User talk:Apoxyomenus/Archive 5

Album sales

Hi I would like you to provide where it states “Wikipedia's de facto usage of sources with sales available/certifications (gaps) vs claimed sales”. Referring to your edit summary here [1] because you just stating it without providing the rule doesn’t help at all for me to actually read/review over it. Thanks. Pillowdelight (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillowdelight:,

(1) List of best-selling albums or List of best-selling music artists have implemented a system of having a certain amount of certifications vs "claimed sales" (gap) to have included both artists or albums. It has been generally accepted by Wikipedia's music community by de facto, and same treatment is applying to virtually all-individual albums and artists in regards sales.

(2) This is also to avoid "inflated sales", an industry practice by fans or media outlets. I can add sometimes claimed sales for several examples have been actually taken from Wikipedia, producing circular reporting (even by "reliable sources") when its original addition was through a poor source or without providing one and wasn't never reverted in extreme cases generating a woozle effect. At the end, doesn't matter at some point how a reliable source have claimed sales for a specific title/individual, if the gap is "outlier". Is not also a matter to put the "highest available claimed sales"; more mainstream titles have seen this, such as Thriller and many others.

(3) With the cited album, a 2006 record, it has less than 7 million available sales. Adding the claim of 12 million, is almost doubling the sales. Contemporary releases such as The Emancipation of Mimi or Confessions on a Dance Floor both from 2005, have even more available sales/certifications than Furtado's record. And I can assure you, at least the latter album have sources claiming sales up to 12 million or more, but again, is applied the same treatment. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, thank you for clarifying. Was a bit confused is all. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillowdelight: Fine. Not a problem at all. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, good evening Apoxyomenus, sorry for that mistake, I hadn't noticed the deletion. Thank you very much for reversing it. :D AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexanderShakifan29: Sure, not a problem. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MDNA Good Topic!

Hola! Hi there! Thank you so much for mixing the mistakes/comments left on the MDNA good topic nomination; feel free to correct them all! Thanks again!--Christian (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrishm21: For sure. No problem with me having fixed stuff in the reviews while you didn't have enough time; we are part of the same WikiProject and its supposed to be a collaborative project. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Impact of Shakira Wikipedia Spanish

Good evening Apoxyomenus, given that the singer Shakira has a whole page of very extensive and well-supported Cultural Impact. Could it be that I could ever make a page like this in the Spanish wikipedia? AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AlexanderShakifan29:. I could suggest you ask for a peer review. There is a lot of work to do in the English version. As we can see some Richard3120's summaries on April, many sections have simply "Shakira's opinion on a topic, without any indication of that it has resulted in a cultural impact, changed public opinion, or resulted in a law change" and in general, doesn't suggest an impact on popular and modern culture. There exits sources of poor quality or questionable. You should work in the verbiage and wording parts. Add more scholarly sources among other things. I would like to suggest you focus to fix these problems first, that is kind of WP:NOW. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller RfC

Hi. Do you know where can I find the Thriller RfC made not long ago?--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Markus WikiEditor: I don't remember at the moment a recent RfC, unless the discussion about sales changes to 70 million few months ago. And now, they try to jump to 100 million. Most supporter users in that RfC, usually promotes the idea in multiple related sales discussion on Wikipedia, about increase Michael or Janet Jackson sales or decrease others sales' artists such as Madonna, for example. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a recent one. How strange, I saw a RfC about Thriller's sales but I don't remember where, I found a very old Talk thread link but not the RfC.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Markus WikiEditor: Don't still remember tbh. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Influence of Madonna with sexuality

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://e-libra.net/read/588953-piecework.html, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solved. Thanks. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A favor

Hi Apoxyomenus, since you're a master in finding sources and academic material. Would you like to help expanding Madonna (name). I see a huge potential for expansion, regarding the name origin, usage, controversial association with the singer, popularity among newborn babies, etc etc. It could help us understanding the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC regarding the name itself. Much regards. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, thank you so much. I'll try to implement these to the article. Cheers Bluesatellite (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluesatellite Please service to use the sources with an old archived version of this page. As you have worked in her awards list, perhaps you're may be interested in reviewing new additions. I'm wondering, as I've a goal to trim the Cultural impact of Madonna, and perhaps work in other contemporary attitudes with her from a popular/academic perspective in their respective articles with their own Wikipedia:UNDUE, in my eyes we should have an specific template visible for all of these articles (legacy/influence)... Like Template:The Beatles history or something similar. Here is a draft. There is a lot of works to done, but start an article from 0 is the harder part, so wording parts can be working later. What do you think?. I'm seeking for a second opinion. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the award list, I always believe it should be all about "awards" or "trophies", so in my humble opinion, listicles don't belong there (it fits better as "achievements", rather than awards). But I'll give my input there later, ofc when I have enough time (and mood) haha. About the legacy thing, I'd say go ahead. But on a side note, I think this so-called legacy is kinda getting overrated here in Wikipedia. Every other fanatics tend to mention "impact" in every possible corner. :p Bluesatellite (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluesatellite Sure, not a problem. Take your time. Speaking of word "legacy" perhaps, its necessary re-verify article's titles but at least with Madonna, many sources have commonly used those terms with her long time ago. I know that many of these words are overused in Wikipedia when is not actually applicable, mainly in music/popular culture. This can be compared to other fad which is maintaining sub-sections of "Commercial reception" by markets. Some titles like 21 or "Despacito" are an exception. But overall, I feel this is part because the external 24/7 online cycle of information, when users later putting it in Wikipedia with similar results like: "[the album/single attained] the best position since 2 years ago" or very similar useless data :p (WP:CHARTTRAJ). Nevertheless, many older titles can have similar presentation of info, thanks to print sources found in Google Books/WorldRadioHistory but once again, I feel is failing with WP:CHARTTRAJ; at least if doesn't represent decennial/historical/long-lasting feats. But I also guess its depends of each point of view. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved some of the articles you created, if you don't mind tho. By the way, I think "women's right and feminism" is a more central to Madonna's overal career (rather than contemporary arts) especially because her image is all about "strong" and "independent" woman. Have you plan to work on that topic for a standalone article, yet? :p Bluesatellite (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluesatellite Thanks. They look fine. The previous one, were the first that come to my mind. Regarding feminism, yes, I'm working in that area. Here is the draft. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks nice. Also these are some of the ideas for content to be trimmed out of Cultural impact of Madonna:

Political views and activism of Rage Against the Machine --> Political views and activism of Madonna (some of her tours article have parts of it)
Religious views of Adolf Hitler --> Religious views of Madonna (her relationship with the Pope, dedication to Kabalah, her "blasphemous" works)

As of Madonna economy, I don't really get the "core" point of the article to be honest. Wouldn't it be more useful if it's merged with an article about Entrepreneurship of Madonna? (as she's often cited as an example in branding/business studies). Bluesatellite (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluesatellite Thanks. For sure, here is the draft of her activism article (and it can be incorporated her political views) and here is the draft for the religious views (also here). The cultural impact needs to be trimmed, and here is the draft, but it can takes months because in creating these (and perhaps others) articles. Madonna economy can be merged at this moment with the cultural impact, tho. Just to let you know, here are some draft of other potential articles: life/personal life, image/health/or appearance. All of these types of articles have existed categories in Wikipedia with other individuals.

In regards entrepreneurship if exists, do you think is a good idea merge this type of information? All things related to "commercial" accomplishments, including also the section in her records and feats. I'm currently expanding Madonna as a gay icon, so in the next days, I'll work in one of the drafts above. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, didn't know you have so much in the table. Good luck with all the work! As for Entrepreneurship of Madonna, yes it is and the starting point is Madonna#Financial_acumen. I always believe that "List of..." article is purely about list (and with some commentary on the Lead section, obviously), so all the detail analysis should be put somewhere else. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fortunately, I know her literature a bit, and I've particular interest in topics beyond the music, and she precisely have crossed those boundaries in academia. Regarding the section in the records, I know it is a list, but exceptions may apply. Other lists have content, and I don't think are necessarily something to avoid. But speaking about a future article of her entrepreneurship it should be merged there. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]