Talk:Love Profusion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Love Profusion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Love Profusion has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Love Profusion is part of the American Life series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 15, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
January 8, 2015	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Madonna Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Madonna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Madonna on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MadonnaWikipedia:WikiProject MadonnaTemplate:WikiProject MadonnaMadonna articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Nothing Fails?!

Mmm.... the title of this article is "Love Profusion", so it starts off talking about "Nothing Fails" instead, and eventually makes some vague reference to the song mentioned in the title. WTF, and what a badly-written mess.

Song meaning, instrumentation, production??

Can someone add any of this information to the article because I do believe it needs to be expanded. Underneath-it-All 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page has weasel words and is unneutral. It claims general opinions by fans without providing any references or sources.

The article is NOT neutral. It makes sweeping generalisations of fan responses without any references, and reads heavily like a fanzine.

User Andrez removing content from article

@Andrzejbanas: what is your rationale for removing sourced content from the article? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research." We don't interpret things to place our own genre on it. If they didn't say that in the article, we don't apply a genre ourselves. Simple as that. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add silly tags to the article since you cannot comprehend simple English. The source clearly says it as electronica-meets-folk which is folktronica so if you are deleting it, you are actually being disruptive to the point of WP:IDONTHEARIT between potaeeetos and potaaaatos. And please I'm more than aware of WP:OR. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually. This is a low thing article, you have not addressed my point that you can't interpret things like that from an article. So unless you can point out by quoting rules like I have where I'm wrong, maybe you should consider the fact that your edit is wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interpreting anything from any article, the source itself is present in the article recording section "According to a writer from The Arizona Republic, it is an electronica-meets-folk song and is ... It is you who started the revert in the first place without reading the article, how difficult it is to see this? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article doesn't actually use the word "folktronica", it can't be used as a reference for folktronica as a genre.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww:, it directly uses electronica and folk, can we use that then? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 01:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so, yes.—Kww(talk) 02:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then that settles it I guess what do you think Andrz? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, still not what the source says. Find a specific source. Madonna is a huge artist, I'm sure you can find a source for this song. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do not follow. Are you clearly denying the source? electronica-meetsfolk? Sorry I find this disruptive. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find it distruptive. "electronica-meets folk" is fine, "Electronica, Folk" in the genre is not. It's not what the source says. As stated before, this is Madonna, I'm sure you can find a stronger genre source than that. I'm trying to make the article stronger, not cause problems, so please don't accuse me of this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain why electronica-meets-folk is not the genre. WP:COMMONSENSE says so, I can drag this through RFC if you want. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's a vague description and not a specific genre. As it's not a known genre that has it's own article, we can only interpret to what it means. As I stated since the begining, Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.". Since we can only assume what the author was trying to say, we can't just tag our own genres. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrz, I'm not advocating adding folktronica to the article, electronica and folk can both be separate gernres as Kww explained. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is interpretation because it's not what the article says. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed says that. You are misinterpreting or not understanding the meaning (not sure which one it is). —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its been over a week I'm yet to hear a response from you Andrez. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Love Profusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.theolympian.com/entertainment/content/soundaffects/20031105/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517060814/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/madonna/american-life.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/madonna/american-life.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Profusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029202308/http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=1430 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=1430

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]