If you want to leave me a message, you are in the wrong place. All new messages should be directed to User talk:Wikipedian Penguin. For reviving old threads, the same should be done. Thank you.
The Detox_(Dr._Dre_album)#Guests_and_production is getting out of hand IMO. And one could argue the whole article. I'm writing on your talk page instead of the article page because I see that you have experience in creating and reviewing music articles to good status and may be with some help we can make this one do the same.
I think the background section is ok but is starting to spill over into guest and production. And I don't know why there is a singles section when there have been no confirmed tracks.
Let me know what you think and we can start a discussion on what to do on the article's talk page.
The article in its entirety is a mess. I suggest instead of a temporary solution, the whole article, if not most of which, be tidied. There have just been way too many unsourced additions that have snuck in without watchers noticing promptly enough to revert. The background section, I'm regretful to say, needs a lot of cleanup as well. Much of the sources that cite the statements do not pass the WP:RS criteria (SOHH, ThisIs50 and Hiphop-n-more.com, to name a selective few).
The Guests and production, as you say, is the one that is getting out of hand and something needs to be done. Cleaning this article up will be tedious, but must happen. I'm really glad and thankful of your raising this concern. The problem is that I don't know when I can get involved in this project. I've made a brief list of where to start, but this list can be and probably will be revised:
Check thoroughly to make sure citations support the statements. Information that is not supported by sources should either be cited properly or be removed.
Weed out or replace unreliable sources, of which the article has several. Don Mega, Defsounds, Allhiphop, Musicremedy, Nahright and Smartenupnas.com are all in the first 25 or so references.
Information seems to be overlapping between sections. Layout needs to be re-organized.
I 100% agree with you! I'm going to add a todo list to the talk page and get started the best that I can. And this album is never going to happen! ChadH (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said that there is a quote that in your opinion should be paraphrased. Also, listing multiple points about a blockquote doesn't really help. It's what she said, and it works fine. Aaron • You Da One15:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is to say there's nothing wrong with information being repeated over and over, Rihanna saying something is amazing (tell me what context exactly does this add?), and just rambling on about other things that can be said in much fewer words? There are enough Rihanna quotations already. Quotations can be fine if used sparingly (tiny excerpts). This is a bit too much for an article of this size. I don't mind if you use one or two tiny quotations in between while paraphrasing the blockquote, but this is just too much. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]15:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three including that giant quotation that you turned into prose but did not bother to paraphrase in the Reception and ban section. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]15:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not take away from the fact that the block quote in the Release section is not of great quality. I fail to see what's the problem removing or at least trimming it. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]15:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not removing it. It's Rihanna speaking about the collaboration, and enough info about it has been cut as it is. I'll shorten this one as well. Aaron • You Da One15:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to stop confusing quality with quantity. You're still repeating information and have removed a part of the quote that could have served some context. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]16:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my opinion. I tried my best to be brutally honest and at the end, with all arguments considered, it looks neutral to me. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]20:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering: are you listening to her for the first time? This is the voice she's always had and it sounds feminine to me, but bolder. That's her style. I'm not a fan of her, but she's a woman. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]21:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DEATH at his her voice. I can't believe that's a woman's voice. My mom introduced me to her music. And sincerely, it's ear candy to me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I still cannot understand why her voice is like that. 1)It's like a male one. 2)There is something that gives me the impression, it is not natural. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can, but here's the catch: I can get started now, but can't promise when I'll finish, even if it is a few sections. Nevertheless, I'll try. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]19:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you recommend that there be a "Controversy" section in the article talking about the controversy surrounding the lyrics on the album? I am having a hard time deciding if that constitutes NPOV. Thanks! Basilisk4u (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Naming it "Controversy" may not be NPOV, but if this is going under the Reception section, you could name it "Subject matter" or "Lyrical content", etc. It's a good idea though. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]10:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not too many good songs have come out this year (yuck, "Rack City"). I've been listening to some really different music, some of which I almost feel sorry for not placing on my Top Songs of 2011. Here are my jams for the next quarter of 2012:
I agree for #1 and #5. I would even place #5 to #2. But anyway, it's your playlist xD. "Set Fire to the Rain" is my ever favorite song by Adele. Btw, what's happening with the music releases? They stagnate ... — Tomica(talk)19:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This time of year, its common for many artists with albums and material under production. In other words, you can expect new music sometime this fall. Heck, Rihanna releases a new album every fall. I agree, "Princess of China" should be moved higher up, so I did move it from No. 5 to No. 2. Brilliant lyrics and composition. I'm still mad they didn't sing the whole thing at the Grammys: that's why I hate medleys. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm you are probably right. And lol for the movement :)! But I really think you did the right job. The song is simply marvelous, great composition, melody ... also Chris and Rihanna voices mash up really good. I am also mad :@ for the Grammys, plus that version was acoustic. I expected the original one. Anyway, I don't think we should expect a new album from Rihanna this fall, because she said she wants to be a little more in the movies this year, and I think that that decision is right. She released that Talk That Talk should not happen, and be Louder instead ;)!— Tomica(talk)19:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I forgot about Battleship. Lol "Chris and Rihanna" reminds me of... you know... Another song I should have added is "Americano" by Lady Gaga. It's always nice to hear a different style of music, and this is really nice mariachi. It's even in Puss in Boots—I've actually never seen the film, but saw the trailer. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]19:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm, Battleship is actually a closed chapter. I mean everything is ready to be premiered :)! She talked about other film roles. Ahh movie is my passion you know? I really like acting. And yeah I know Chris Martin/Brown :P. About Gaga, I have never heard the song or seen the trailer for Puss, will try to hear/view it ASPS. — Tomica(talk)20:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Regarding the BORN THIS WAY commercial performance, I seriously can't get to understand the reason WHY Time Magazine or Billboard magazine or hundreds of other trusted magazines is not a reliable source. I don't understand.
However, you still edit the page adding the information about how the album dropped like a bomb, according to A PERSONAL OPINION of a journalit. Honestly, I think it is absolutely ridiculous.
The figure (8 million) is NOT a disputed figure. It's been disputed in blogs and forums because of the difference between shipped and sold, like EVERY SINGLE ARTIST in the world. Worldwide sales are NEVER published, all the info we have is the shipments (8 million). Coming from her record company, Time magazine, her manager, Billboard magazine, etc, etc, etc...
I'm going to add the figure again, with a proper source and I ask you to stop removing it without a reason. Otherwise, I will have to report this incident.
Thank you.
Nympho wiki (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I have given a reason. If all the info we have is shipments, then why are we referring to them as actual sales? Yes, thank you for commenting on the matter, but kindly do not restore the information until further discussion. I'm not quite certain what you mean by "report this incident", but if you are going to re-add the info, please at least attribute whom it's coming from. Thank you. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]22:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Born This Way shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The matter is undergoing discussion and was not an edit war: each revert was either to an unexplained edit or a helpful revert to a misguided edit. There was no warring going on here. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}