Talk:Luxurious

Yet another Gwen Stefani Commercial Advertisement?

Fresh from the featured advert for "Cool" we now have yet another free advert masquerading as a legitimate Wiki article. Please explain to me why you feel that in 100 years time someone will type the words "Luxurious" into our search engine expecting to see this article? Yes she should have a bio, but a track by track uncritical puff piece for each song? No. --HasBeen 14:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Complaints

So far one complaint has been filed against User:Mel Etitis, with a second one currently in progress. If this continuous opposition to anything User:Anittas, User:OmegaWikipedia or myself continue, a final complaint will be going to HQ. Winnermario 23:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

AFD debate link

This page has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, please explain how this advert copied word for word from a press release is suitable for addition to any encylcopaedia other than one of advertising success? Is wiki just an extention of the commercial iterests of USA recording corporations? --HasBeen 14:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Another AFD failed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxurious (song). Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I've placed this as a sample article at RfC (regarding disagreements over table formatting), and created a discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Something about the song

The article is pretty good! I applaud the user who improved it. I will take the initative of completing it! –Cruz AFade ^{(Speak about it} | ^{How many?)} 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Above comment by sockpuppet of Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs), the user who expanded this article. Extraordinary Machine 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Free image

I've removed Image:Luxuriousscreencapwithslimthug1.jpg again, since we now have a free-licensed image that illustrates Slim Thug's participation in the song. Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." Extraordinary Machine 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Luxurious (song) → Luxurious — I can understand that people might be looking for an article about luxuries, but it seems unlikely that luxurious would be used to describe the economic term luxury good, defined as "a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises". ShadowHalo 07:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support. I understand the idea of wanting to redirect to real-world stuff as opposed to pop culture stuff in cases like this, but I think "Luxurious" is far enough away from "Luxury goods" to warrant a move. Recury 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Possibly with a dablink to Luxury at the top of the page. Saikokira 06:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Unwilling support. Per Recury's reason about Luxury goods. If I find anything else notable called "Luxurious" to write an article about, I will, but I'm not having any luck. cab 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. oppose a reader searching for a topic might not know what it is "exactly" titled at so they will type in similar words like Luxurious. The concept of luxury/luxurious is far more primary then the song. 205.157.110.11 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• The issue of people searching for luxury is a moot point. Luxury is a disambiguation page whose first article listed is Luxury good (this song doesn't even appear there). The question is whether or not people looking for the economic term Luxury good will use the search term luxurious. ShadowHalo 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA

Sorry for the late review, i can't see anything wrong with the article except this sentence -

• It entered the top forty of most of the charts it entered but had only mediocre success overall and was less popular than the previous singles from L.A.M.B. I don't like the wording of the first part (It entered the top forty of most of the charts it entered, it entered twice in one sentence) perhaps something like, "It entered top forty charts worldwide, but had mediocre success blah blah". Also saying "only" is a bit POV (implying it's a poor performance). Anyway goodwork and gl with FLC. M3tal H3ad 05:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "It entered top forty charts" implies that the charts themselves are top forty (as opposed to the UK Top 75 singles, for example) so I changed it to "It entered the top forty worldwide" since it peaked at 27 on the world chart. Thanks for reviewing the article. ShadowHalo 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Luxurious/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and clean up! — R² 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)