Talk:Pink discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pink discography article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] My recent edits

  1. I've removed the excess copyrighted fair use images again, because there were far too many and most of them seemed to serve as nothing more than decoration. Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible ... Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.", and "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Also, the images had no fair use rationale on their description pages.
  2. In accordance with Wikipedia:Piped link and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD, "year in music" links (e.g. 2006 in music) shouldn't be "piped" to read as [[2006 in music|2006]].
  3. To Hookerj (talk · contribs): note that reverting without an edit summary, much less any explanation or discussion, is frowned on. Extraordinary Machine 19:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing and stranger

  1. I removed this giant tabla for one cleaner and lesser.
  1. I organized sales and I removed the positions of the russia, that does not contain references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hookerj (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 November 2006.
I didn't do anything with the Russia chart positions. As I said on your talk page, the resolution problem is most likely on your end. Before you think about "fixing" articles to match the resolution of your computer, consider what effect this will have on the majority of other computers. Secondly, please remember that users are expected to abide by what is written on the policy and guideline pages, such as the Manual of Style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. They're there to establish consistency between articles, so if you want to propose changes, please discuss on the relevant talk pages rather than revert other editors again and again. That other articles do not abide by these guidelines does not give you permission to violate them. Extraordinary Machine 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dontletmegetmecover.jpeg

Image:Dontletmegetmecover.jpeg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 01:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Knew

There are two separate U.S. releases of "Who Knew", hence two separate entries — combining the two would mislead readers into thinking that "Who Knew" charted on the Hot 100 on its original release. Hookerj (talk · contribs) said it wasn't necessary to have two because anybody reading this article would know about the re-release from reading the Who Knew article — it's not wise to assume that whoever reads this article will have read other articles, such as the Who Knew one, first. Extraordinary Machine 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Generally when there are 2 entries for a song, it's because the song was re-released after a long period of time or it was remixed, etc. That and the single was only re-released in the US, so the two entires could be combined, just be sure to note below the chart with a "1" stating the US re-release peaked at #40 and the original peaked at #95. Also: having "Who Knew" at the bottom of the chart with dashes in every column but the US one is highly unnecessary. LoveLaced 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, okay, that make sense, but some editors were removing all mention of the re-release, without adding a superscript number and a note. That has the potential to be very misleading and is simply not acceptable. Extraordinary Machine 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Not Dead U.S. sales figure

The source I cited for the I'm Not Dead U.S. sales figure that I inserted a while ago reads:

"So far, "I'm Not Dead" has sold 977,000 in the U.S. according to Nielsen SoundScan."

And that's what the article should state. Not 1,169,970 or any of the other sales figures that various editors have been adding to the article without providing any sources. It's completely unacceptable to insert a new figure without adding a new citation to support it. Either find a reliable source that mentions the new figure and add it to the article when changing the figure, or just don't change it. It's as simple as that. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found a more recently published article that states I'm Not Dead has sold 1.15 million copies, so I've added it and the new figure to the article. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)