User talk:The helper5667/sandbox

This is a subpage of The helper5667's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

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

We should merge the album page into the band page

It fits my filing cabinet more, better than AC/DC --The helper5667 (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does the linking go

For whatever reason, the text file is linked in the song list but not in the body. why? The helper5667 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed. The helper5667 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section needs a lot of work.

The reviews are only cited. Reading them, it seems off and does not accurately explain the book's reception. It needs imedeateb attention. --The helper5667 (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are a lot of reviews cited, i can't accurately explain the reception. I tihnk the current form is alright though. The helper5667 (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the list

PLease can we agree not to include any of this fool's lists. They're not free and they insult his SKILL. --The helper5667 (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. He's publishing a new book in august and we can't put the contents of it on here because it will take away people's urge to buy it. I study economics and know. At least having samples in this case should work. The helper5667 (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Confucuis not in the top 10

He should be.The helper5667 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a fourm to discuss the list. If you dsagree take it to the publisher on the list, not here. The helper5667 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys i got some important info about copyright.

The man said this: It's alright, i don't care about the list so you can post the whole list on this article, I don't care and don't get woried of copyright. From cal The link:https://www.google.com/search?q=K-On!&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiv9LTz1Zb1AhVJAjQIHTI7BDsQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=K-On!&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIHCCMQ7wMQJzIHCCMQ7wMQJzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQ1AAWABglgpoAHAAeACAAaICiAGiApIBAzItMZgBAKoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=EX7TYe-nOcmE0PEPsvaQ2AM&rlz=1CAUSZT_enUS964 --The helper5667 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wowsa. Ok let's change the whole list now, that's pretty fuckin upsetting ok The helper5667 (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "full list" link

I'm wondering if we should keep or remove it. I'd say we should remove it. --The helper5667 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree without objections. The helper5667 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i'll remove it The helper5667 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a novel

The article on novel says: A novel is a relatively long work of narrative fiction, typically written in prose and published as a book. The present English word for a long work of prose fiction derives from the Italian: novella for "new", "news", or "short story of something new", itself from the Latin: novella, a singular noun use of the neuter plural of novellus, diminutive of novus, meaning "new".[1] Some novelists, including Nathaniel Hawthorne,[2] Herman Melville,[3] Ann Radcliffe,[4] John Cowper Powys,[5] preferred the term "romance" to describe their novels. Does a book that is mainly a list count as a novel? --The helper5667 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources (including every review cited in the reception section) consider it a novel. Therefore, it is one. The helper5667 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Mani

We need this list to have 100 entries. The problem is the person we're trying to add is Mani (prophet) but i can't be sure how to list him as we can't have the (prophet) part in it so... --The helper5667 (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think listing him as Manichaeus might be the best option. The helper5667 (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Moses

I doubt that any real human could've lived 120 years. Probably not genuine. --The helper5667 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says circa because though he may not have lived 120 years, we'll never know. The dates shown for him are the ones most often used, and they say circa just in case they're not accurate. The helper5667 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Menes

There are two things i'm asking with him. First, should he be listed as Menes or Narmer given that they were probably the same person according to Narmer's article. I think we can keep it the same. My main concern though is with his birth and death date. These are only the years of his reign. Can we find a better aproximation of his birth year. --The helper5667 (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to look online but the likely reason the birthdates for Menes are that they are is because no estimate birth dates exist for him. So the closest thing we can use is just the years he reigned. Believe me i tried. Now that you mention it though, i am thinking we should change it to Narmer. Not sure though. I'll talk more about it later. The helper5667 (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended changes to the list.

Hi i'd like to propose some changes to this list. If we're gonna keep this at 100, there's three people i'd like to add and thus three people i'd like to remove.

Mikhail Gorbachev

Add. His policies and actions were a major factor in the end of the cold war, the decline of communism, and the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Ernest Rutherford

Add. Rutherford was one of the most celebrated scientists of the 20th century. Not sure why this list just completely ignores him.

Henri Becquerel

Remove. Not as influential on modern science than Rutherford. If we have to remove three entries, he seems like one that we could live without.

Niels Bohr

Remove. Same story as Becquerel.

Henry Ford

Add. Was previously a contender to be included but he didn't make the cut. I don't know how though. Was hugely important.

Pablo Picasso

Remove. A bit tough given he was such a great painter. But if we have to let go of three entires, he seems like one we mgiht want to choose.

I'll be open to feedback. --The helper5667 (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support all of these changes. The helper5667 (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The real Shakesphere.

Seems like this list is just following the crowd in thinking that Shakesphere was the man who wrote Hamlet and those other great plays. But after doing research. I've concluded that it was not Shakesphere, but instead Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. For this reason he should be on the list instead. --The helper5667 (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough The helper5667 (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Changed my mind actually. Even if it seems more likely that he was the real Shakesphere, we should probably keep it as Shakesphere per WP:COMMONNAME. --The helper5667 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Runner ups (people who could make it on the list if expanded)

If we're trying to keep this list to 100 entries, we have to make some hard cuts. There's about 100 people that we could add to this list. These are the closest to making it on the list:

St. Thomas Aquinas

Archimedes

Charles Babbage

Cheops

Marie Curie

Benjamin Franklin

Mohandas Gandhi

Abraham Lincoln

Ferdinand Magellan

Leonardo da Vinci

The format

I'm fine with how the list looks. However, we're VERY early with adding it. I view that by the time we're done adding the list, there's going to be some technical issues. Because of this, i'm proposing to remove the image section of the list. We could potentially have images, but as it's own seperate gallery or on the sides and only using select ones. --The helper5667 (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, i completely agree. I think that it will be a nightmare to add the rest of the list if done in this format. I personally think that for the whole list it should be one table but that's a completely seperate matter. The helper5667 (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US Marine Band pic

I recently saw the image on "Recordings for the Columbia Phonograph Company" be changed from United States Marine Band at the White House.jpg to U.S. Marine band sextette LOC hec.14777.jpg. I would like to list this here so we can obtain consensus on which one to use. I for the record think that United States Marine Band at the White House.jpg looks better and more vibrant, despite not being as true to life with the music. --The helper5667 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I one hundred percent agree. There are other pohotos on this list that could be changed to a more conteporary one like the Bristol sessions pic of the one for Downhearted Blues but those haven't been changed because the one's currently being used are the best options. The helper5667 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Is there any reason why the soundtrack in Walt Disney's Fantasia is capitalized but it's sentance case for Super Mario Bros. --The helper5667 (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed. The helper5667 (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the format

After adding 100 titles i've gotta say. I like the images, but i'm concerned that they're going to take away from the focus of the artc\icle, the list of recordings. They also make the lists that already take long to add take even longer. Therefore, i'm completely proposing we remove the images. --The helper5667 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely with you. The helper5667 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2007 list

When are they gonna announce the 2007 registry. The helper5667 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They just announced it. I added it. The helper5667 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More referrences

Just recently, a tag was put up saying "This article needs additional citations for verification" but no one has came up to discuss this. The helper5667 (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I think it should be removed. In truth all that would really need to be cited is info that is essential to cite like the classes of certain years or the notes. Given all 225 entries across 5 classes plus the notes that are all cited, i don't think this is much of an issue. The helper5667 (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there beer

I didn't go on Wikipedia to look up Beer. I came here to look up info the on the National Recording Registry for my school project. WHY IS THERE BEER (again). The helper5667 (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there deer

I didn't go on Wikipedia to look up Deer. I came here to look up info the on the National Recording Registry for my school project. WHY IS THERE DEER (again). The helper5667 (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there beer (again)

I didn't go on Wikipedia to look up Beer. I came here to look up info the on the National Recording Registry for my school project. WHY IS THERE BEER (yet-a-fucking-gain). The helper5667 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FL review desperately needed

This was promoted before the 2005 selections got added. When it was promoted, it was in alright shape. However it has been reformatted with addtional (sometimes poorly sourced) notes. It definitely should be reviewed. The helper5667 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This page has also been vandalised quite a bit recently. Between the vandalism and clumsly list, this should be reviewed. The helper5667 (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list review

I am putting this list for review due to the poor formatting and poor referencing. The helper5667 (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What "poor referencing" are you referring to? The helper5667 (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two notes that are sourced to pages that contradict the statements they are referencong. The helper5667 (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References for discussion

All of these i am doubtful of their accuracy or reliability:

Firstly, i think all of these references should be removed considering it's basically citing a fanzine:

"The NRR Project #2: The first recording of a live performance"

"The NRR Project #19: 'Casey at the Bat' (1906)"

"The NRR Project #22: Caruso sings 'Vesti la giubba'"

"The NRR Project #20: Booker T. Washington's 'Atlanta Compromise' Speech"

"The NRR Project #26: 'Swing Low, Sweet Chariot'"

"The NRR Project #50: Original country: 'Arkansas Traveler'/'Sallie Gooden'"

"The NRR Project #54: Bessie Smith's blues revolution"

"National Recording Registry Project: 'Rhapsody in Blue'"

"The NRR Project: Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives and Hot Sevens"

"The NRR Project #7: 'The Lord's Prayer'/'Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star'"

"The NRR Project #52: The first laugh track; or, why is comedy funny?"

"The NRR Project #59: Wilson's bitter Armistice Day speech"

"NRR Project: 'Adeste Fideles'"

"The NRR Project #28: 'Some of These Days'"

"The NRR Project #41: 'Over There'"

"The NRR Project #46: 'Swanee,' Jolson, and the problem of blackface"

"National Recording Registry Project: Ma Rainey and 'See See Rider'"

"The NRR Project: 'Blue Yodel'"

"The NRR Project #25: 'Take Me Out to the Ball Game'"

"The NRR Project #45: 'Crazy Blues' (1920)"

"The NRR Project #48: William Jennings Bryan's 'Cross of Gold' speech"

"NRR Project: The first transatlantic radio broadcast"

"The NRR Project #42: Early Heifetz recordings"

"NRR Project: 'Black Bottom Stomp'"

"The NRR Project #9: George W. Johnson's 'The Laughing Song'"

"National Recording Registry Project: The National Defense Test"

I am also doubtful of how useful these references are:

Duke Ellington Biography | The Life and Music of Duke Ellington

Scott Joplin Biography | Father of Ragtime Music

Billy Murray | The Biggest Star of the Phonograph Era

George W. Johnson- The First African American Recording Star

The helper5667 (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FLRC. Now that you mention it, there are far too many references. And if we remove, the "refimprove" tag could be readded. The helper5667 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FLRC section

Keep. All of these references got removed. All info seems reliably sourced. The helper5667 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks very good in it's current state. Any other problems are more subjective and could be discussed on the page. The helper5667 (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks like this article has been kept. The helper5667 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok about the format

I think we should change it back to the original format, in which the years were seperated into their own tables. The helper5667 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The helper5667 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Why does this always happen to me (Because) 03:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In need of a featured list review

This was promoted to FL status when the 2004 inductees were announced and was last reviewed by the time the 2007 inductees were announced but was kept. While for a while this article was in great shape, recently tons of references got deleted. Now, there are more than five dead references (one of which is tagged). So right now, it can not be a featured list. The helper5667 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is salvagable, the references need fixing but i could find references for them. Otherwise this article would be pretty much unchanged. The helper5667 (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a day since you said this and no progress has occurred. The helper5667 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]