User talk:NPswimdude500

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1
Keep in mind when reading my talk page that I frequently carry over comments that I have left on other user's pages in conversations in an effort to make said conversations easier to follow.

Contents

[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Quit Your Day Job!

I reverted your most recent edit (which reverted the tabled track listing I produced) and herein lies my reasoning: While there are no specific guidelines as to how a track listing should be structured, WikiProject albums recommends a table for albums where there are multiple writers/producers (hip hop albums generally), citing Illmatic as an example. If you look at the highest class hip hop albums, like Illmatic and also Bizarre Ride II the Pharcyde, tabled track listings are fairly common as they are usually more readable. I appreciate the amount of work you put into Don't Quit Your Day Job!, especially digitizing all the album credits, and my intent was to help improve upon that by making it even better. My apologies if that came across as vandalizing your work.--NPswimdude500 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with tables being easier to read and I also think my layout looked better. However, seeing that this is some sort of a standard, I do not wish to go against the majority of the editors. Also, could you explain why you names in credits only should be linked on their first appearance and not everytime. Is this also some sort of an agreed upon standardization? Some names aren't linked because no page exists for them or because no one simply bothered to link them. Removing links for multiple appearances adds a third reason. The readers would have to browse the whole document to find the link they are looking for instead of just looking by the track that they were interested in. These are some of the cons as I see it. I would appreciate your feedback on this. wikisoul 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The general linking rule comes from the Manual of Style (links) (also here). It basically says that the same term/phrase should not be linked more than once in a line or a paragraph. There are no specific rules regarding tables, but as I understand it, they qualify as paragraphs (especially when compared to existing lay-outs). Regarding links to pages that haven't been created yet, I think the general idea is that if an article doesn't exist, don't link to it unless it most certainly deserves an article, or you yourself are willing to create that article.--NPswimdude500 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't liken a paragraph to a table since the purpose of a table is to find the desired information using a coordinate system, not by reading it from start to finish. Regarding links to pages that haven't been created yet, I wasn't asking you about when to make these links. I was trying to make the point that if a reader goes to the desired cell of the table and doesn't find a link it should be because no link has been created, not because someone removed it because it was already linked elsewhere on the page. This is from the page Manual of Style (links) that you referred me to: "The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere — for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page." wikisoul 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that paragraph says that links should be included in table cells. And the table cells do have links. Not all of them obviously, for this reason: A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking which follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Several lines down it says this: These guidelines also apply to tables, considered by themselves. And the user does not need to hunt for the link elsewhere in the page, they need only to find the link within the table, which is not a difficult task.--NPswimdude500 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's "hunt" or "find", in a page or within a table, I still prefer having the link where readers might come to look in the first place. If I look up a certain track and the producer isn't linked, I would have to scroll up a couple of times to get to another track produced by the same one in some cases. It is not that I consider this to be a "difficult task", it's just that I believe that finding a link there would be more convenient. Having to scroll up to look for a link that may or may not be there seems inconvenient to me. It is my understanding that the text you quote talks about how duplicate links in the same line or paragraph, or even table if you wish, will "appear needlessly on the viewer's screen". I don't think that this is the case if the previous link isn't even on my screen. I see that you have a different understanding. I thank you for your time. wikisoul 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability question

Hi! I've noticed your name on some hip-hop articles I've been editing so I thought I'd ask your opinion on something. Do you think the G-Unit radio series mixtapes found at the G-Unit discography page deserve articles of their own? Or should they simply be kept in the discography page without expansion? Spellcast 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd going to say that they are notable and deserve their own articles, mainly for this reason (as per WP:Notability (music)):

Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

According to this, there's no reason why the articles shouldn't be created (or kept for that matter). However I do think that the articles should be expanded (meaning more detailed information; preferably information that explains why a specific album is significant compared to the other two dozen in the series). And I also think they need to be formatted properly (meaning more categories, placing track titles in quotes, etc.). If the articles are improved, their notability wont be questioned so often.--NPswimdude500 21:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last push for the Biography Assessment Drive

We've done great work so far on the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive, reducing the 135,345 backlog by 38,626 to 96,719 as of March 20, 2007. We have only 6,720 more to go to get below 90,000. That would be outstanding and any extra effort that you can offer in these last few days of the drive (which ends March 24, 2007) would be much appreciated. If you haven't already, you may want to load Outriggr's assessment script in your monobook.js. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them on my talk page. -- Jreferee 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IfD discusions

Hi. You are receiving this message because you participated in the IfD discusion for either Image:42650801_planelong_ap416.jpg, Image:Adam_Air_Flight_172.jpg, or both. I felt you might be interested in participating in the discusion regarding two similar images that have recently been nominted for deletion, here and here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Kurtis Mantronix - Start?

After cleaning up and expanding a pretty sparse article (see Talk:Kurtis Mantronik), I was hoping for AT LEAST a "B" grade on the article, yet it was graded as a "Start." Could you please tell me why you believe it is a Start, and perhaps give me some ideas as to how to upgrade the article to the next level (B or above)? Thanks in advance! Sundevilesq 17:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lately I've been rating large groups of articles, so to be honest most of my assessments are based on length a quick overview. That being said, what really made me rate Kurtis Mantronik as start-class was the lack of information on his albums. I was looking for more detail on each album (a nice example of a well-organized article is De La Soul). More details of this nature would likely garnish a 'B'-rating. Though it should be noted, this is all my opinion and someone else might disagree. To have the article rated by someone else, list it on the WikiProject hip hop Assessment page.--NPswimdude500 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your honesty in regard to the rating on the page. More detailed info on the Mantronix albums is listed in a separate article (see Mantronix). Kurtis Mantronik has only one solo album to date, and I believe it was discussed sufficiently in his article. Lastly, I tried the link to the Hip Hop Assessment page for another review, but it just took me to the main "Assessment" page. I really think the article needs to be reviewed again. Thanks for your help! Sundevilesq 18:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry about that, didn't copy all of the link. Here's the correct link: Wikipedia:WikiProject_hip_hop/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. Yeah I did look at the Mantronix article. I didn't really know how to properly account for that when rating the Kurtis Mantronik article. I suggest listing it for reassessment.--NPswimdude500 05:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Before I Self Destruct

Please note that it is strictly against Wikipedia guidelines to delete and/or edit other users comments (assuming they are not vandalism). Consequently, I reverted your edit to Talk:Before I Self Destruct.--NPswimdude500 (Talk|Contribs) 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, when I did that I removed it thinking it won't make any sense if your comment was still there, so I just removed it, not realizing that I shouldn't have done it until you told me about it, I'll fix my edit right away. --- Efil4tselaer 22:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't remember where I saw it (and I can't seem to find it now, but I remember there was some page that said when people use vulgarities, a line should be put through them. No idea where I saw it though....oh well...--NPswimdude500 (Talk|Contribs) 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive

Thank you for your contributions! -- WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ed Poor Audacious Action Award
For your bold and humble assistance in assessing biography articles, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Ed Poor Audacious Action Award. 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Golden Wiki Award
For your exceptional contributions to the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Golden Wiki Award. 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LWFC

I reverted your edit to Like Water for Chocolate because quite simply, it is not appropriate to delete 315KB of text with no given reason. Additionally, this text was relevant to the article. in many cases, this is considered vandalism.--NPswimdude500 (Talk|Contribs) 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that one sentence about Electric Circus because it's not about the subject of the article and is completely opinionated. Also, why would you have a whole section for one sentence? It's not vandalism, it's improvement. I'm not gonna war you on this, but it's gonna disappear eventually. If you wanna improve the article, I suggest simplification.--Cosprings 00:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, as you may or may not have noticed (I'm guessing the latter), I've been working on the article for some time now. It's often difficult to gather information because at the time of the album's release, the internet was not as widely used as it is now. My goal is to [eventually] get the article to FA status (I think it's approaching GA status right now) and in order to do that it's necessary to include information on the similarities and differences between the album and it's follow-up (particularly influences). So please don't just delete content that I (and other editors) have put time and effort into because it appears to be irrelevant, because in time you'll see that it it's not. Also, that piece is not opinionated. Electric Circus is widely considered to be Common's weakest release, selling a mere 200,000 copies. this was confirmed by the album's executive producer ?uestlove.--NPswimdude500 (Talk|Contribs) 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your fix to my user page

Nope, I don't mind at all, thanks. --CliffC 14:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/p/s/User_talk%7ENPswimdude500_9a50.html"