User talk:Melicans/Archive 7

“ Time won't leave me as I am
Time won't take the boy out of this man ” — U2, "City of Blinding Lights"

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

i did some more minor edits...

...to the NLOTH article's charts section: here. The table wasnt sorting properly. It doesnt if you have refs in the table, so I felt we can do away with that. So I decided to split the table in 2, it just looks nice and takes less space. Same with the singles, I hope you dont mind. Suede67 (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, it definitely looks better now (especially the album positions). This is one of those things I'd have missed completely, and it makes the article look shorter and more compact too. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not I'm accusing you of ownership, I'm a bit pensive of treading new ground (i.e editing articles I normally dont). I'm glad you appreciated it. Suede67 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you were ;). And don't be pensive; be bold! MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yes, I should be! Suede67 (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

My first barnstar! Thank you so much! :) FireCrystal (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem; you deserve it for more than just the userbox ;) MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 11:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good one!

Liked it! Nice phrase, I'm using it. Just a suggestion though, you could use another pic, the existing one isnt clear enough, though I have a hunch on why you chose exactly that one. Suede67 (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it's the only picture I could find on Wikipedia and Commons that showed them playing it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lucario

Just to let you know I think you revert was unnecessary. Your comment "there's no article here" is untrue and unenlightened. The discussion to revert happened two years ago and is no longer valid. Plus, I have never been able to find a record of such discussion. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

NLOTH billboard refs

They shouldnt have revamped the site, it's crap now, they just mercilessly removed more obscure charts! Anyway, wanted to let you know all is not lost. You still can see charting details for more "notable" charts. Another think is the "modern rock" chart is now called "alternative songs", i tell you this because i noticed you removed this for GOYB. See this Alternative Songs. Suede67 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, and it looks absolutely terrible now. I must have searched for an hour trying to find those... can you re-add the ones you've found? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I'll do it, as soon I find time, dont worry. Btw, how long before its nominated? Suede67 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not long I hope. Dream out loud is still going through the prose and doing some tweaks when he has the time. I'm hoping he won't be too much longer, but I don't want to be annoying and keep asking him how much longer it'll be. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:)) Absolutely! Btw, any suggestions? Template talk:Snow Patrol Suede67 (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say that the template should be universal without colour-coding for each seperate page. I really like the green-colour one though. The yellow one seems a bit off with the links all being in black. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

They do use color though, eg - american idol, scuderia ferrari, the green's my fav too! Suede67 (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I know that! I meant that it should be universal within the same cluster of articles! So the Snow Patrol template wouldn't be different colours on each article, it would be the same colour on each. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh! The colors would be the same, yes! They are just test templated I made to choose from, they'll vote which one they think it's best and that will be used final. Suede67 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I vote green =P. I think the black is too dark and the yellow is kind of unappealing. Neutral on all the others. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, I hear you on the others as well, the green is just standout. Why not comment on your vote the them template's talk? Btw, just done adding billboard on the NLOTH singles section, i added only 2, more notable charts. More obscure ones can be fully added in the single's page ok? Suede67 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for adding those. If there are any more obscure charts, they probably are best in the GoYB page. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, there ARE few more charts, maybe we'll add them when its nominated again for GA, okay? And thank for your comment. Suede67 (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No problemo, chum. :) MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Suede67 (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

U2 360 Tour: What do you mean? You need an opinion on that? I think you're right. Its official these dates are to be played in the near future, why remove. I'm still confused though. Suede67 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just a silly edit made with no real logic behind it I guess. Don't really know why it would be made in the first place... MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I fear the same. Suede67 (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tour dates

The issue is not speculation in U2 360° Tour‎‎, it's WP:NOT: Wikipedia articles are not, quote "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules." Piano non troppo (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

From the exact same sentence: ...although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. I'd say that the tour safely qualifies as a "major event" and as being "historically significant" when looking at how it will affect music history. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

She's a Mystery to Me

Damn right it is link. Suede67 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too, i'll make my edits there. Done Suede67 (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of redundancy. Roy's website has a discography in chronological order. In there, "California Blue" appears before "Mystery", (there's also release dates in there). And "Mystery"'s release date is shown to be Sept 1, 1989, though we have put Feb 1989 in your sandbox. It may be a re-pressing date (maybe?), but still, California Blue is shown to have a Jan 1989 release date. Now, U2Wanderer states the single was the lead single, confusing. Suede67 (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Very, though I'd trust Orbison's website more than U2Wanderer since it's official. The release date I put was when it was "Infobox song", since I didn't realize it was released as a single and that's when the album came out. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, if you search the irish charts (link in the refs) for mystery, the charting date is sometime in feb/march 1989, ABOUT THE TIME the single was released (the date we have right now). Thats strong, there's a direct link. Suede67 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye, but it's possible that when it first charted it hadn't been released as a single. "No Line on the Horizon" and "Moment of Surrender" have done the same from No Line on the Horizon after all. The trouble is, since the track was released in the late 80s and really isn't all that well known, it's difficult to find anything that confirms what we need. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I was expecting you to say just that. But I feel it cant be a coincidence that the single was (presumably) released on 7 Feb, and the single entered chart on 22 mar. Too close! Also, logically, I dont think a non single would reach up to 5 (on the main chart for said country) without being released as a single. We have U2's recent examples. Suede67 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you removed the music vid section (more like a sentence) when you posted it on the main wiki, mind if i add it back later, with a description? Suede67 (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap, how did I do that? I thought I'd grabbed everything! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, dont worry, i have it here. feel free to edit it, if you decide to write a description yourself. Suede67 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions?

...on Snow Patrol discography. I will try to get it featured, but want to be as prepared as possible. It has underwent heavy editing for the past few days, and I think it's virtually complete (except the music vid directors, unknown). Another user is suggesting adding TV appearances, should I? Suede67 (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't see anything with it that needs to be done. I wouldn't recommend TV appearances be included since they're pretty much irrelevant to the discography. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Value your opinion. Btw, see my prev. msg, about "Mystery". Suede67 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the discography? Then why is there a section with videos? RichV (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Because they're published by the band, they accompany their singles, seems pretty logical to me. Rich, TV appearances can be added in the Snow Patrol article itself, i can do it. Suede67 (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Music videos are created by the band and released alongside singles or albums for TV play, and are even released in their own right on occassion. A one-off TV performance is shown once and then forgotten by everyone except YouTube. A discography entry should really only include items that are (or previously were) available for purchase, or at least were shown in a frequent rotation by an applicable TV station; and to be brutally honest, including a 5-minute performance from Good Morning America is really too trivial to warrant inclusion. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

re:Vandalism

Hey Melicans, and thanks for the revert. I'm glad to hear the IP was blocked. Since I started using Huggle a few days ago, my userpage has been vandalized nine times now, and my talk page has been hit a few times, too. Oh well, I love Huggle anyway. Well, cheers! -sesuPRIME 02:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions?

No "consensus" is reached here haha, more advice? Template talk:Snow Patrol Suede67 (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, i finally put the gray one, the only one all 3 agreed on. Thanks again. Suede67 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war/Pikachu

I didn't start that war. Kung Fu Man did. Besides, I've only reverted twice this evening, he's reverted thrice. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It was tehnically you who started it as an edit war is considered to have started when a reversion is re-reverted (or to put it more simply, when a change that has been reverted is restored by the same user). Per WP:3RR: 3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR. Instead of continuing to revert to try and make your point, take it to the discussion page as I previously indicated. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

After the talk at WT:VG I think I'll let Artichoker and others have a go this evening at explaining why it's best to treat such details properly. I expected the 3RR thing anyway, that's why I pointed out in my edit summary it would be my last revert on the matter (hopefully that doesn't come across as rude, not intended to be)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye, no problem. And don't worry, it didn't come across that way; I just didn't want warning only the other user to seem like favouritism to them. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The clips

Here they are. "pos" should preferably be RIGHT.

Suede67 (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely awesome! Thanks a bunch mate, I'd have had no clue at all how to do it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind! Glad to be of help. Suede67 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They look great! Good job! Couldnt the lost quot box be shifter someplace else? You could place it left. Suede67 (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried every alignment I could think of with the Show preview button in all sorts of different locations, but every other way just ended up making the paragraphs and text look really misshapen. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I hope it wasnt that necessary. So its ready for the nom yet?! Suede67 (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is just about, but I don't plan on nominating it immediately (I'll be too busy through the rest of the month in getting ready for University and moving out to respond to everything raised). I'll be able to do so in early September though. Would you mind taking another read through it to make sure that language isn't repeated all that often within paragraphs? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, no problem, i'll read it. And the setlists section is great! I wish there were sites like that for Snow Patrol. Suede67 (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

U2 is the only band I've ever found a comprehensive setlist archive like that for. And they have two of them! I always prefer to use U2Gigs though. Did you know that one of their administrators is also a Wikipedian? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading NLOTH

• In promotion: "An alternate version of the title track "No Line on the Horizon" debuted on RTÉ 2XM" This was NLOTH 2, right? Any ref that confirms this? I guess we can put it there and mention it was the bside to GOYB.

I don't think there is a ref that supports it... Maybe changing it to just "a version of..." MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another doubt. he infobox notes the producers, though it doesnt include will.i.am. and Declan Gaffney (from the track listing), even though the latter worked on only 2 of the 11 songs. Is this intended?

Yes, because their involvement was minimal. Eno, Lanois, and Lillywhite were the principal producers, and will.i.am and Gaffney were brought in for only a couple of songs. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the section for Linear you could add 2 lines surmising the story's plot, and maybe noting Said as the lead character in it.

Yeah, I kinda wish Dream Out Loud had done that before splitting it. Would have been simpler than switching back and forth. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We could select a bit from the article and paste it back here, or see the older version of the page, and copy some off it. Suede67 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• You could also have a "release history" section. In the text, there's mention of the album dates, and I think the guidelines say one date in the infobox. The rest can be mentioned in a separate section.

I'm not sure that the information is important enough to put into it's own section; it would be pretty short in any case. Maybe working it into the generic release section? I'm not sure... FAC would be the best place to ask when it's nominated. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No problems, I just mentioned it cuz i've been seeing it at recent albums Death Magnetic, 21st Century Breakdown and Black Ice (album). Suede67 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• And the boxes way down, showing the album number 1 in diff regions, and preceeding and succeeding #1, do we need refs or that?! I'm not sure!

Nah, not to my knowledge. I've never seen any other article with it anyways. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knwledge as well, just asking. Suede67 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I did minor nitpicking, but personally found nothing repetitive as such. Suede67 (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Looks like all the copyediting of the last few weeks has paid off! Thanks a bunch for looking over it. See, you've got sharp eyes. =P MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha yeah, maybe. Suede67 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The comma

Hahaha, actually I see it with the comma on the charts/sales section, so for symettery. Suede67 (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting U2 360° Tour‎ details

By-the-by, I thought your edit in U2 360° Tour‎ here was unusually useful and interesting: [1]. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I'm glad you found it of interest. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The FA

Seems to be going very well! I'm deliberately not jumping in. People are already saying support, and no one as such is opposing, just suggesting fixes, fixes we didn't even think of! But I think this will get featured! Suede67 (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I really hope so; all the fixes make a lot of sense I think. The content is already there, it just needs moving around and such. Probably a good call on your part too, since you've had some active involvement in the writing of the article. Thanks for fixing those dead links, by the way. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problemo! Suede67 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a stalemate going on? No activity for almost 2 days i think. User Axver (the U2gig owner) even replied, get it moving! Just post something, Quick! :) Suede67 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there's one support and no opposes, so I'm not sure what's going on. I doubt it'll fail yet, but FAC's can go anywhere from a week to a month. I posted on Ealdgyth's talk page after Axver replied about U2Gigs (I'm glad I was able to contact him through Twitter), and again earlier today since it's been a few days and they haven't checked to see if their concerns have been addressed. It says on FAC (or another FA* page) that if you respond to a reviewer, let them know you've responded, and they don't take a look after that notification, you can say so in the FAC. I might do that in a few days since I'll have contacted them twice since Axver's reply. The only other thing I can do is wait and hope some other editors take a look at it very soon. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course, It'll be in good faith to wait for some time, maybe they're lokking through the article very closely(?) But i think 24 more hours is enough, and if they have regular recent contributions yet arent replying on the FAC, you must ping them again. Suede67 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe 36 hours, =P. In all fairness, they were away recently (or at least they had a Wikibreak template up), so it may be that they're still catching up with other FAs in the time they have online. PS, I really like this new editor, CrazyTonight. They seem really eager to improve the articles anyway they can, especially the List of covers of U2 songs one! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, sure! if they say they're on a break, MUST stay shut! And yea CrazyTonight seems nice. I left a signature reminder earlier today and he responded quite nicely. I hope he decides to stay. Suede67 (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too; they've got a lot of enthusiasm, that's for sure. He/she (not sure which one they are yet, :P) seemed really glad to learn about the reference templates too. I'm really glad they added the info about the Achtung Baby album Live 2006. I got it from iTunes and it's incredible. Elevation Tour "The Fly", Zoo TV "Running to Stand Still" and "Where the Streets Have No Name", and Lovetown Tour "Bullet the Blue Sky", and they're all incredible musicians. It's the best tribute album I've ever listened to. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll listen to it, sounds super from what you tell me! I added some things to the list's talk page, and I will try to do wome of it myself, if possible. You can direct CrazyTonight to do it though, he/she :) does seem interested in it. Suede67 (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, hope you don't mind the slight alteration I made to the to-do list. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha of course not, I need to fix my grammatypo as well. Suede67 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey MelicansMatkin. Thanks for the help! Never quite figured out how to add references so that'd be a great help. Yep definitely interested in the U2 articles so I'll be helping out where I can. The list of covers is really impressive by the way. Great job! I added Window in the Skies and City of Blinding Lights (Plus a few others that a tribute band called Achtung Baby released as part of a concert album called Live 2006, so could you just take a look and make sure I added them correctly?) --CrazyTonight (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks MelicansMatkin. I've referenced all the changes I made (it's actually a lot easier than I thought. Thanks for showing me how to do it). Just one more thing - I added a bit to "In a Little While" (one of my fav U2 songs) to illustrate its meaning. My reference is a video on Youtube of the Boston concert they released during the Elevation Tour - remember how Bono said it used to be about a hangover, but Joey Ramone turned it into a Gospel song? The uploader is a fan rather than an official channel though. Is that ok? I'll have a look for a text article that references the stuff I added if that'd be better. --CrazyTonight (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than using the YouTube upload as a source, why not use the concert video? {{Cite video}} would work really well. YouTube is almost always frowned upon as a source, and even sourcing an official channel can be risky, because they can edit their descriptions and such. Text sources are always best, especially online ones, since they're the easiest to verify. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie, changed it to a cite video and added the link to the imdb page. Will keep text sources in mind in future though.--CrazyTonight (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

Silly me! Thanks for catching my mistake. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem, I've made similar mistakes before too. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Not looking good; it's been a week since the user with concerns over source reliability has responded, and SandyGeorgia seems to be concerned about TUF-KAT's support. =S Urgh. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and with good reason, I cant blame SandyGeo to be completely honest. But what is irritating me that they arent taking the FAC forward, as if without TUF-KAT, it cant. I'll read the FAC myself right now, and see if I can put any points forward asserting the validity of the sources you chose. I dont think we can let this go any stale, already, no editor seems interested. Suede67 (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I added stuff on the FAC page, check it out link. Edit: I said the new site has the same content, but apparently the date the fan recorded is different. I feel Times is more reliable that Consequence. What about you? Suede67 (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, cheers. The thing that really frustrates me most is that the user (can't remember offhand how to spell their name) hasn't checked back after a full week, even though I've contacted them several times. They've been editing too, so it's not like it's from inactivity. The Times is undoubtedly infinitely more reliable than Consequence of Sound, so I'll be changing that link. As far as I'm concerned, that was the last real problem with the sources. I've always considered U2Gigs a reliable source, as have most of the members of the U2 WikiProject at some point or another. And I really don't know how anyone can call Mojo unreliable; it's as big as Rolling Stone in Britain. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Great then! Yes I did see Tuf-Kat had activity after he/she was notified on their talkpage. Dont know whats up? I can try searching for an alternate source what Mojo, if you want. Suede67 (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant the other editor; the one who brought it up. Ealdgyth I think? Anyways, they've just responded. Looks like they still don't think U2Gigs and Mojo are reliable, but it's up to other editors to decide it seems. I don't think we will find an alternative source for the Mojo references, since they were exclusive interviews. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw Eal... (yes cant pronounce!) his message. I'm trying to find an alt link, but am also going to try convince them that Mojo is reliable. I still dont understand what their problem with U2gigs is. Even though its a fansite, they have rules of deciding how content maes the site, so it should be considered reliable! Suede67 (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Better keep it safe I suppose; remove the "mojo4music/blog" refs except the exclusives (if there are any left, I've changed one), and use U2Gigs for performances only? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm strengthening my case for MOJO. Dont change anything right now, I'm working on something to prove MOJO is reliable. Maybe it will pay off. Suede67 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay; the two edits I made were just substituting for two other sources that contain the same information. I won't touch the exclusive interviews. I will try to change the U2Gigs ones in relation to the French TV and Radio broadcasts, but leave the performances. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we'd be lucky to substitute U2gigs, anyway, I added more comments on the FAC, check it out. Suede67 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, and I think it's a strong argument. I do hope that addresses the concerns about notability and reliability. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope so too! Have my fingers crossed. Suede67 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Great job finding alt sources for the U2gigs ones!!! Suede67 (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; guess it's just down to the Mojo sources now. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding U2's I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight

MelicansMatkin:

Greetings. We have a little discrepancy regarding the genre for U2's new single "I'll Go Crazy..." .

The genre "pop rock" is often used in derogatory terms, and the wikipedia page refers to it as "less authentic than rock music". Whereas similar songs, such as "shiny happy people" by REM are labeled "alternative rock", which I consider an ambiguous genre, it is not used or confused in a derogatory manner.

Maybe we could find a middle ground and label it "alternative rock".

Best regards, Replikhant (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in the conversation, but I remember reverting the genre to Poprock myself. The song is clearly poppy. Remember the article is about the song, not the band. U2's genre is rock/alternative, but the song's genre isnt necessarily that. Example, "When Love Comes to Town" can be called a blues song, right?

The same happened in my editing experience on a Snow Patrol song "Crack the Shutters" I had to accept is power pop, even though the band is generally considered alternative rock. Suede67 (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

U2, although generally considered a rock band, have branched out into many different genres over the years. Songs such as "Twilight" and "Gloria" can be seen as post-punk, "Beach Sequence" as ambient, and "I Still Haven't Found What I'm looking For" and "When Love Comes to Town" have been cited as being gospel and blues respectively by the band. Much of the Zooropa album is electronica, "Mofo" is part techno, part dance, and "Jesus Christ" and "The Wanderer" are clearly country.

I find that the trouble with the "alternative rock" label is that it is too broad; it's almost a dumping ground of whatever doesn't fit into any other rock category (at least, that is my perception of it). It's interesting to note that several reviews of No Line on the Horizon actually did refer to the track as pop-rock in a derogative context. I personally view "Crazy Tonight" as being in a similar mold (musically) to "Sweetest Thing", which I see is labelled as both pop-rock and alternative rock. I don't think it's necessarily an alternative rock track, but I can see how it would fit into the category. Perhaps listing both would work? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Listing both would be the right think I now feel, didnt think of that before! Suede67 (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Crazy's release date

link says the date was Aug 17 indeed, but was shifted to Sept. But they still released the "Live from somerville" release on amazon did occur on Aug 17, all rest formats (ones you added) will be in Sept. I guess this is a reliable site. I've seen this one used on U2 articles. Suede67 (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye, but I'm not sure if that date can be used. There's been three or four different release dates so far, and it's difficult knowing which is correct, or which should be used. The boys have certainly made it difficult for us this time! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its quite confusing, i guess this is the best way to explain multiple dates, so I use it. Keep the earliest date in the infobox. Also, lesser important releases can be hidden (eg - the itunes ones, as the section becomes too long), if you dont know how, use code from here: A Hundred Million Suns. Suede67 (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're going?

When will you be back? Really bad time to leave when the FAC is going on. I'll try to comment on it, I do have it on watch. But not sure if I'll be able to do fixes as swiftly as you do, but I'll try. Maybe you can also ask DreamOutLoud to watch out for it? He seems active in editing NLOTH. Around when will you be back btw? Suede67 (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly when I'll have access again. I'll probably be on as late as the 3rd, but after that it's just a guessing game. I'm hoping that it won't be more than a couple of days, but it depends on what company we go with, and when they're able to set us up. I need it for school though, so it shouldn't be a particularly long time. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope so. Good luck! Suede67 (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Song Pages

OK, we both love U2, and you keep redirecting pages about great U2 songs. Why? you should edit them, cause you're a big fan of them. I will redirect the pages, and you can tell me what they need more of.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how "great" a song is; to Wikipedia, it's immaterial. The notability guideline for music notes that, in the case of songs, "most..do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect". Songs that have charted, primarily singles, or songs that have been covered several times by a variety of artists, can (but are not always) seen as being notable enough for their own article. The only other reason a song may qualify for its own article is when there is enough verified information for a detailed article to be created. This last criterion is the main difference between articles such "A Sort of Homecoming (song)" and "White as Snow (song)". One has a lot of detailed information; the other doesn't.

Believe me, I've searched for information on just about every U2 song. I've trawled the net, and every U2-related book that I own. But there just isn't any real information available for them. The songs that I redirected were primarily composed of the number of times that the band played each song. And that just isn't what it takes to make an article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

NLOTH FAC

I don't know what happened! There wasnt anyone replying, even after I tried to address their concerns, and I log in later to find the discussion is closed! Weird, and I feel a bit cheated. Suede67 (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You back?! Welcome. I hope you saw my message above. Suede67 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly back yet; I'm at University right now with limited time and access, but should have full internet access set up at my apartment by the 12th. I did see your above comment a moment ago; even Neutral comments are taken into account by the three people who oversee FAC, and they may have a hand in passing or failing an article. It's disappointing, but we take it to another Peer Review and then nominate again a while later. The sources were checked and, with the exception of that Mojo source, all were judged to fit the FA criteria. I think I know how to take care of that too. My biggest concern throughout the process was with the image and audio rationales. Once those are altered/fixed, we'll be back on our way. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. See ya. Suede67 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

U2 pictures

Hey, nice work on the U2 pictures from the Toronto show. Would you have any objections if I arranged to move the images to commons so other projects could use them? --JD554 (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and no, not at all. I'm not too familiar with Commons, so that would be great. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've copied them over to Commons. The versions that are local to Wikipedia will be deleted by an admin in due course. But don't worry, the files have exactly the same name at Commons so the links in the Wikipedia articles to the images will still work. The files also still have you as the author and include all the information you originally uploaded. Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a suggestion

On adam's page, rather have a head shot of him, and the performance photos can be integrated in the article body. The ones present dont really show his face that clearly. Maybe his face can be cropped from a higeher resolution image already present? Suede67 (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I found an image on Commons that I think fits the bill; File:Adam Clayton rdblk.jpg. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That'll do, but we cant crop it unless its GDFL as it'd be like making a derivative work. Try using the full image in the infobox. See what happens. Suede67 (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I put the full image into the infobox before I replied to your message :P. I think it works better than the old one, with no crop needed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but that image is licensed as Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 which means it can be used for any purposes including making derivative works. --JD554 (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok it can?! Thanks JD for the heads up! Melicans, you still dont need the crop? Suede67 (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it really needs a crop or not, but go for it if you think it'll make the article look better. Cheers for the liscensing clarification JD; I've never been much good with that stuff. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its made the article better, but i dont think it looks bad in any way. Suede67 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox tracklisting...

Hmmm - I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't really see the point of having them. Particularly on an album such as UF where there are only 3 tracks with articles (ie, what's the point of having a non-linked song listed there?). It might make sense for, say, U218 where each track is linked and a reader can move along the article using the info box. Even that seems a bit dubious, but that might be just the minimalist in me. We also have a track list in the articles, categories by albums, and various navigation templates at the bottom of the articles. Excessive? What do you think? --Merbabu (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's excessive; I was just wondering why you'd removed some and not all of them. I think that all those extra tracklists really drag the infobox on for too long, actually, and it is kind of replaced by those templates at the bottom of the song articles now. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't I replace all? Partly because I hadn't finished, and partly because I was completely sure about what I was doing. what do you think? Do people actually move through an album thru the info box? And what happens if 7 out of 10 songs don't actually have an article to click thru to?? Personally, I think is is more gimmick than useful and bloats the infoboxes. --Merbabu (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

PS - maybe the album chronology in the album articles is more useful and should stay? --Merbabu (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on all those points (and you did answer the question I had). Makes more sense to remove the ones that are of no use. I'd say album chronology in the album article infoboxes, single chronology in the single article infoboxes, and song chronology on the song article infoboxes (but only for the first album it was released on) are all that is needed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so how about remove the compilations tracklisting (from the infoboxes) for starters? --Merbabu (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT on Misty

I don't understand why we should leave the merge tag. If it's obvious how the discussion will play out, then having such a discussion will just be a waste of everyone's time. It's clear the merge tag was simply placed for disruptive purposes, so why should we even entertain such a discussion? Artichoker^[talk] 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply so that there are no accusations of edit-warring on our part. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Imagery...

Did you actually take this? Great compostion and nice use of the light. Perhaps we could carefully try an increase in the exposure for the WP (or, increase brightness if you don't have a RAW version?). Also, maybe we should just black out Mullen's head - i think it's the only drawback of an amazing photo - ie, a distraction.

Nice work. --Merbabu (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did manage to get that one. It was a lucky shot really. I was close to the front (as you can probably tell from the "TUF" screen; that one wasn't even zoomed in), but my camera isn't particularly good and quite a few images that could have been amazing turned out a bit blurry. I'm not very good with image manipulation, but you can modify it if you like. I've got no objections. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide Sales

Agreed, that website consists of estimations, but those numbers are NOT arbitrary. My view is that those numbers give the public an IDEA how how many records have been sold. Is there any way we can include this information (as it has been lacking), perhaps indicating that the sales figures are not exact? For instance, instead of saying Acthung Baby has sold 18,000,000 copies, we could put "~18,000,000" or something. The information is there, although not 100% accurate provides a sense of the kinds of numbers that are sold throughout the world, not just in the US and UK--there is a world outside and this site gives us an indication of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.241.89 (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Kww's reply on Talk:U2 answered everything I think. The worldwidealbums website is a mirror of a bad chart which uses unreliable data. You can see either his post on Talk:U2 or read WP:BADCHARTS for why. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

U2 info boxes...

I've opened up a discussion about the U2 infoboxes here. Would be good for you to join in as appropriate. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Links that go dead after a while

I see this was a problem that came up in the PR2. I've started to use this service now, on basically every link: http://www.webcitation.org Its really helpful, and most of the time, it will be successful in archiving the page. For us editors, its god-sent. Suede67 (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's excellent! I've tried using webarchive in the past, but never with any luck. This really is a God-send; I'll have to get that all done before the FA drive too, and there are some other articles I can think of which would really benefit from this... MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Same here! It doesnt archive all pages necessarily. I think its really helpful for sources like newspapers and magazine websites, where links are generally locked out after a while and you can only pay to access them. One more thing, sometimes webcite doesnt work for me, in these cases backupurl tends to work. So note both sites down. Suede67 (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I will do, thanks. I wish I'd known about these two before now, they could have been so useful on some older articles I can think of. Man, this is a real boon! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I know how this feels, i only discovered these recently. Suede67 (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

U2 360° Tour

hi,

not sure I understand your message.. is it a daily newspaper an "original research"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravanellidiciamo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The information on the tour dates is original research until it is revealed by an official source; in this case through U2.com or Live Nation. Until the dates are officially announced, they are speculation. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of this?

Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.94.162 (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Your point? Seeing how this is your first edit, what are you trying to apply it to? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Some misleading information on a Missingno article... I'm not even going to bother editing it again since I'm geting nowhere... sorry if my IP keeps changing. 125.239.94.162 (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Which information in particular? While IAR is a good guideline to keep in mind for some things (ex. editing disputes), it doesn't apply to policies like WP:V or WP:OR. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry then. It's the WP:OR thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.94.162 (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

U2 articles

Hey – you keep requesting I comment on your work or on other issues, yet I keep not commenting. I always mean to and I will try to pick up my game. Keep up all the work including the article expansions and the collaborative editing style. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, it's no problem. I know you're a busy guy. =) MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

/* Charts */

Hmm, other songs have that Latvian Airplay Chart results and are not deleted like MGMT and older U2 songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.84.9.94 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

MGMT? I'm not familiar with that acronym. As for the others, it should be removed from them too. Can you please point those instances out to me? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

MGMT a New York-based indie rock group, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGMT_discography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.84.9.94 (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Latvian chart in question is the European Hits Chart, not the Latvian Airplay Chart. In so far as I can tell the European Hits Chart is not deprecated, so the Latvian listing in that instance does not fall under BADCHARTS. User:Kww could conclusively tell you if it is deprecated or not. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that MGMT results are on latvian chart,reference is totally wrong its not EHR, MGMT i think never make it on top 40 EHR

Ohh sorry, now i understand your answer. Vince.

Not a problem, I'm always glad to help out new users. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So i guess you will delete results from Latvian Charts? now i am talking about U2 singles Vertigo and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince32 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If they are the Latvian Airplay Charts, then yes I will delete them when I have the time, probably later tonight or some point tomorrow. At the moment I have an examination to study for so I can't really go through all of the U2 song articles to do that kind of maintenance. (PS, don't forget to sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hard for me lol, yes they all are airplay charts too small country for singles charts :(, no one will know on what chart Miss Sarajevo was at first place ha ha Vince32 (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Unknown Caller

On October 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unknown Caller, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 01:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Breathe (U2 song)

On October 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Breathe (U2 song), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 13:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work on U2 song articles

Good work on creating all the song articles for No Line on the Horizon – although the only two that don't have them are by far my two faves from the album ;-) And if some deletionist ever puts them up for AfD because they aren't singles, let me know and I'll be sure to support keeping them. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahah, cheers, and sorry to keep you waiting. I am actually working on those two in my sandbox, so feel free to join in there. I've been working on all of the articles in there so that I can be sure that when I put them out they won't be nominated for deletion through WP:NSONGS (it says that articles are fine if there is substantial development included). I kind of see "White as Snow (song)" as the benchmark for each one to meet before it gets put out, so I think that already "Moment of Surrender" will be good to go once the information is all organized. Not quite sure about "Cedars of Lebanon" yet, but I think it will make it at about the same level as "White as Snow". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have it right, you have to hit the ground running with articles like that. On my list to get to is the revival/expansion/citing/etc of what used to be "Running to Stand Still". But it'll have to be the same deal, close to GA-quality by the time it hits article space again. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; truth be told, I purposely left "Moment of Surrender" until last because I was sure that it was one of the few non-singles that would be able to get an article without much trouble, which is why I worked on articles like "Fez", "Unknown Caller", and "Stand Up Comedy" first. Actually, I'm very pleasantly surprised by the "Stand Up Comedy" article; I think it may be the strongest song article of any from the album, though it's Composition section is admittedly lacking right now.

If you like, I might be able to help you with the "Running to Stand Still" article in regards to offline sources. I've got a couple of things that might have some useful information; "Into the Heart - The Story Behind Every Song" and "Uncut's The Ultimate Music Guide: U2" among them. I can hunt through those later and try to find some stuff if you like. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Moment of Surrender

Hello, Melicans. You have new messages at Burningview's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.