User talk:Frcm1988/Archive 11

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.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Suyl birmingham.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Suyl birmingham.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Holler-europromocd.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Holler-europromocd.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Holler-uk12.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Holler-uk12.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Sybt-frenchpromo12.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Sybt-frenchpromo12.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda late

Welcome!

Hello, Frcm1988, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Efe (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Number one albums of....

Hi there, thanks for working on these. However, please be careful with film soundtrack credits - a film soundtrack is not the same as a compilation album, such as, for example, one of the Now That's What I Call Music series. Therefore, please credit a film soundtrack as "Soundtrack" or "Original Soundtrack" instead of "Various Artists". You'll see the same thing with Broadway Cast albums (if you work your way back into the 1950s and 1960s lists), which should be shown as "Original Cast" or something similar. As these are based on Billboard charts, they should be credited here as they were shown in Billboard. Thanks! - eo (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

more...

Hey there - just letting you know you'll need to change your introduction information on the album lists prior to 1991, as Billboard did not use Nielsen SoundScan before then. - eo (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah from what I can recall they were all based on manual reports given by record stores and record chains... I don't suppose an acceptable source would be that I remember working in a record store during high school and my boss would call in the sales rankings each week? There's gotta be a source somewhere... actually the Joel Whitburn pop albums book may say something specific; I'll doublecheck it. As far as digital downloads are concerned, I'm not sure exactly when those started being counted by SoundScan, but it's a safe bet that it wasn't happening in the 1990s. - eo (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Record Charts

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Record Charts WikiProject. There's alot of Record Charts-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Record Chart pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! ~~~~

--Efe (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. Don't have consensus yet generated by the project. Ei, I'll be working, for now, on pages 2000-present. Not very sure with 80s. I'll try with 90s. --Efe (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see this discussion and provide your opinion on proposed page moves. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs

Yes. They obviously failed to meet the criteria for A-class articles. Both lack the writing history of the song, analysis of the music and/or lyrics, etc. --Efe (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Number-one albums of 1984 (U.S.)/archive1

Hi, I left problems on the above peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is ready. If there are any issues, they can be addressed at FLC. Be sure to archive the peer review before submitting to FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Number-one albums of 1984 (U.S.) and 1985

Which weeks in particular are in question? Are you a Billboard.biz subscriber? They have searchable archives there; I remember setting up these pages and some of the album chart lists get spotty once you get back to the mid-80s. I haven't checked in a long time to see if they filled in any missing weeks, tho. - eo (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK well I do know that all of Purple Rain's 24 weeks were consecutive. For the 1985 dates I'll doublecheck those. - eo (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For time being here are two sources backing up the 24-weeks for PR: [1] [2] - eo (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Crap, those three weeks are missing from the Billboard.biz archives, which is what I suspected. One they go back to like 1985 and earlier, there are patches of missing weeks. I'll have to dig around. There's gotta be a way to source something without it being online, right? I mean, every time someone sources a book we can't expect that the entire contents are on the internet somewhere. And there will be the same problems as we move backwards in time. I gotta go dig out the Joel Whitburn Albums book, I have the most recent edition packed away somewhere. - eo (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you 72.28.159.237?

Hello. I have a quick question. Are you the user who make this talk page edit? -- Tcncv (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, no Im not apparently another user wrote on the section I wrote earlier. Frcm1988 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was wondering if you might be sharing a computer with Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) and all his/her associated socks. I guess not. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question

I think its fine. I only suggest don't rely on it too much. But for the figures, it had to published by some third-party sources especially when it involves big figures that are readily questionable. --Efe (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. --Efe (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungry Like the Wolf

The online databases at billboard.com and hence allmusic.com (which derives its data from billboard) are incomplete for certain charts prior to certain years. A good source for the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart is Joel Whitburn's Rock Tracks book. May I suggest that the date of the single's peak on the Billboard Hot 100 chart (March 1983) be included in the chart performance section of the article. Its long, circuitous route to the top of the charts was the heart of the story of that record in the U.S. Of less importance is the number of weeks at its peak position, this is significant with number one records because after reaching the top position the next measure of success is number of weeks at number one. Otherwise, it is common for records to linger a few weeks at their peak position and is not necessarily noteworthy. Also, the Gold record award in 1993 is a somewhat dubious honor and probably doesn't need to be mentioned. In 1989 the criteria for the award was lowered from 1,000,000 records sold to 500,000 and so "Hungry Like the Wolf", "The Reflex" and "The Wild Boys" were retroactively certified in 1993 along with the current single "Ordinary World" under the lower standard, a cheap trick which is usually done by record companies for promotional purposes. In reality, the record probably didn't qualify for the award in 1983. Piriczki (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

re:Vocal range

Hi there. I'm not sure what exactly you are asking... The terms A3, E6, etc. are representative of specific notes using the scientific pitch notation system. The numbers change at every C. So for example middle C=C4. The D just above middle C=D4 and the B just below middle C=B3. A3 would therefore be the A below middle C. Two octaves above middle C=C6 which is the soprano High C. E6 would be the E above high C. I hope that makes sense and I answered your question.Nrswanson (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct, the range is just a tad over two and a half octaves.Nrswanson (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Time (Clock of the Heart)

Hi. It looks like I was too quick in cleaning up some things in the article. The main thing I wanted to add was the lack of intro tag. In doing other things while there, I removed the link to the album (I was thinking it was automatically linked when entered from the infobox) and the certifications (I forgot that is was chart performance that was removed from the infobox template months ago, not certifications). My apologies for those errors, and I have put them back.

Regarding categories, this song is already categories under the child category for Category:1982 songs, namely Category:1982 singles. Therefore, it does not need to be categorized under both. The same reason applies to Category:New wave songs, as it is a parent category to Category:Culture Club songs. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungry Like the Wolf GA

Hey, I'm Hunter. I did a GAN review of Hungry Like the Wolf. The article is in really good shape, I just made a few quick suggestions, then it should be ready for GA. Nice! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I reworded it myself, check and see if it works for you. And I passed the GA. Nice work! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Take on Me

It was my pleasure reviewing and editing your article. I think that you should definitely submit it for GA review. I don't really have a problem with the sections on the cover versions, as they are all pretty well cited. Huntthetroll (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening comments

I have placed some opening comments are the article Take on Me on the talkpage. Feel free to check out my concerns, and great job so far! CarpetCrawler (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, the article has passed! View the talkpage for details. CarpetCrawler (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you did a great job. CarpetCrawler (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts

We have two unresolved threads. Please visit. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Papa Don't Preach

Congratulations, the article has passed its GA review! See the talkpage for details. Thanks and have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice article. I suggest you find free images. But for artists like Madonna, its hard. Unless you could justify its use (WP:NFCC) strongly, then it should pass the reviewers. --Efe (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article's just fine. I bet you'll be able to snatch that little bronze star just easy. I have a little comment though. I am afraid the second sample might get oppose from FAC reviewers. It sort of failed to satisfy WP:NFCC #8. --Efe (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"West End Girls"

Hey there Frcm1988, I've reviewed West End Girls and have left some comments on the review page. Hope to see these improvements. DiverseMentality 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Frcm1988. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Madonna

Hi Frcm, I am reallyyyyyyyyy impressed by your wonderful work on Papa Don't Preach article. So I would love to collaborate with you in developing the other Madonna articles as much as we can to GA standard. Thoughts? --Legolas ^(talktome) 10:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey I would be happy to collaborate with you. At present lets focus on Live to Tell and develop it. I will help you with the background and writing for this song and leave my edits in your sandbox page. Then if this one passes GA we will take up others also. I think it will be interesting project. I have another user called Realist2 who i think would love to collaborate with us. I'll ping him for his opinion. --Legolas ^(talktome) 03:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets work on Erotica. It was controversial and material will be found easily. Even Justify My Love will be good too. Lets work on those for whom material will be available easily, then move on to the others. --Legolas ^(talktome) 04:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He he. Its nothing like that i like the controversial ones. Its just that material will be available easily for them. --Legolas ^(talktome) 05:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I also found some info for "Live to tell" for its music structure. References are [3] [4] [5] [6]. Don't know whether they will be of much help. --Legolas ^(talktome) 10:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we were on the topic over a month ago...

Figured you'd find this helpful, from this week's "Ask Billboard" column: [7] - eo (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gary,

I was wondering how Billboard compiled the Billboard 200, Hot 100 and other charts before the advent of Nielsen SoundScan and Nielsen BDS data. I've read that Billboard employees phoned radio stations and record stores, who reported playlist and sales rankings, respectively.

Thanks,

Christopher Fraser

Lima, Peru

Hi Christopher,

Let's go back 19 years to January 1990. Mariah Carey had yet to notch any of her 18 Billboard Hot 100 No. 1s, Taylor Swift was a month old and the highest charting rapper on the Hot 100 was Young M.C.

Times have certainly changed, and that month signified a major change in the way Billboard compiles its charts. In the issue dated Jan. 20, 1990, Hot Country Songs became the first tally to convert to Nielsen BDS data. As you note, the chart had previously comprised rankings provided directly from radio programmers. The BDS era ushered in actual monitored airplay data.By spring 1991, the Billboard 200 began utilizing Nielsen SoundScan sales data. Akin to the Country chart revamp, store playlists were now replaced by exact scanned sales totals.

On the chart dated Nov. 30, 1991, the Billboard Hot 100 transformed to a mix of BDS- and SoundScan-fed figures, and several charts soon followed: Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (sales and airplay) in December 1992 and Adult Contemporary (airplay) in July 1993, for example. Today, among our regularly published domestic charts, only Hot Dance Club Play continues to be compiled by ranked reports, submitted by a pool of national DJs.

So, how exactly were Billboard charts created during the reign of vinyl and cassettes? For a firsthand account, I turned to Billboard rock charts manager Anthony Colombo, who recalls his early days in the department as very different from today:

"Prior to our employment of Nielsen SoundScan and BDS data, Billboard staffers did, indeed, call record stores and radio stations to attain sales and airplay reports.

The retail reports we received generally consisted of top 30 or top 50 listings and up-and-coming titles bubbling under. For radio, again Billboard did not collect actual spin data as we now do from Nielsen BDS, but ranked station reports intended to represent weekly airplay.

Each position on these reports was assigned a point value, and each reporting store or radio station was assigned a weight based on the sales it generated or its listening audience, all shaping the formulas by which charts, including the Billboard 200 and Hot 100, were compiled."

Thus, we often refer to "the Nielsen era" in chart commentary, as it encompasses the most accurate span of data in Billboard's approximately 70 years of charting the hits. More recently, Nielsen's capabilities have enabled Billboard to provide charts for newer media, such as ringtones, digital downloads and social networking.

Oh that's your question, how funny is that! Haha, well you have the answers now! - eo (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Papa Don't Preach

About the bolding, you are most likely right. My concern about the other question, though, is that the sentence "This inclusion produce a disjuncture between pop and classical rhythms... " blurs the distinction between key and tempo. It's the classical key that makes the song mournful and the tempo that makes it pop, if I am reading this correctly. Maybe "combination of classical key and pop tempo produces" would be more clear than "inclusion produces", which seems to refer specifically to the key. Finetooth (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Live to tell

I saw your edits in your sandbox for "Live to Tell" and i must say it appears in good shape. Although i confess that i couldnot find anything for Music structure, even in books. Did you find anything? --Legolas ^(talktome) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohh k. For the Live Performance you can get much info about the controversy and images(free) from the Confessions Tour article. The cover versions i think we will be able to find references for all the covers. In the meantime I have a question to ask. How do you find info about the structure and composition? From Musicnotes.com? If so how do you interpret it? If you can tell me I'll go ahead with La Isla Bonita. Found quite a bit of info about it. We can both simultaneously collaborate. Also, user Realist said that he'll help after he finishes his FAs. He has over 500 GAs and will be a great help. Cheers. --Legolas ^(talktome) 03:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks dude, a great help this has been. One question how do you find the books and the ISBN? --Legolas ^(talktome) 04:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey for La Isla Bonita i found one book which had all the details we need for the article. The book also sources other books. For eg this line - Described by Madonna as her tribute to the beauty and mystery of Latin American people (Rettenmund, 1995, pg 98). This kind of reference is it ok to add? --Legolas ^(talktome) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok cool. Thanks for your help. I will proceed with the article here. Got so much information that i can't believe people didnot update these articles!!! And ya, she isn't referring to Spanish people, only the beauty of the islands surrounding Spain. Apparently the video also displays this huge duality and is filled with symbolism, which i have to read and insert in the article (yeahhhh). --Legolas ^(talktome) 07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey the second image added to the Live Performance section is really unnecessary since an almost same image is present just before. Also it somehow corrupts the visual flow of the article. There's a blockquote where the image has been placed. What do you think? --Legolas ^(talktome) 10:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Papa Don't Preach

Hey can you help me outa bit with La Isla Bonita? I'm a little stuck at the chart performance and critical reception. I'm developing it here. --Legolas ^(talktome) 07:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will help you with the critical reception, but maybe not until Sunday. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No probs, take your time. And kudos to the Live to Tell article!!! Its coming up real nice!! I think we got another Madonna article for GA. --Legolas ^(talktome) 06:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You didnot take a look.

--Legolas ^(talktome) 09:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)