User talk:Woknam66/Archive

Hi, this is my archive page. I periodically move discussions here from my talk page. They are in alphabetical order. This page is mostly for me, so I can easily look over past discussions, and some of what's on here was actually originally posted elsewhere.

'Average of each film' rank, of the "Transformer film series"

Hi, I saw that you changed the 'Highest-grossing' and 'Average of each film' ranks of the "Transformers film series". The change you made in the 'Highest-grossing' rank, is absolutely correct, no doubt about that. However I am wondering whether the other one is correct or not. The thing is that, the 'Average of each film' rank, of the "Transformer film series" becomes #6, if you include the '1986 animated film' in it as well. But I think this particular article talks about just the "(Live) Transformer films", and so it won't include the animated film. So I believe keeping the average rank as #3 would be correct. However this is just my opinion. If you have a different opinion, please share. Thanks. Namanbapna (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you that only live-action movies should be included, and in fact there was a discussion on how to decide which movies to include. But if you don't want to include the the old Transformers animated film, then you also can't include the old Lord of the Rings animated film, which gives the Lord of the Rings franchise the highest average, pushing Transformers down to fourth. I'm fine with you basing the ranking without including the Transformers animated film, but I think we should change it to fourth highest in terms of average grossing film franchises. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. In that case Transformers will become #4. Therefore I have changed the its rank. Also, as you pointed out, I have added the information (on the article) that the "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy", is #1 when averaged. Please check it and let me know, if its fine or not. Thank you and if you have more opinions, please share them at the talk page. Namanbapna (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee Roth

On Jamcad01's talk page:

It doesn't look like he's playing guitar here. I mean, if he actually does play acoustic guitar live, I'm fine with adding it, but do you actually have any proof? Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page

It's only on the song "Ice Cream Man." I do actually have proof. In the game "Guitar Hero Van Halen" On the song facts in Ice Cream Man it says that he played the Acoustic Guitar both live and in the studio. This is reliable information as Van Halen helped create the game and probably asked them to put it in the song facts. Jamcad01 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just listened to "Ice Cream Man", and I can hear a second guitar, so i guess it's okay to keep that on the page, but I think it should look like this:

Current members

David Lee Roth – lead vocals, acoustic guitar (occasionally) (1974–1985, 1996, 2000–2001, 2006–present)
Eddie Van Halen – lead and rhythm guitar, keyboards, backing vocals (1971–present)
Wolfgang Van Halen – bass, backing vocals (2006–present)
Alex Van Halen – drums, percussion (1971–present)

Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 03:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Guns

On my talk page

It should be noted that social networking sites (such as Facebook, Myspace, etc.) are not reliable sources. The section of their official website does not state that they have left and that page can change at any point. Try and find reliable third-party sources before making changes. Also, source the changes in the article body here:

L.A. Guns - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

- HrZ (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what is your problem? Rock&RollSuicide, 97.116.132.63, 70.180.177.92, and I are all against you. Just you. You are the only one who doesn't think the page needs to be changed. You are outnumbered four-to-one, and the official website is also against you. All you have to do is look at Google's archive of the page to see that it used to list Jeremy and Chad, but that it doesn't anymore. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 16:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how may people are "against me," that's not how Wikipedia works. User:Rock&RollSuicide has been blocked also and while anonymous IPs may not know the guidelines. My problem is, that for each of these changes, either a social networking site was used or the website. Again, the section you citied of their website can change at any point and is unreliable. I have no problem with the article being changed, so don't make that assumption. Read my comments, per wikiguidelines, find a reliable third-party source, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, then make the changes. Until then, unsourced changes will be reverted, regardless of how many make them. HrZ (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On HrZ's talk page

So, we've recently been having a back-and-forth about Chad Stewart and Jeremy Guns leaving the Tracii Guns lineup of L.A. Guns. You don't like my sources, but I think we should change it anyways. While I happen to completely disagree with you, I understand your reasoning, and I think I have found a solution that should make us both happy. You originally said "Social networking sites are not reliable sources. Please find a reliable third-party source for the changes." However, according to WP:SOCIALMEDIA, "...pages on social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook should only be used to support personal information about subjects—in articles about those subjects—if the page is confirmed by another source, such as the subject's website, as belonging to the subject. When such authentication is not possible, pages on social networking sites should not be used." So if you can confirm that a Facebook account is a person's official account, then it can be considered a reliable source. On Tracii Guns's official website, it links to his official Facebook page. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this means that the Facebook page can be considered a reliable source for the change. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page

That would work, however I'm concerned about this line "in articles about those subjects—if the page is confirmed by another source, such as the subject's website, as belonging to the subject." It's just a small matter, the website and facebook are Tracii's but the subject is about L.A. Guns, not Tracii Guns - though this on the website does links to both facebook pages. Problem is it states that Danny Nordhal and Stewart are members on the L.A. Guns facebook page. Is there a link to a post (on either fb page) about neither being a member? This could indeed solve this issue! HrZ (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of. It doesn't specifically say that they're no longer members of the band, but it says L.A. Guns had them "on loan from Taime for awhile" and "now we have to get our own rhythm section." Which implies that that they aren't members any more. Part of me kind of wants to wait for an official press release, but since L.A. Guns isn't exactly the most popular band any more, and since the most recent update on the news section of their website is from "Wednesday, August 11, 2010", I doubt there will ever be an official press release. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 16:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, usually Blabbermouth.net covers both lineups pretty well. Perhaps if we submitted this news they could check it and post about it? I know that this could work, I emailed previously when Terry Date began working with Loaded on their new album, and the only sources available were facebook posts. A day or two later, they posted a news item about it. If that works then we would have better and probably more informative source about the lineup. Because as you said, that post is not specific enough. What do you think? HrZ (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good to me. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that Tracii often responds to posts on his Facebook page, so I asked him to post something about the recent line-up change of the official LA Guns website.

He did it. It's on the news page. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He could have been a bit more informative, changes made though. HrZ (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the L.A. Guns band members page. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 21:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Eye Blind Timeline

Regarding Jon Evans. While he did play on the album, that does not necessarily make him a member of the band. Lots of bands have studio musicians that help with an album, and while they certainly contribute, they're not called "band members". However, your chart is under the heading of "band members", thus creating the problem. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I think it would make more sense to change the section name than to remove information. Right now, based on the timeline alone, it looks like nobody played bass for Ursa Major. Maybe we should create a new color (like a light purple) for people who were only session musicians. Then it would look something like this:

Timeline

I also think we should move this discussion to the Third Eye Blind talk page, so that we might get other people's opinions. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 04:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]