User talk:PEJL

If I have started a conversation on your user talk page, I will be watching that page for a while, so feel free to respond there instead of here, to keep the conversation in one place.

Welcome!

Hello, PEJL, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Hyacinth 04:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please see Talk:Naïve (The Kooks song) before reverting any further edits regarding the song name. The page will shortly be moved, as there is no verifiable evidence of the umlaut being needed. Indeed, there is lots of evidence that the umlaut is erronerous, and therefore should be altered. Please do not violate WP:3RR by reverting again. DJR (Talk) 23:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed up at the above mentioned talk page. --PEJL 23:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove talk page comments from other users. This can be considered vandalism and repeated talk page blanking can result in a block. Thanks. --Madchester 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no harm, I simply thought the old comments were irrelevant since the issue was resolved. I see now that policy is to not do so, and will comply. --PEJL 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got better things to do than to argue with you, but that is not the way the tracks are written on the album. --Blahm 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the standard way to format track names on Wikipedia is to use normal English title capitalization rules (for English language track names). See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Style and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music#General. --PEJL 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! --Mark ^(Talk) 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Summary2-response-will-do-my-best}}. Hmm, no such template... ;-) --PEJL 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering why it was that you removed the section on Escondida about the strike there. Maybe the phrasing wasn't the best, but it was properly sourced and, I feel, encyclopedic. If such an important mine has a large strike, making international news, I believe that information should be included. --Estrellador* 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section was within a HTML comment and as such wasn't visible in the article. I have no preference for whether it should be in the article or not, but having it commented-out seemed pointless, and was throwing off the layout of the page. --PEJL 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I didn't comment it out; it was another user, who lacks other edits. Odd. Anyway, cheers for the response. --Estrellador* 16:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes you are correct about the English rules of spelling and how to correctly add capitals to words, and so on and so forth. But, if you read on, it also says that the English rules do not apply (all the time) to titles that are unique and that may require the capitals. It makes things more confusing when the album titles are not the same as Wikipedia has them. It's much easier to read and understand the letter for letter spelling of the Modest Mouse albums. Take The Beatles albums for example, all are spelled the way they were intended, not by the English rules of capitalization. I hope we can come to an agreement on this. Hucz 06:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This was in response to a note I left on User talk:Hucz.) I will follow up on your user talk page. Please keep further discussion on this topic there, to make it easier to follow. Thanks. --PEJL 06:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my message? Well, to save you time all it really says is what albums you were going to move back, but seeing that you're already doing that, I'll leave it at that. Just one question. Does the title within the article have to have the English capitalization rules? Or can they just stay as they are? Hucz 04:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed it until now. Like I said at your talk page, I believe they should be consistent. --PEJL 04:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, it's settled. Hucz 05:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! BTW, Ocean Breathes Salty looks nice. --PEJL 05:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, and cheers mate. Hucz 05:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about precendent, but there has been a long established consensus that EPs are part of the singles chronology, not albums, at least in the case of Arctic Monkeys. DJR (T) 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This was in response to a note I left on User talk:Djr xi.) I will follow up on your user talk page. Please keep further discussion on this topic there, to make it easier to follow. Thanks. --PEJL 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I'm having some difficulty trying to insert these so called "dashes" into a track listing. They look kind of like longer hyphens, and here's an example on Modest Mouse's album, This Is a Long Drive for Someone with Nothing to Think About. If you take a look at the text in the "edit this page" box, and you compare it to the one I'm trying to mimic on Blue Cadet-3, Do You Connect?, maybe you can find a mistake I'm doing. Your help would be much appreciated. Hucz 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings should use so-called "en dashes". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)#Dashes on keyboards for how to enter those. Alternatively, use can use the first character linked after "Insert:" in the list of characters below the editable text area. Hope this helps. --PEJL 05:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, you're a big help. Hucz 05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate, I didn't realise that I'd said I was an advanced HTML user, nonetheless, I know what you're saying. i have some coding habits that're probably not the best, but they're there anyway, so I'm fine with the adjustments. I do understand the concept of consistency across WP and agree that much of it can be, but there are times where exceptions can be made (my reasoning behind this is that we have access to use CSS and HTML, so why not use them?) where it makes it somewhat more visually appealing. I don't claim to be the best designer here on Wikipedia, but some people don't mind what i do (I updated the design on the template for Template:Studio60 (talk · links · edit) which another user then adopted the design to be the same for the OC: Template:OCnavigation (talk · links · edit). Anyway, you're doing a lot of good stuff around the John Mayer pages, in stark contrast to the majority of the people who just throw random crap in there (which I usually try to keep at bay, amongst all the other pages I suss out). Thanks for that. I'll try to work in harmony with you in there, though.
--linca^linca 06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Did you see the Template:Singles (talk · links · edit) I included on the JM Album pages? I made that template the other day. What do you think? --linca^linca 06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I've followed up at User talk:Lincalinca.) --PEJL 07:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the design was something accepted, but I accepted that the acticle didn't meet WP:ALBUMS in that it didn't have quotation marks around the song titles and such (which I've re-included on my most recent edit, to maintain that the article does keep with the appropriate guidelines). --linca^linca 04:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. Stylistically, it doesn't need to change, but I now see what you mean otherwise. Go ahead. --linca^linca 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware of that, and personally, I'm not pleased that I can't find any discussion condemning it's use. So I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Again, thanks for the note. Keep up the good work. -- Reaper X 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I felt that my edits to U2 albums were fairly legitimate - the link that each leads to is a list of U2 albums by some random, with about 2 or 3 sentences written on each. It's like me setting up a blog on U2 and then linking to it. I feel that reviews should come from sources such as Rolling Stone. I realise that by not putting edit summaries on each page I have complicated the issue, but I really feel these 'reviews' should be removed. Willnz0 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Christgau is hardly "some random". I suggest you read up on him before making such judgments. As far as whether his reviews qualify as professional reviews as per WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews, I'll note that in my sample of Wikipedia album articles there are 1284 reviews by All Music Guide, 521 by Rolling Stone, 445 by Pitchfork and 347 by Robert Christgau, followed by 203 less commonly used review sources. --PEJL 07:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been brought up at Talk:U2. Let's follow up there. --PEJL 07:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the "limited Dutch edition" to "limited Dutch bonus CD" on the Mind, Body & Soul article, is it okay like this? As for the editions which have bonus tracks only, I don't find it necessary to include "bonus track(s)" to their headings. Funk Junkie 00:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I didn't realize! Thanks for the heads up!Karpsmöm 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I can't recall editing Pearl Jam (album) at all; I was editing Ten. Second, I've read and understand the Manual of Style, thanks. Third, hardly any, if any at all, of the quality album article (i.e., any Featured or Good article) use subheadings in the Track listing(s) or Credits sections. (Sample: see the track listing section of Love. Angel. Music. Baby. or the credits section of Adore or Doolittle .) I know what I'm doing, and I've greatly improved the article; hopefully, with work and clean-up, this could be made a GA, or even a FA later on. But please stop being so stubborn. --Brandt Luke Zorn 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've reverted it again. Just as a notice, we're both getting dangerously close to breaking the three-revert rule - even though we haven't technically "reverted" so to speak by saving a past version of the page, it would still probably be counted as an edit war in this case. We each have one legal revert left today, but I'm really hoping that we can settle this without it coming to that. --Brandt Luke Zorn 22:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was in response to this message. I followed up on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there, to keep the conversation in one place. --PEJL 23:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm responding here purely because -5- is continuing the discussion on your talk page.) Is there a single example of a featured/A class/good album articles with track listing subsections? I haven't seen any. I'm just trying to improve the article to GA class, and to me this part of the clean-up seems fairly minor. Also, for the record, nowhere on the policy you continually cite mentions anything regarding subsections vs. bolding - it does mention that sections (with two =s) should be used in place of bolding, but not subsections. Besides, a few extra tracks hardly warrant subsections - even the bolding could be replaced with an unbolded labeling. I really don't think that there should be any divisions at all for a credits section, and instead it should just be one uninterrupted list. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many of the other hundreds or thousands of album articles that use subheaders (mostly for track listings, fewer for credits sections) that are FA/A/GA I don't have any statistics for, but I don't think that is relevant anyway. As I said, "quality" album articles aren't necessarily better formatted than other album articles. (I just checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured Albums Project, and all of the first ten or so albums that I checked used subheaders in the track listing section.) As for what WP:MOSHEAD#Markup states, within the section #Markup there is a subsection #Nesting. That subsection explains how the nesting works, and implies that the text about not using bold text applies to all header levels (using different terminology than I'm using: "heading" "primary heading", "sub-heading"). I also think you are missing the point if you think it's about using bold or plain text. The problem isn't that the text is bold, it's that it looks and acts like a subheader but isn't really a subheader. Subheaders should be used, for the reasons listed in #Markup. Editors like us may disagree with this policy (which you obviously do), but we should abide by it, or try to change the policy (which I think will be difficult in this case). Getting more specific, like you I think subsections in credits sections are not needed, and can instead be a single list of credits. I do however think subsections should be used in track listings for different editions and the like. --PEJL 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you win. We'll have subsections in the track listings section and just a list at the Credits section. To be honest, it isn't that big a deal and I think I overreacted a little. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm glad we could work this out. --PEJL 01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying just to make all of the Pearl Jam album pages consistant. I'm a little confused based on what the Maunal of Style says and what Brandt Luke Zorn is saying. What should I do? Thanks.-5- 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was in response to this message. I followed up on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there, to keep the conversation in one place. --PEJL 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with you, and I would change them back, but I don't know what Brandt Luke Zorn is going to say about changing the Ten page. Thanks.-5- 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Amerika (album), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Kaspers Orkester and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Kaos (album), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Kaspers Orkester and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed the – to a literal text character. I realize that I originally used — which was incorrect, but I changed it to – before your edit. Using the text dashes is error-prone; anyone who edits via the browser can't see any difference between the en dash and a hyphen, and for that reason, I think – should be used. I am not going to edit-war with you, though, so I figured I'd try to convince you here. — John Cardinal 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there, to keep the conversation in one place. --PEJL 20:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond here. The WP:ALBUMS project says this about &ndash: "You can also add it by writing – HTML entity to the edit box ... but this makes the code less readable." While that is not a glittering endorsement of –, it says it's fine to use it. Meanwhile, your edit history suggests you are on a personal crusade to eliminate the – entity, and far be it from me to get in your way. John Cardinal 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been changing entities to literal characters because I've had no reason to think that editors would enter entities for any reason other than that they found entering the literal character to be too difficult, because no argument in favor of the entity has been made. It may be a great argument, and I suggest you make it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, to possibly get the guideline changed. --PEJL 10:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PEJL... what does that stand for anyway? Anyway, I've updated the robert crist--thingy rating template to be a bit more graphical. Let me know what you think. Revert if you hate it. --linca^linca 06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 10:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I've responded on my talk page. --linca^linca 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your revert of my change on Another Day on Earth album chronology. There are compilation albums on other album chronologies – check out The Beatles 1962-1966 and many following; also Zappa's Strictly Commercial is included in his album chronology. Will these be reverted too?

Also, even granting Curiosities Volume 2 should not be included in Eno's chronology, the previous album on Another Day on Earth should probably be January 07003-Bell Studies. Reverting isn't worth much if it just goes back to a different wrong entry. --Register allocation 02:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up on your user talk page. --PEJL 09:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a sockpuppetry case for Rumitoid (talk · contribs · logs), formerly OneLove1977 (talk · contribs · logs), of the Black Sabbath credits revert war. If you have anything to contribute, here's the page: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SEGA / edgarde 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yep, I was aware of the Professional Reviews section on the project page. I note that the wording is in the form of a suggestion than a directive ("you can", not "you should/must/etc") and reiterate as per my edit summary that these one-word interpretations of a review are subjective, and best not employed for that reason. I'm all for including straightforward ratings that appear in the review like stars, etc, but don't see a need to reduce things to one word if the reviewer/publication doesn't. The point is that these reviews are online and can be accessed by readers who can make up their own minds (in case you're wondering, yes, I did bring this up on the project talk page a while back, recommending we remove it from the main page, and some discussion resulted before it got lost amidst other stuff and I didn't pursue it - however I may do again). The date part I'm not so fussed about though I'd again point out that using it as a link prevents wikifying it for user preferences, which is also not a good thing. For those reasons I think the line really should go back to how it was but let's discuss - perhaps moving to the project talk page - rather than just revert... Cheers, Ian Rose 17:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there to keep the discussion in one place, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. --PEJL 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just speedy tagged Various, but I notice that you've actually edited it recently. Just a heads-up in case you think it's a keeper. AndyJones 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for moving the Phil Ochs album. I've been meaning to do that and set up a disambiguation page, especially when I saw how many articles there are called "The Early Years". Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All yours. :-) — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PEJL, I noticed that you removed the band logo from the Kent (band) page. I don't quite understand in your edit summary what the problem was with the logo. Lots of band and artist articles have a logo in the template, just look at Iron Maiden, Kiss, Enya or Metallica. In the case of Kent there is even talk about the logo in the very beginning of the article, making it a valuable addition. Jake73 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing the external link to All Music Guide in Californication (album)? It's not a duplicate. Kamryn Matika 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my (partial) reversion on Doolittle (album) :) On reflection, I see what you mean. CloudNine 13:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you reverted the edits I made to the infobox in Pop (album). I was unaware that EPs aren't to be included, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. However, I am curious as to why all the other U2 EPs, compilations, and live albums are included in the chronology as well. The documentation on {{Infobox Album}} doesn't explicitly state that it can't be included, it just says "usually excluding live albums, compilations, singles and EPs." I'm curious as to what that means exactly. I've edited probably more articles on albums than anything else here, and I've never seen an infobox's chronology left out for being one of the four "exclusions." –Dream out loud 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job with the tweaking. I did catch one problem with the Past Masters, Volume Two article. Because the LP version was released as a double LP combined with volume one, the side numbers on the label are side three and side four. The record label photo is included in the article to back up that fact. Steelbeard1 23:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 23:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We dealt with the issue of 'current members' of defunct groups before when the infobox was less flexible. The infobox template has since been modified to deal with defunct groups. The template may say 'current members' but the public infobox simply says 'members'. The public infobox used to say 'current members.' Steelbeard1 23:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 23:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your latest question in my talk page. Steelbeard1 10:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fixes. I thought that might be pretty redundant :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll be glad to do this. I'm a bit busy right now but I promise I will look into this soon. Jogers (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be all gone now. Let me know if I missed something. Jogers (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you tweaked my recent change to the tables of Singles and EPs. I have reverted it for now, because of some concerns. Please see the concerns at Talk:The Jesus and Mary Chain#Singles and EPs table. We can quickly thrash something out and come to some sort of compromise. I just want to avoid bad vibes with a simple revert of back and forth thing :-) --Deon Steyn 09:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YSorted thanks! I added a not of agreement to the article talk page and haven't changed anything to your last edit. If all collaborative editing could only be this quick an painless ;-) Deon Steyn 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert on the UF album, I know they are listed in the example on 'WikiProject Albums' (as distinct from being binding policy), but do you believe that is actually encyclopaedic information of note? regards Merbabu 09:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I guess my thinking is that track durations are superfluous unencyclopedic info of no notability that are only included because they are there. Remember, wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive list of any info. In what way are they useful? They appear on any album sleeve or mp3 read out. But, i can hear other peoples' viewpoint. Merbabu 09:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 09:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you should make an message in the edits to tell people not to edit the pages with "Side one/two". Just make an arrow like this: <!-- and write what you want here, it won't show up --> so people won't do it :)

---

Jennica 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 18:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a suggestion :) - --Jennica 20:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary didn't refer to your edits, it referred to the edits an anonymous user did. That anonymous user deleted descriptive content in the members section. However, I saw your edits and there really is no need for the extra links, see WP:EL. If persons want links to sites where they can go listen to In Flames music they can go to the official in flames website. And I already know about WP:OWN and I knew someone was going to throw that in my face the minute I reverted one of their edits. --Leon Sword 20:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I just read WP:DASH and it never says en dashes should always be unspaced, it says they should be unspaced when used for numbers but when used with dates or "complex ranges" they can be spaced. And for the external links I just think it is more appropiate to note that those are all official websites and not a link to a spam site. --Leon Sword 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the excess wikilinks in the session members table are somewhat redundant (when I wrote the article I aimed for consistency). By the way WP:EL is for external links not wikilinks. --Leon Sword 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, WP:DASH never says that en dashes should always be unspaced and under the "Dash guidelines" section it says that spaced en dashes are in current use on Wikipedia. Really it's a matter of preference and I think dates are different than numbers, thus I space en dashes when using with dates and unspace when using with numbers. --Leon Sword 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example when talking about dates (1999 – 2000) and when talking about numbers such as page numbers (27–30). That's really the point that WP:DASH tries to make but also leaves it to preference. --Leon Sword 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well since there is no strict guideline yet regarding en dashes I think it looks cleaner as they are and the extra external links that provide nothing more than is already offered are unnecessary. Otherwise, the redundant wikilinks in the tables should probably be unlinked. --Leon Sword 21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammis is the Swedish organization that gives out the awards, the word itself is probably swedish (I don't really know though as I don't speak Swedish). However, in all sources that I have come across on google, the band itself calls the award a Grammy. I think I'm going to post more sources to fix that news archive problem, the reference is there you just have to look for it. --Leon Sword 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy is the award name. I just checked a few more interviews for verification. No one calls the award a Grammis, they only call the organization that. Furthermore, the wiki article Grammis itself states that it is the swedish version of the grammy awards. --Leon Sword 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we agree that it's Swedish. So can we agree that we're editing the English Wikipedia and not the Swedish Wikipedia? The word "Grammy" appears to be the English equivalent of the Swedish word "Grammis" and since this is the English Wikipedia, Grammy should be used instead. --Leon Sword 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I don't think it's up to us, a bunch of Wikipedia editors to decide whether it's right for the Swedish people to call a Grammis a Grammy in English, that's lawyer work. Anyways I added the word "Swedish" before every mention of the word "Grammy" so that it's less ambiguous. --Leon Sword 18:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have only shown that in Swedish the award is called a Grammis, but you keep evading the fact that in a lot of English sources including In Flames' official website the award is called a Grammy. To further prove my point do a google search of past winners with the word Grammy and you'll see that the term is in common use. --Leon Sword 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not letting this go despite your intention to walk away from it, but I still think we can come to an agreement over the issue. I still firmly disagree with what you are trying to prove - since sources seem to speak against you. However, I have edited the In Flames awards section one more time to try and provide a solution we can both agree on, please check it out and comment. --Leon Sword 03:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I put Grammis in quotation marks to emphasize that it's a foreign term, but I just found out I'm supposed to use italics instead, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign terms. By the way thanks for the constructive criticism. --Leon Sword 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		for your impressive dedication to WikiProject Albums –Paul Erik 19:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the page say: "The following sites provide reviews that you can use in album tables:" so i think Scaruffi is a good example of the phrase about By The Way. internet is full of music site with not good reviews of that album..but probably some rhcp fans don't want to admit it! Zagozagozago 10:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. --PEJL 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you watching me or watching the pages i edit? I am just curious :D --Jennica 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. --PEJL 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's all cool. I respect what you do. --Jennica 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up re ArtistDirect reviews. It was my impression that this site is primarily for selling music and so it wasn't appropriate as a link from WP. Also, given that there was already an abundance of other reviews in the infobox in question, I didn't think removing one would be problematic. But since it's among those listed on the project page, I'll put it back in.

I'm slowly but surely cleaning up a mess I made when I first started editing here back in February. The first project I got involved in was cleaning up broken links. At the time, all of the Pitchfork URLs were broken. While I was at it, I applied the star rating template to the Pitchfork and some other reviews. I didn't become aware until I had done this on literally hundreds of pages that I was violating WP:Album rules. So now I'm going back through each article one by one and undoing all the star rating templates I added. What fun! --Sanfranman59 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Pitchfork, I say amen to that! I couldn't believe it when I started checking the links today only to learn that they once again changed their URLs. At least this time they created a redirect page. The last time, the links led a 404 error. --Sanfranman59 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you nominated this for speedy deletion? --Richard 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it satisfies WP:CSD#G6, "a disambiguation page that only points to a single article". The disambig page refers two two entries, but only a single existing article. (I nominated a similar disambig page with one entry with an article and one entry without an article a few hours ago using a custom deletion criteria, and it was removed with a reference to CSD G6, so I assumed this case was covered by that.) --PEJL 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check again? It looks like there are two links; An American Tail and Somewhere Out There (song). I don't think this is quite right. After all, there is also the Ronstadt/Ingram song "Somewhere Out There" which is arguably more notable than the Our Lady Peace song.

Perhaps it should be Somewhere Out There (Our Lady Peace) and Somewhere Out There (An American Tail) with Somewhere Out There (An American Tail) redirecting to An American Tail.

What are your thoughts?

--Richard 20:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no existing article for the song in the film An American Tail. That kind of primary article is what I was referring to above, and what I believe the criteria refers to. The entry for the song from An American Tail should possibly not be included in the disambig page at all, if it doesn't satisfy WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks. --PEJL 20:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to barge in here, but there already is an article for the American Tail song. Here it is, not named according to standard conventions: Somewhere Out There (1987 single). It was quite a big hit. --Paul Erik 04:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind you barging in. Hopefully, PEJL won't either. Thanks for finding that article. I was wondering why it didn't exist already and I guess I just didn't look hard enough. Now, here's my problem. I just created Somewhere Out There (An American Tail) which covers much of the same information but not quite. Somewhere Out There (1987 single) os about the single and Somewhere Out There (An American Tail) is about the MTV music-video. How should we resolve this? I think a merge is clearly in order but I'm not sure what the title of the merged article should be. --Richard 05:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to naming conventions song articles should be disambiguated with the artist name and "song", see WP:SONGS#Naming conventions. I've moved the song articles accordingly. As for the merge, I suggest using Somewhere Out There (James Horner song). --PEJL 09:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just wondering why you changed the format "February 10 – March 17, 2007" back to "February 10, 2007 – March 17, 2007" - my rationale for my edit was that if the two dates occurred in the same year, it's redundant to mention the year for both of them. Extraordinary Machine 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't like writing on my own talk page, so do you mind if I reply here? :D I didn't know about that, so sorry; I'm not familiar with ISO date formats. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) doesn't seem to mention anything about it, so maybe you should mention it on the talk page. Anyway, thanks for explaining, and keep up the good work in bringing articles into line with the style policies and guidelines - your contributions don't go unnoticed! :) Extraordinary Machine 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I forgot to reply, sorry. Are you sure about it affecting non-ISO date formats? I just changed my date preferences to the UK setting (I'd not previously specified a setting) and it rendered as "10 February – 17 March 2007", which looks okay to me (I live in the UK). But removing the year does affect the ISO format, so I'll try to remember when I'm editing other articles - oh, and thanks for the link to the old discussion. Extraordinary Machine 18:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like your input for correcting the spelling on this talk page again, as another user wants to do it as well. As I wrote there, I tried to discuss it on the conventions' talk page but with no response but before correcting the spelling for "Of Montreal" to "of Montreal" I wanted to make sure that you will, if not like it, at least not revert it back :-) --SoWhy ^Talk 08:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at WT:NC and Talk:Of Montreal. --PEJL 11:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... my mistake. I've reverted my revert... if that makes sense. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that standard. Thanks for letting me know. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for the late reply. I didn't have an edit conflict, it's just that your edits didn't feel right to me. For example, I think that the songwriting credits would look way neater if the were between <small></small> markups. I also think that the British release date should be added as the main release date on the Introducing Joss Stone article, as Joss is a British musician. I don't really read those WikiProjects—I know it may sound wrong. But I'll try to play by the rules from now on. Funk Junkie 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too true I was a bit zealous, moving articles of persons and the standard only applies to personal names. Clearly, looking at the art, it is "L.A. Woman." Reversion is appropriate. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't trust his edits. I mean do you really think he got the track times down to the fraction of a second and then rounded them, and THEN made the mistake? I mean, most basic media players don't even show you that kind of info.►Chris Nelson 07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 07:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two linebreaks sounds fine to me; I guess I only have one linebreak to keep consistency with my section header style. CloudNine 21:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had absolutely no idea that this was a surfacing necessity on album info boxes. Personally, I think the addition of singles are irrelevant in general to the album and don't really shed that much information, as the user could simply visit the respective singles' articles. Regards, NSR77 ^T_C 21:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 21:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really I don't see any need to restore the section, but if you see it necessary, I'm not going to stop you (hope that doesn't sound offensive, don't mean for it to be). Personally, I'd like to wait until it's become more of a widespread thing until it is re-added, but if you feel like now is the best time, then go for it. Regards, NSR77 ^T_C 21:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I just realized that each one of them were added by an unregistered IP user. NSR77 ^T_C 21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not questioning the competence of newcomers, but the fact that he or she is unregistered could be an indication that they do not know Wikipedia's policies, therefore foreign to the situation. NSR77 ^T_C 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, yeah the same thing is happening to me. Every other section appears to be all right, I'm not quite sure what's up with that one. Thanks for pointing it out. Best wishes, NSR77 ^T_C 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just apologised to NSR77. Oh dear. I was looking at your contribs and clicked on the wrong talk. But yes, thanks for the catches. Ceoil 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a question for you. Regarding McCartney albums, when there is more than one edition of an album, shouldn't we indicate it in the discography? After all, the British All My Best! and Ameican All My Best! are virtually separate albums. After all, the discography notes Back in the US and Back in the World as separate albums (even though they are virtually the same thing. Likewise, the 25th anniversary edition of Band on th Run is treated as a separate album. (Personally, I think that one should be listed as a note under the original release.

Since you seem to be the person keeping things in order here, I have another suggestion for you to consider. What do you think about the Paul McCartney album discography being broken up into subcategories ("Rock & Pop", "Classical & Instrumental", and "Experimental")? They could all be listed under Albums, but then under the various subcategories. The "Classical & Instrumental" category would include Liverpool Oratorio, Sanding Stone and Ecce Cor Meum as well Thrillington and both versions of The Family Way. The "Experimental" category would include both Fireman albums, as well as the Liverpool Sound Collage and Twin Freaks. The rest of the stuff would be listed under the "Rock and Pop" category. That's how I file them in my collection. It seems to make sense to me, especially as McCartney didn't perform on the classical stuff. Just a suggestion. What do you think? MCB/Boulder 7/10/05

I responded a few days ago at User talk:67.177.195.177. --PEJL 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the king of the wikignomes ;) 86.137.57.73 20:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ;-) --PEJL 21:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd point you to this in case you see any other crystal additions relating to John Mayer. You also might want to cite WP:CRYSTAL when removing to explain why you're doing it. Ciao! --linca^linca 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, in the Dookie article, the "Writing and composition" section and the "Accolades" are mixing into each other, and I don't know how to fix it! May you help? Xihix 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been fixed. --PEJL 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some extremely major re-editing on Dookie, almost changing the whole article, as you probably saw. How do you like it? What else should I add? Do you think it's ready for some kind of review, like GA? Or a peer review? Xihix 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that silly edit of mine. I have no idea why I used that buggy code. --Eliyak T·C 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly in WP:Flags does it say I can't put the flags on album pages? --Jennica^Talk 16:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are compilations not in album chronologies? Did I miss a discussion somewhere where this consensus was established? --Analogdemon (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I responded at your user talk page, as you've already noted. --PEJL 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your famous "Tweak Formatting" edit summary, and the countless times I've seen you "tweak" various "formatting", I award you this barnstar. Happy tweaking. NSR77 TC 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! NSR77 ^T_C 19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I don't doubt that the label says that. Our convention however, is that such notes are not considered part of the song name, and the song name should be in quotes. See also all the other examples in this article, with various "(live)", "(remix)" and similar notes. Therefore I'm reverting this change once again. --PEJL 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with not putting the subtitle of the song in quotes (or not capitalizing it, for that matter). As I said before, you seem to be maintaining this site well, and my hat is off to you. However, if the B-Side of "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" is only distinguished from the A-Side by simply putting the word "version" in parentheses, don't we risk countless well-meaning revisers erroneously inserting the word "instrumental" in the parentheses? The B-Side is not merely an instrumental version of the A-Side, it is an entirely different arrangement, don't you think? ---MCB, Boulder 7/22/2007

I've responded at your talk page, which for reference is at User talk:67.177.195.177. --PEJL 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I won't revert again :)--Fluence 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the changes. If the current version of the album with your edits is OK, I'd like to keep it like that.--Fluence 22:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I need a help from you with regards to templates. For more information, please view this page. I feel that it is paramount to achieve consistency with regards to templates. If you know how to correct this, it would be much appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has already been fixed. --PEJL 09:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been invited to join WikiProject U2, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the U2-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in U2 and/or your many edits to U2 articles. If you would like to join, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. Thank you, Joelster

I thought you might want to see the changes that were made. I don't think it's possible to have a better compromise between guidelines, and a well written article, in this multi-album page. Thank-you for your help.Happypal 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you are the formatting king after all :o) I was just concerned about how it might appear in different readers, for ex. PDAs and so on. The same goes for different browsers and resolutions. I would prefer using a fixed column width as you suggested instead of hard coding line breaks (they should be written as <br /> btw). Not quite sure how to do this as wikitables are very confusing (I much prefer using plain HTML, heh). What did you think of moving the chart links to a seperate section? Kamryn · Talk 09:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me about the cite thing, I'll get onto that now if I don't fall asleep before I press the 'save' button (going entire nights without sleep really impairs my short term memory). You have a good point about the horizontal screen sizes, I hadn't considered that. I guess your way is indeed better! :) Taking a look at the Notes section in Californication, I think a good few of the cites could do with cleaning up. I wish there were an easier way to edit references without having to go searching for a <ref> in the source.

I was unaware of <br> being acceptable, it's certainly easier to type! I think I'll be sticking with <br /> however, habit has ingrained it into my soul. Kamryn · Talk 10:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning beautiful, how are you today? Are you good, sweetness? I hope you are. "...the first genre in the list should be" - 'Heavy Metal' is the first and only genre in the list... and what did your little humpty dink quote say? Scarian^Talk 09:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 10:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, hold on, you have just changed a guideline in order to suit your argument, that's not right. That is your interpretation of it... the next guy could have a completely different take on it. You haven't made any sort of consensus on what should be used or anything to that effect. That just isn't right... People could say, "Yeah - from a superficial point of view it looks better to have it as 'Heavy Metal'," or "It said the first genre in the list should be capitalised, not just the first word,"

When I pointed out that the guideline didn't fit your reasoning behind reverting the edits, you changed the guideline... Don't you see how utterly queer that is? This is kind of reminiscent of 1984. Scarian^Talk 10:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did write that particular guideline in the first place, so I can attest that the new wording matches the intended interpretation. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 17#Delimiting genres. Note that the example used is "Pop, rock", where the first word and first genre are the same thing. I made an oversight when I drafted that guideline, and failed to consider cases when the first genre contained multiple words. Note that your proposed interpretation falls apart quickly, as it would lead to for example "Heavy Metal, speed metal", which looks plain weird. --PEJL 10:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the first part of your reply: "We shall see.", to the second I meant: If there was only ONE genre in the list, which there is, it would look better visually. Do not think of me as an aesthetically blind fool, sweety. Scarian^Talk 10:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you are proposing changing the guideline to something like "Note that most genres aren't proper nouns, and shouldn't be capitalized, but the first word in the list should be if there is more than one genre, otherwise the entire genre should be capitalized."? Feel free to propose that at WT:ALBUM if you feel that would be an improvement. As for what looks better, that's entirely subjective. --PEJL 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for arguing with you, big guy (Amount of edits you've made). Lib's (the I.P.), told me to watch over "his old haunts", so I tried to. Unfortunatly for me, I am not that well rehearsed when it comes to policy... and little ol' me got beaten down... hehe, you take care! It was lovely arguing with you... in a way :-D Scarian^Talk 04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually a stickler for "1st word only" genre caps. My edit to the Black Album was actually to rollback the previous IP who had vandalised the genre completely. In my error I didn't realise I had rolled back to a version that had incorrectly capitalised the "M" in the genre label. Sorry for the mix-up. 156.34.142.110 11:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --PEJL 11:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind contributing to the peer review for "Street Fighting Man"? I'm looking for one that's quite comprehensive, looking for words to avoid, original research and the like. Shooting for Good Article status. Thanks in advance. Stan weller 06:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that almost no albums on Wikipedia have their genres seperated by commas, right? I mean I know it's the official policy, but most albums' genres are seperated by line, not comma. - Razorhead Augst 12, 2007

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 10:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PEJL, I spent a lot of time getting that American infobox for Revolver (album) in there as the release IS significantly different. I don't appreciate you removing it without so much as a reason or comment . . . please observe the note I left and do not delete it! --Soakologist 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 00:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding . . . I now understand your rationale and your compromise is fair enough. --Soakologist 03:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. Cheers to getting that changed, now I have been able to start clearing out Category:Non-standard album infoboxes. -- Reaper X 03:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity. How do you do it? Jogers (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 13:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing some vandalism patrol today and apparently I did a pretty good job. Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism to my user page. --Sanfranman59 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the code is updated, there isn't a way to apply changes from one place to another; i.e., a diff from a user subpage can't be magically applied to the Template:Infobox Album. The total code was copied from your user subpage and placed into Template:Infobox Album because that was the desired new code. However, it's no big deal; it's an easy fix. Coincidentally, another edit was requested for an image override, so we'll do the two at once. Just let me know when you're ready and I'll make the modifications. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to have a sandbox and testcases like Template:Infobox Country? --MZMcBride 04:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny what turns up in Google searches. I think last November I was testing for updating the project page or something. But with that template, I can't test what other words work. ;-) -Freekee 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across that one a little while ago.:-) I don't really use that chart in my sandbox anymore. Just never deleted it. Thanks, though. -Freekee 17:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. And just as a heads up, the edits recently made under the IP address 24.59.100.246 were meant to be under this username. Should anything else need to be discussed over those recent edits, I would prefer it if comments be directed towards my current username. Thanks. Pele Merengue 05:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Guitarist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kudret abi 05:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the naming convention. I think the convention on Wikipedia is wrong as it contradicts what I learnt at school - albeit that was a long time ago so the rules may have changed - and on over half the CDs in my collection all the words are capitalised - though interestingly 1 exception to that is "One of These Nights" by Eagles. Anyway I'll stick to the convention now I know it. Thanks again. Kelpin 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I made that edit was so the articles could be converted to using {{Infobox musical artist}} more easier by EBot. I have made a list of which articles transclude the template here: User:FMAFan1990/Infobox Band (edit links are provided so that one need not to click "edit this page"). Since this is a tedious task to do by myself, I am enlisting help here: User:FMAFan1990/Infobox Band/Sign-up. I hope you can understand. FMAFan1990 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 04:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on my talk page as well. FMAFan1990 04:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...missing edit summary makes for guesswork..."

Can I quote you on that? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the message I left here: Template talk:Infobox Band#Not transcluded on mainspace. FMAFan1990 04:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does a tribute band deserve to have their recorded cover of a song mentioned on the song's page? Stan weller 06:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. --PEJL 11:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well these covers (on two separate albums) appear to be self-produced and marketed by the band. They read as adverts on the song pages and add nothing to the overall quality of the article other than making it look cheap. I think the information on which songs they have covered is best left to the tribute band's page. It sets a bad example to other tribute bands. Is it such a stretch to assume that a tribute band is going to cover a song by the band they are emulating? Stan weller 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I did in about every godamn infobox on Wikipedia, and I thought that was the correct way. I've formated boxes like that for about half a year and no-one has ever complained. Are these rules new or something?

And by the way, it looks better this way...--Gustav Lindwall 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 18:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding subsections to the Personnel section on the Evanescence albums, as they are completely superfluous to the needs of that section, being little more than short lists already. There is no policy or guideline that states subsections must be used in place of bold text, at least none that I can locate. Please do correct me if you can find such a statement, but I looked into this long before now. Cheers. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why did you unminimize some of the front for the tracklisting? Also can you rate the article? Cowbellcity45 20:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I get it now. Cowbellcity45 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the band's name is written as amiina. Amiina is a misspelling, the conventional rule for capitalisation of band names does not apply. see for a good precedent here L!nus 11:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you already know. I'm working my butt off on trying to get the Blue Album to Good article status eventually becoming a feature article. I want to include a music sample. But I am unsure how to do so. So what are the instructions or where can I find instructions to do that. Thanks. Cowbellcity45 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lordy! you are too fast for me with your responses. I'm working on my edit to the discussion as we speak - watch for an edit there in the next five minutes --Eitch 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:ALBUM you said "As the number of reviews should be limited, and as languages other than English are not understood by a large number of readers, reviews in languages other than English should generally not be included unless the language is especially relevant to the album in question..."

If limiting the number of reviews is the rationale, it only applies when the number is too large, that is why I have adapted what you said. It's not what I want to say at all. Kappa 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my previous message, I think this should be discussed at WT:ALBUM. --PEJL 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry if I did something wrong, but I honestly believe the changes I made to Endless Wire (The Who album) were correct and fall within the guidelines set in everything you listed. You reverted to incorrect capitalization, punctuation, made up words, and incorrect song titles. Before I revert your revert, please give me specific examples. Some changes may be "incorrect" (probably just formatting ones that don't affect the actual article) but if the good ones out weigh them, you should have left it or just fixed the incorrect ones. -Rocket000 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after reviewing my changes I found some that were wrong. I guess I was in a hurry and using automatic tools can lead to overlooked errors. However, your revert made things worse so I'm partially reverting your edit while fixing the things I did wrong. Here are just a few examples of my changes you reverted:

• studio -> Studio Why would you capitalize every other first word (like the genre) in the infobox except this one?

• 11th -> eleventh per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers and for consistency.

• "Mike Post Theme," -> "Mike Post Theme", The comma's not part of the title (Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Punctuation).

• "Won't Get Fooled Again/Old Red Wine" -> "Won't Get Fooled Again"/"Old Red Wine" Two separate titles.

• "Man In A Purple Dress" -> "Man in a Purple Dress" Just one of numerous examples of incorrect capitalization per Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization.

• "Sadly, the song was not included on the album..." -> "The song was not included on the album" This wasn't a quote. It totally violates NPOV

I'm aware of the trivial nature of these changes, but all these little inconsistencies are makes Wikipedia look unprofessional and sloppy. I believe both our intentions are good and if you still find fault with my editing please point out to me specifically what I did wrong, so I can improve. I'll admit I haven't fully read every "official policy and guideline" of Wikipedia (which they themselves are contested and change all the time); I just do what I believe is correct, but I also respect the "consensus" on these issues. If I am aware of how I should be doing something I will do that way instead. - Rocket000 00:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talk page. --PEJL 10:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing those things out to me. Here's a few comments and questions.

The "studio" thing I figured was some policy thing, but it doesn't make sense to me. Should the genre (or any other common name) be lowercase to then? Maybe you can explain it to me.

"Pop art" - I agree with lowercasing any genre after the first one, however the article says it's with a capital "P"

As for WP:ALBUM#Track listing, I believe it is totally wrong. The policy should be changed. A-side/B-side listed as separate songs unless they're a medley.

I didn't know that "utilizing" was the British form of spelling. I would of left it. Now I know!

The comma thing is highly disputed. I believe since it's a UK article with UK spelling, the dates could be either or, just as long as there consistent. From now on, I'm leaving dates alone until we reach a consensus.

I use to remove whitespace as a separate edit, but someone complained that it was a waste of resources and to only do it if I make other changes. That is why I do them all together.

Thanks again. - Rocket000 05:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talk page. --PEJL 10:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain these issues to me. One last thing, about the "Pop art" thing I was referring to the article, A Quick One. The article mentions it should be capitalized (see the fourth paragraph), but after checking out the link you provided pop art, I see that it shouldn't. -Rocket000 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really know that. I just saw that there were a few columns in the table that had the ^br /^ thing, and that the genre section was no different. That's my fault. I left it alone when there were slashes though, ex: Metal/Hardcore/Alternative. So thanks for that insight.

BT^C 21 September 2007 15:17 (UTC)

You edited the John Vanderslice article. Wikinews is schedule to do an interview with Vanderslice this Wednesday, September 26. If you have any questions you'd like to ask John or know about John, please leave them on my Talk page. Thanks. --David Shankbone 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors just can't seem to listen when they are given directions. 156.34.212.136 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight's target for superfluity = Motorhead. 156.34.226.99 00:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

refs=clutter. If they are diffusing some kind of edit war I can see the justification. But when the field has been in a long term dormant peaceful place... sticking the refs in is more of a 'nah-nah-nah-come-n-get-it' sort of edit... almost an invitation to try and start an edit war. Mr. S is under particular scrutiny right now in a possible blocked user sockpuppetry typ