This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tomica. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rihanna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Video of the Year (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Bonus points for FAs are awarded based on how many other Wikipedias the article appeared on at the start of the year, not based on whether there has been a GAC/DYK. I can't see why that one would get any bonus points. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you buddy. ^-^ True story, we found a lot of information and only organized them in the perfect way. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME)12:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Tomica,
I noticed you removed the MC rating from the infobox at Talk a Good Game citing "its not included anymore per repetition" but there's no consensus at Template:Album ratings or the talk page that this is the case. I have not seen a single discussion anywhere or an album that doesn't list MC in the infobox. Can you point me to such a discussion? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
See this. I learned it from Dan, because I think he is the best editor responsible for the best Critical receptions of album's articles. — Tomíca(T2ME)13:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
On June 8, you began a review of the above page; are you planning to complete it? The page has been tagged for speedy deletion, but I'm going to remove the tag since "Stale review" isn't a CSD. All the best, Miniapolis01:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Content dispute
Hi. Would you care to comment at this discussion over whether the phrase "rave reviews" should be removed from an article? It's much ado about nothing, but stubbornness persists. Dan56 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Eurovision - Memorandum
Eurovision Mini Memorandum
30 June 2013
There are a couple of discussions taking place via the project talk page that require urgent attention from as many members as possible. These are...
And finally, the newsdesk are looking to recruit a couple of project volunteers to assist in compiling the monthly newsletters, as one of the co-ordinators has taken an indefinite period of time away from Wikipedia due to personal reasons. For more details see here.
To discontinue receiving Eurovision newsletters and mini memorandums, please remove your name from here.
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.
A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded
Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded is a reissue of Barbadian recording artist Rihanna's third studio album Good Girl Gone Bad (2007). Released to mark the first anniversary of the original album, the album features three newly recorded songs and a DVD showing exclusive behind-the-scenes footage of her Good Girl Gone Bad Tour (2007–09). For the new material, she worked with past collaborators Ne-Yo, StarGate, and C. "Tricky" Stewart, as well as Brian Kennedy, Mark Endert, Mike Elizondo, Mark "Spike" Stent and Maroon 5. Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded received generally positive reviews from music critics, who praised the sound and production of the newly added material. Other critics felt that the album was not worthy for re-release with only three new songs. The album sold 63,000 copies in its first week and helped the original album peak at number seven on the US Billboard 200. The reissue charted in New Zealand, peaking at number four. The album was promoted with four singles, including the US number-one hits "Take a Bow" and "Disturbia". Rihanna also performed songs from the reissue on several television programs and award ceremonies including FNMTV and the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards. (Full article...)
Thanks for uploading File:Oboi me.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I understand your position regarding your recent reversion. Certainly it's not likely that someone looking for the better-known 1953 song by the same title would be confused into thinking that the one with "(Justin Timberlake song)" appended was the original, but there's no mention of the 1953 song at all in the Justin Timberlake article. This is confusing because on my first read-through I thought JT had done a cover version of Cry Me a River instead of an original song. Then I thought maybe his song was just inspired by the 1953 song. It took my reading the Cry Me a River article to realize that the song was completely different. Considering that the 1953 song is widely known and often covered by other artists, don't you think it would be helpful to include some sort of a distinguishment for it? I'm not dead set on a distinguish template or any of the other headers, but maybe we should list it under the "See also" section? What do you think would be the best place to make this clear for readers who might otherwise incorrectly assume that JT's version is just a cover? -Thibbs (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Many songs share the same title, this is not a uncommon thing. It is not a "see also", as it doesn't relate to the song at all. A cover version wouldn't have its own article, per our standards on such a thing. And if it was in some way related, it would be mentioned, but it isn't in the slightest. — Statυs (talk, contribs)05:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Status totally. They are not related at all, they only share the same title. And how have you judge that Cry Me a River is more widely known than Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)? I am Macedonian (European) and I have only heard/listed to Timberlake's version (I didn't even hear the 1953 song!). So the brackets in the title is enough for disambiguation. — Tomíca(T2ME)08:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I fully realize that the Timberlake version is not in any way related. The article makes no mention of this fact, though. The reader is left to figure this out for herself by visiting a different page. That seems unnecessarily confusing. Why should it be that the Cry Me A River article distinguishes the completely different Timberlake song when "Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)" fails to distinguish the completely different 1953 song? The fact that they are completely different doesn't mean that they shouldn't mention one another. In fact the exact opposite is true. The function of an "about" template (or a "distinguish" template) is to point to other unrelated topics that might otherwise be confused with this one. The average reader will not know off hand that cover versions are not given their own articles. What is the problem with making a distinction in this case? Is there actually some policy or guideline that it violates or is this just a matter of personal preference? -Thibbs (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not a personal preference, (Justin Timberlake song) explains that is not the 1953 song, but the 2002 single by Timberlake. If you go on the Cry Me a River article there is a note because of the title (there aren't any brackets explaining it, it's only the plain name of the song). In the Timberlake case we don't need that thing. — Tomíca(T2ME)11:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty simple... the second sentence of the lead explains he wrote it about his former girlfriend... so yeah... "Justin Timberlake song" tells you it's a song by Justin Timberlake... I don't think anyone has ever said such a thing before for a policy to exist on the matter, actually... — Statυs (talk, contribs)11:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Well you guys seem to be the head editors on this article so perhaps your editorial preferences should count for more than mine, but I still think it's confusing as it is and I see absolutely no harm in adding a hatnote to distinguish it. I've tried coming up with an alternative strategy in the form of a "see also" note, but all I get is obstruction. There's nothing in the "Cry Me A River (Justin Timberlake song)" article that indicates that it's a different song than the 1953 version and the reader now must go to the "main" article (at "Cry Me A River)" to learn this fact through the hatnote there. It's not obvious to readers that no article would exist on cover versions, nor does the "(Justin Timberlake song)" suffix necessarily indicate to readers that this is an original work by Justin Timberlake unrelated to the older well-known and widely-covered song by the same name. Foreign and younger readers who only know recent pop songs they might easily and incorrectly assume that the Timberlake song was the original. Older readers may incorrectly assume this is just one of the more flagrant examples of WP:RECENTISM. A hatnote would prevent this, but if you two are determined that a visible distinguishment should not appear at the top of the article as it does for the article on the 1953 version then I'm not going to start an RfC or anything. I'll just leave it in your hands. -Thibbs (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Calvin. How was vacation? I am fine thanks. I hate that shit too, thank you Status for telling me how to disable it lol. — Tomíca(T2ME)08:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I removed it. I kept clicking it annoyingly. Yeah it was great Tom, I had such a good time :-) — AARON • TALK 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey there! I remembered that you're quite the JT fan, and I was wondering what you think of "Take Back the Night"! I like it, the song reminds me very much of "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough". Even though I already own The 20/20 Experience and only need 2 of 2 when it comes out, I spend so much money that I'll probably end up buying both the standard version and The Complete Experience, just to have in my personal library! Exciting times, ahahaha! :-) WikiRedactor (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello there! Yeah, I love the song of course, I even think it is better lead single than "Suit & Tie" tbh. And yeah, frankly reminds of MJ works. One thing that I hate is that he will now scrap the "Tunnel Vision" promotion (my favorite track on 20/20 part 1 tbh!) in favor of the new single. I think he is kind of rushing, but still I am so grateful that he came back to the music scene to poison us with his infectious songs :). Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME)15:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought the half-promotion of "Tunnel Vision" was quite odd, too. Perhaps he will now be alternating releasing singles from both albums the way Shakira did with her Oral Fixation records. I guess time will tell! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
.svg)
