Jump to content

Talk:The Singles 1992–2003

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Singles 1992–2003 has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 19, 2009Featured topic candidatePromoted
August 8, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Fair use rationale for Image:TheSingles19922003NoDoubtalbumcover.jpg

[edit]

Image:TheSingles19922003NoDoubtalbumcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do

[edit]

I'll be working on this article over the next week or two, so please don't remove the unused headers - they will be used when I get round to that particular section. Thanks. I'll get this up to GA. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I will too, and even after it hits GA. Tezero (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awww... thanks for the support. Do you reckon it's GA standard yet? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do. I mean, it looks like a general GA-class album article, and I don't see anything wrong with it. But if it gets a GA, I'll still work with you on it until it's an FA. (By the way, still no one has given a GA review to Tragic Kingdom.) Tezero (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know! I guess I should familiarise myself with the guidelines and review other articles on the list to clear the backlog. I'm just concerned I'll get it wrong. Do you do any GA reviews? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to start doing more...Right now I've only done one for Go, Cubs, Go...I declined it, but someone called TonyTheTiger has done basically everything I said needed to be done. But yeah, I've been on the wiki for 10 months now and I haven't really read the guidelines so I can do more. Tezero (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've still got Period 2 element that I said I'd do ages ago. Um, well, I've listed this at GAN. Frankly we'll have time to polish it twenty times over before someone takes a look. Could you see if there are any sources for worldwide sales figures and write up a fair use rationale for the article image per above? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in The Singles 1992–2003

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Singles 1992–2003's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "allmusic":

  • From Tragic Kingdom: "Tragic Kingdom > Charts & Awards > Billboard Albums". Allmusic. Retrieved September 16, 2008.
  • From The Beacon Street Collection: The Beacon Street Collection at Allmusic.
  • From Los Lonely Boys: Ruhlmann, William. "Los Lonely Boys biography". Allmusic. Retrieved 2008-07-23.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Singles 1992–2003/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

It passed. Just one question is it possible to add their chart positions. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other things: references 17 and 18 need to be moved after the punctuation in the "Sales" section, and some references are missing important information. At minimum, they should include a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a publication date and/or author is listed, this information should be included as well. See Template:Cite web. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that this article has not been listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did that. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few more:
  • POV phrases like "moderately well", "commercially successful" and "one of the band's biggest hits" need to be removed/reworded.
  • Track listings don't need citations, but more info about the releases that contain bonus tracks is warranted. "Import bonus tracks" implies a US-centric view, so that subheading should be replaced with the name of the country that released that version.
  • Release history section doesn't add anything and Wikipedia is not a directory.
  • There are inconsistencies in the way references are cited. Would be a good idea to convert all to the {{cite web}}, etc., templates. —Zeagler (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image File:ItsMyLifeNoDoubt.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a potential problem. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Singles 1992–2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Singles 1992–2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Singles 1992–2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Singles_1992–2003&oldid=1211486875"