Talk:Walk Like an Egyptian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
[edit] The official site is an ALLOWED link
Read the exterenal links section and this a good addition providing additional information. There is NO reason WHATSOEVER to remove that link, so that link STAYS. KittenKlub 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
And I don't like people trying to go for 3RR for FALSE reasons. KittenKlub 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
For the WP:External links:
- Is it accessible?
Yes
- Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?
Yes
- Is it entered correctly?
Yes
- Is the link, in the context used, likely to have a substantive longevity?
Yes
- Does it fall under a no category?
No it doesn't.
So please don't start wikilawyering if you never bothered to read the page and especially if you also start to push for 3RR. KittenKlub 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- The official web site belongs in, and is in, The Bangles. This is not an article on the band. It is an article on the song. An external link to a site for the band is not appropriate to the article on the song, especially since the site for the band is already linked to in the appropriate article, as I have explained three times now. The link does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would have, because it isn't a link to anything about the song. Before suggesting that other people read the page, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Uncle G 23:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is allowed according to the document. It gives additional information. And please don't start edit wars and 3RRs to enforce your opinion. An official site offers previews, videos and much more information about a song. It is even the OFFICIAL resource on a song. It is not listed in links to be avoided. KittenKlub
- Wrong. The link is to a site for the band, not a site for the song. This is an article on a song, not an article on a band, and the article on the band already has this link. How many more times? The official site, as far as I can see, offers none of the things that you claim. It has nothing specific on this song whatsoever. Uncle G 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- And I challenge your reasoning for once. It does NOT say that it is not allowed and it does not say that a song which is listed does not apply. What do you call previews? Isn't that something extra which we can't provide or have a very difficult time providing. KittenKlub 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- What I call previews is irrelevant, since the page that you are insisting that this article link to isn't a preview. Uncle G 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- And I challenge your reasoning for once. It does NOT say that it is not allowed and it does not say that a song which is listed does not apply. What do you call previews? Isn't that something extra which we can't provide or have a very difficult time providing. KittenKlub 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. The link is to a site for the band, not a site for the song. This is an article on a song, not an article on a band, and the article on the band already has this link. How many more times? The official site, as far as I can see, offers none of the things that you claim. It has nothing specific on this song whatsoever. Uncle G 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- And I have explained several times that it is allowed according to the document. Yet you ignored me over and over again. KittenKlub 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. I explained several times that it was not. I even linked to the style guidelines that apply. Uncle G 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- And I said that it was not in the document and I was ignored and then you even ignored this talk page by starting an edit war on other pages. That's called avoiding a 3RR. KittenKlub 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- You weren't ignored, but you didn't actually mention this talk page in your edit summaries. And what applies to this article applies to those as well. These are articles on songs, not the article on the band; the article on the band already has this link; and the linked-to page provides no unique resource beyond what the article would have, because it doesn't have anything about the song. You've yet to show otherwise. Uncle G 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- And I said that it was not in the document and I was ignored and then you even ignored this talk page by starting an edit war on other pages. That's called avoiding a 3RR. KittenKlub 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. I explained several times that it was not. I even linked to the style guidelines that apply. Uncle G 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- According to list to be avoided it is neither 1. Nor 2. Nor 3. Nor 4. Nor 5. Nor 6. Nor 7. Nor 8. Nor 9. Nor 10. So it is allowed. KittenKlub 23:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong again. The link does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would have, because it isn't a link to anything about the song. That's point #1, right there. Uncle G 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- It does provide a resource. So #1 does not apply just because it provides other resources as well. You are wikilawyering. KittenKlub 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. It provides no resource at all, as already explained, and you have yet to show otherwise. Accusing people that one disagrees with of rule violations and wikilawyering is not a way to make a good argument that supports one's case, and demonstrates that perhaps one's actual argument is weak. Please stick to the argument. Uncle G 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Who started 3RRs and editwars on other pages and ignored talk pages because he wanted to delete OFFICIAL sites. We are talking about the resource created by the record label who made and own the song? Talk about hostility against the subject. So I am not the pathetic one here. KittenKlub 05:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. It provides no resource at all, as already explained, and you have yet to show otherwise. Accusing people that one disagrees with of rule violations and wikilawyering is not a way to make a good argument that supports one's case, and demonstrates that perhaps one's actual argument is weak. Please stick to the argument. Uncle G 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- It does provide a resource. So #1 does not apply just because it provides other resources as well. You are wikilawyering. KittenKlub 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong again. The link does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would have, because it isn't a link to anything about the song. That's point #1, right there. Uncle G 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is allowed according to the document. It gives additional information. And please don't start edit wars and 3RRs to enforce your opinion. An official site offers previews, videos and much more information about a song. It is even the OFFICIAL resource on a song. It is not listed in links to be avoided. KittenKlub
- The official site provides a video for this song and lyrics. Both are items which we cannot provide because it'll be a copyright violation. That makes it a unique resource on Walk Like an Egyptian. In fact the lyrics sites are always copyright violations, so it's the only place for the lyrics and videos. KittenKlub 23:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please point to where these purported lyrics are. I see no such lyrics. The site has very little actual text anywhere, from what I can see. Uncle G 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I guess that finding something is difficult. I call this whole thing wikilawyering. YOu did find the video, or do you need help with that as well. It still makes it a unique resource. Just for that. And this whole way of arguing is wikilawyering, since we are talking about interpretation of details of "things normally to be avoided." That makes it your so called rule against an official site so incredible weak that it becomes an example of wikilawyer were your interpretation is used to push through your idea of how things you should done despite any clear rule. And you accuse people of violating a rule and start edit wars instead of discussion. The video and lyrics make it a resource and everything else is interpretation based on wikilawyering. Therefore the bottom line is that link stays since it IS ALLOWED. KittenKlub 05:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
