are also used in the article itself. This wasn't a consensus reached through blind wishful thinking as you seem to be implying. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any intention of discussing this on the article's talk page? If not, I'll consider the issue resolved. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits is a form of disruptive editing. WP:DONTLIKE, btw, does not apply here, since I'm using the exact same source with detailed rational on the talk page discussion. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mad House Tour

I've been asking for help so you can undo this misunderstanding. This article has been created, Mad House Tour, but the tracklist is the concert promotion for Nokia, and the sources do not speak of any tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitorvicentevalente (talk • contribs) 23:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Owl City

The genre for "emo" is clearly sourced, but you removing it just by saying "it's a subgenre of alternative rock so it doesn't need to be stated", is bassicially original research, which doesn't work on Wikipedia. Also I might add most sources generally stated Owl City as a synthpop act. — GunMetal Angel 03:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Emo is a subgenre of rock music, and that's not original research; there is sourced information in the Emo article that states that it originated from punk rock, which itself is a subgenre of rock music. And again, synthpop is a subgenre of pop music. Genres are to be kept as general as possible per Template:Infobox musical artist. Not to mention, the source currently being used for the genres says nothing about synthpop. Chase wc ⁹¹ 03:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't Stop Believin' (Glee Song)

Hi, Chase. Very supportive of the proposal, especially as I am the editor who finally forced WP (with excellent admin help) to stop listing "Believing" vs. "Believin'". This ridiculous "Glee" page was the prime hurdle in overcoming the ignorance (still trying to work an Allmusic to correct the song in their article review, but it falls on deaf ears). My question is simple; can you "tack on" the deletion of the other moronic page Don't Stop Believin' (D:TNG episode)? It's the same damned stupid thing... Doc9871 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's just a redirect to information about that show's particular episode. Nothing wrong with that to me. Chase wc ⁹¹ 15:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. Good call... Doc9871 (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I am sorry if you felt falsely acussed, however, I have come across some of your edits which very closely resemble that of User:Pokerdance and their sockpuppets. That is my reason.. • вяαdcяo chat 05:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You still have no reason accusing me of sockpuppetry when you have no proof, and I haven't taken a look at this Pokerdance person's edits, but I'm sure many editors have a similar editing style and they aren't sockpuppets of each other. What's more, you don't simply think there is sockpuppetry occurring, you flat-out tell me that I am a sock. Disrespectful and immature. Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not only the editing style, but the type of content disputes that you get into such as genre wars, which once again resembles Pokerdance closely. The particular way you participate in this conversation, I find, also shares similarities. Obviously, it is wrong of me to accuse, I have no proof but I don't like having the feeling that a sockpuppet is lying around, and I have a good feeling that it is really who I suspect. • вяαdcяo chat 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I was involved in the edit above this and couldn't help noticing. • вяαdcяo chat, dude, you are totally accusing Chase wc ⁹¹ of sockpuppetry, when you admit yourself: "Obviously, it is wrong of me to accuse, I have no proof..." No proof! Yet your final statement, "...I have a good feeling that is really who I suspect." is quite accusatory. There seems to be a good case for administrative action here... Doc9871 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I already apologised for accusing him. It was wrong, foolish and really wasn't any of my business anyway, just like this conversation between myself and Chase isn't any of yours. My final statement was not an accusation.. The best way to describe it would have to be a personal thought, or opinion. I would only be accusing if I cleary stated he is a sockpuppet, not I think he may be a sockpuppet. If you wish for administrative action to occur, fine but I will not "go any further than this" - (Black Eyed Peas - "Meet Me Halfway" lyrics). I got myself into this mess. • вяαdcяo chat 07:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Easy, big fella... no need for hysterics. I'm not wishing for admin action; I was just observing that your edit pattern would constitute a clear case against you, particularly if you persisted with Chase wc ⁹¹ here. Sure, it's not my business, as you pointed out, but it also kind of is. You see, I'm a "good-faith" editor who makes positive contributions to WP, and when I see unsubstantiated sock puppet allegations thrown around just below an edit I had with a user, I will step in to voice the opinion I am free to offer. Good luck to you... Doc9871 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to persist but I appreciate the concern. I suspected the user was a sockpuppet and so be it. I have no proof, so there is nothing Chase has to worry about. • вяαdcяo chat 08:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Speechless

I don't know if you alredy notice but Legolas copy the article from your sandbox, apparently without your permission, I believe this is rude, no one should copy what you were doing on "YOUR" sandbox without telling the user. I tell you these because i think is a bad example for Wikipedia, there should be rules about it. 190.232.135.202 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't finished working on the article and I definitely would have appreciated it if Legolas had notified me, that he was going to publish my draft to the main namespace. If he had asked me about it, I would have told him that I would prefer if he helped me to work with me on it in my sandbox. But there's really nothing that can be done, as the subject clearly meets the GNG and I was attributed for the draft.

It sucks that things like this happen, but they do. I think Legolas did a great job fixing the parts that needed to be fixed and adding things that I hadn't yet gotten around too, but again, I would have appreciated a request, or a notification even. Thank you for letting me know about this, though. Chase wc ⁹¹ 03:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page post

Do not come to my talk page and post threats. We tend to use the most recent photo in the infobox, not the one that you prefer. For your edification, that 2009 image was placed there by an administrator. If you want to "explain" something, take it to the article talk page, not my talk page to threaten me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that even slightly resembled a threat that I posted on your talk page was a warning that I would notify an administrator if you used rollback for non-vandalism reverts again, which is something that any editor has the right to do. I really do not care who posted the picture, the April 2008 one is a clearer picture of Duff where she can be seen more easily.

Back on the threat topic, your above post is actually more threatening that what you say I posted to your talk page was. In an empty-threat, "Don't post to my talk page or else" kind of way. Ironic. Chase wc ⁹¹ 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Then let me be clear - do not come and post on my talk page anymore. Take it to the article talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In a dispute, I typically go to the editors' talk page first to try and resolve it there. I only take it to the main talk page first when it is an issue with several editors or consensus cannot be reached by one-on-one discussion. If that's not the way you prefer me to do so, you can be polite about it; there's no need to use that tone and there's definitely no need to speak to me in a threatening manner. Chase wc ⁹¹ 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

acharts is an unlicensed archive: use licensed sources when possible

Right in the table header at WP:GOODCHARTS for the symbol describing aCharts: "No problems have been detected with this archive. While using an official source is generally preferred, using this archive as a convenience link is acceptable. Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links, and should use official sites and licensed archives where possible." (emphasis added). acharts is an anonymous site that seems to violate numerous copyrights. Allowing its inclusion in WP:GOODCHARTS at all was controversial. If it hadn't been so widespread, it wouldn't have been included. Technically, it fails WP:RS on numerous counts.—Kww(talk) 00:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ultratop is licensed, as are all the Hung Medien sites.—Kww(talk) 00:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Record_charts#Chart_trajectories, trajectories should only be included if they are unusual and notable, which means you should generally be able to find someone specifically talking about them. Using acharts to source a trajectory is not a good idea: using an unlicensed anonymous source is just bad practice. —Kww(talk) 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic seems to be generally considered acceptable. They credit Billboard, and people seem to assume that they must have worked things out with Billboard. That said, the consensus among people at WP:Record charts was to just drop mention of the Pop 100.—Kww(talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking a break for a few hours. I'll fix the rest of the charts later tonight. There are licensed sources for everything you left at acharts, and some of the sources you replaced were the licensed sources.—Kww(talk) 01:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just happened to chance by. Really good work on the article. And also if you really wanna include Pop 100, you can do so by citing the physical magazine issue as the chart was present there. Would be much more reliable than Allmusic also. We use acharts.us only when there's no chart trajectory found at all. Always use Hung Medien as its the best we have after BB, ARIA, RIANZ and OCC. And you are correct about Kesha, she was removed from the single's billing by BB. Few points, since I have been promoting a lot of articles to GA, consider removing WP:PEACOCK terms like "major" etc.

Consider removing ARIA after Australian, doesn't make sense. Also, club the Australian second and third runs together as done in songs like "Poker Face", that way it won't look like WP:DIRECTORY.

Remove the italicization of online media like Allmusic, ARIA, RIAA, MTV, ABOUT.com etc as per WP:MOS. External links should come to the last after references. Also, can you find some info regarding the composition and music structure? Else it might fail from GA criteria.

In the lead you mention that the song is lyrically about encountering an attractive woman at a strip club, however, in the background Flo Rida quotes it as an inspiration. I do remember reading in many reviews that the lyrical interpretation was different ranging from fellatio to others. Please try to find that.

Consider removing genre charts like Hot Rap and Hot R&B and keep it in the chart performance prose. Always try for the shortest chart table possible by including the major markets. Come to think of it, you can remove Ireland from the procession. I found this in a FAC of 4 Minutes that the procession of major markets like US, Uk, Aussy and Canada is more than enough.

The tracklistings need reference. Try the iTunes ones. Reliable.

Alternate text for the images.

Can you try to bulk up the critical reception section a little more?

Per checklinks remove the redirect references and replace with correct ones.

The category 2009 songs is redundant when it is released as single. Same with Kesha songs.

MoS compliance in the references is completely missing. Sometimes you use 12 December 2009 and sometimes 2009-12-12. Make it consistent.

The places where you are using acharts, doesnot support the text that you are referencing it to.

The last line in the music video section needs wikilinking.

Hope these help you with your first (?) GA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) Thank you for your suggestions, Legolas. I tried Musicnotes and didn't find anything for Right Round. I'll see what I can find in other sources regarding composition, however. I'll take note of a lot of the things you mentioned. Thank you again! Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. glad to help. By the way, the italicization part is still present. Any online (not printed) media should not be italicized, you can do this by italicizing the work parameter like work=''[[Allmusic]]''. That way it won't appear as italicized. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with My Heart Edition image

I will shrink the image, however all alternate versions of album and single covers are included on Wikipedia articles if available. The single is a separate entity from the original. So what is the problem with it not enhancing readers understanding? Candyo32 (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Once Billboard charts come out next week, the My Heart Edition will have enough information to warrant a full article, but I am attempting to get the article to GA status. So I still believe the cover needs to be included and does not violate WP:NFCC#8. If in fact a full article could be created and the image used, then why not now? Candyo32 (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on an article, but I saw you were working on a Taylor Swift song article, and I just happened to pass through this, and it needs to be redirected, and etc --> Fearless Platinum Edition. Candyo32 (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

STOP

Please stop changing the genre on the Jonas Brothers article. Thanks. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.