- Put new text under old text.-Unless you are following something up.
- I generally archive my Talk Page-Around every 15 messages.
- Please sign and date your entries-by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
- I sometimes rename section headers-to help me navigate.
In response to this edit here, popular culture headings are actually trivia. A "subject in popular culture" is explicitly named in WP:ATRIV. Spellcast 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't. It's just that there's been all these afds of articles about something in "popular culture". I think these pages are starting to get stamped out of Wikipedia. Many can be found in Category:In popular culture. Spellcast 16:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You know when you format links, and you name the website, for example. <ref>[URL Title of page (as it appears there)]. HipHopDX. Accessed [[July 25]] [[2007]].</ref>, you don't need to italicize the website (HipHopDX) all the time, unless it is a magazine, e.g. Rolling Stone. Get what I'm trying to say? --- Realest4Life 15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is here. However, I just use the Curtis (50 Cent album) article as an example, or use User:Spellcast's way to format them. It's really not that hard, just look at a few links in the Curtis article and you'll get it. With italicizing, you can check Wikipedia articles on those websites, for example, MTV is not italicized, no need to italicize, MySpace isn't either, websites normally aren't, but Rolling Stone, Los Angeles Times, Entertainment Weekly, and other magazines/newspapers are italicized. --- Realest4Life 15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is formatting actually. Just like albums are supposed to be italicized, songs are supposed to be in quotation marks, magazines are supposed to be italicized. --- Realest4Life 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody will complain if we don't italicize albums either. However, it is in the rules that you format them correctly. However, it is better to never italicize links than to always italicize. --- Realest4Life
- By the way, you don't need to add ".com" to website in your references. For example, it is OK to use "MySpace", instead of "MySpace.com", same goes for HipHopDX, and other websites. Also, you do not need to add commas when you have full dates, such as "July 24 2007", because if you link them, the comma will automatically be there. See July 24 2007 (actual code [[July 24]] [[2007]]). Hope that helps. --- Realest4Life 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Gangsta rap, an article that could use more knowlegeable editors. I'm not defining P Diddy, but didn't 50 Cent arrive a bit late to be have contributed to gangsta rap's move towards conquering the pop charts?
I'd suggest a better name, but I don't have a good sense of the big sellers. Fitty arrived after Gangsta was pretty established, and arguably around the time of Gangsta's alleged decline (if one believes that started a few years ago). / edg ☺ ★ 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Yr doing a better job than I could. Ice Cube maybe? Thanks again. / edg ☺ ★ 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cube's article describes him as the seventh richest person in the hip hop industry. Haven't looked up 1 thru 6, but I imagine they might not be pioneering gangsta rappers. / edg ☺ ★ 16:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Archive
Sorry to squat on yr talk page, but a number of those comments were from June & July. The whacked sequence is a by-product from editors top-posting and my quick half-assed resorting. Anyway, I'd like to leave some previous chat just so that editors joining the discussion would have some precendents on stuff. / edg ☺ ★ 17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that you're trying to improve reference format. Take a look at Template:Cite web/doc#Examples. Although you don't have to use {{cite web}}, these appear to be standard reference formats. So, let us take a look at the first ref in the G-Unit article. It's an online news article with two authors. The fifth example set down is for citing coauthored articles:
- Doe, John; Peter Smith, Jim Smythe (April 30, 2005). My favorite things part II. Encyclopedia of things. Open Publishing. Retrieved on May 16, 2006.
So, instead of...
- <ref>[http://allhiphop.com/blogs/news/archive/2005/04/12/18129910.aspx "50 Cent’s Ideal World Is “Peaceful”, Rapper Explains Gorilla Unit"], AllHipHop.com, [[April 12]], [[2005]].</ref>
...which displays as...
- "50 Cent’s Ideal World Is “Peaceful”, Rapper Explains Gorilla Unit", AllHipHop.com, April 12, 2005.
...it would be...
- <ref>Williams, Houston; Diva, Amanda ([[April 12]], [[2005]]). [http://allhiphop.com/blogs/news/archive/2005/04/12/18129910.aspx 50 Cent’s Ideal World Is “Peaceful”, Rapper Explains Gorilla Unit]. AllHipHop.com. Retreived on [[July 26]], [[2007]].</ref>
...which displays as...
- Williams, Houston; Diva, Amanda (April 12, 2005). 50 Cent’s Ideal World Is “Peaceful”, Rapper Explains Gorilla Unit. AllHipHop.com. Retreived on July 26, 2007.
I'll still take a look at the refs in G-Unit, but does that help? --Geniac 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you could use commas instead, but then it wouldn't be according to the standard set by {{cite web}}. --Geniac 12:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding length of code; The template usage for the above example would be...
- {{cite web|first=Houston|last=Williams|coauthors=Diva, Amanda|title=50 Cent’s Ideal World Is “Peaceful”, Rapper Explains Gorilla Unit|publisher=AllHipHop.com|date=[[2005-04-12]]|url=http://allhiphop.com/blogs/news/archive/2005/04/12/18129910.aspx|accessdate=2007-07-26}}
...which doesn't look a whole lot longer than the manual code. Many of the parameters given in the blank template there are optional. --Geniac 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Per Template:Infobox musical artist: Label - "The record label or labels to which the act has been signed, as a comma-separated list. Omit parenthetical dates; save that information for the main article." So no, we don't add dates. --- Realest4Life 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Right here. If you take a look at Rolling Stone's page, you will notice that they italicize the name. --- Realest4Life 17:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah my bad, mixed them up. However, Billboard is still italicized. --- Realest4Life 17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- So is Rolling Stone. Billboard is the source, just because it is an online version it doesn't mean you don't format it correctly. --- Realest4Life 17:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I am not following you. Can't Leave 'Em Alone, Before I Self Destruct, 50 Cent discography, Westside Story and How We Do are all on my watchlist, so I just check to see the changes. The Young Buck template I happened to look at the Young Buck article and noticed the template changed. Just said this to avoid any problems. I have like 60 articles on my watchlist. --- Realest4Life 17:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay I warned User talk:Shoessss about the racism. Very strange, he seems like a professional sort of user. ScarianTalk 21:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
My Conversation with him
Here is the conversation:
"black child is a nigga" - You spelt 'nigger' wrong and you made a racist personal attack on someone. As you know, this is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please take your racism elsewhere and contribute positively to Wikipedia. Thankyou. ScarianTalk 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa there Scarian, did you look at the edit history involved or just jump the gun here. To point you to the facts; first I reverted the edit when I realized that this was not vandalism as noted here [1]. Second, after I reverted my edits I “Apologized” to the editor involved as noted here [2]. Before accusing another editor of racism best get your facts straight by reviewing the edit histories involved and look at the individuals edit history you are accusing of this, as per Wikipedia policy before make this type of allegation. Thank you. Shoessss | Chat 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, my apologies, it may not have been you that put the racism there in the first place, but you did put it back in saying: "this is not vand." What the hell is that? You put the "black child is a nigger" back into the article. Why? Apart from not being written properly, what purpose and context does it serve? This is the change that you made, putting the said quote BACK into the article [3]. And this is the edit comparison of User:The-G-Unit-Boss removing the vandalism [4]. You want to explain this to me? 'Cause I'll be honest with you, I'm pretty darned stumped as to why an established user would call a random racist quote "...not vand." ScarianTalk 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- First of all my apologies Scarian I should not have come off as having the higher ground. In re-reading the edits made, I too jumped the gun! Yes, you are right, in that my reverts do come across as racism, and sorry to say I now have to explain why. As you noted, my first revert would have been appropriate in that it eliminated the sentence in question and if you look at the edit history on the page of 72.53.69.26 as posted here [5], you will notice I gave him/her a final warning for the edit. However, something made me rethink the warning and the post and I went back and reviewed the article. Sorry to say the category just under the area I edited was the paragraph on DJ Khaled and to be honest, thought his/her edit was an explanation on the term nigga. Thus, I reverted my original edit as non-vand . Hope this explains what happened. Again my sincere apologies. Shoessss | Chat 01:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Help
This racist business on G-Unit is turning into a bit of a slug fest. It turns out that User:Shoessss didn't put the racist quote there in the first place, but actually removed it and then put it BACK in. [6] - Don't you think that's utterly strange? He replied to the warning I gave him and told me to get my facts right. Okay, I made the assumption that he put it in in the first place, he didn't and I apologised to him for that. BUT, why did he put it back in? That "sentence", as it were, isn't supposed to be there. Do you agree with me that it was just a random piece of racist nonsense? I'm kinda annoyed at this guy atm lol. Catch you later. ScarianTalk 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see that we are working together as a team to improve articles. If it will always be like this then I'm happy I joined the G-Unit Records WikiProject. --- Realest4Life 21:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The G-Unit wikiproject has been started, to view it click here-Wikipedia:WikiProject G-Unit Records.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 22:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I created a page for participants, see here. Just add your name there, this way, if we are ever going to have around 30 or more members, the main page won't have to look messy with everyone there. --- Realest4Life 12:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, we are the 11 co-founders. New participants can say "new-joiner" or something, it's all for fun really, they don't even have to fill out if they don't want to, as long as they put their name there. By the way, please tell everyone else about this, because I am going to be busy for the rest of the day. Thank you. --- Realest4Life 12:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, thank you, it's good. Thank you for improving the "Participants" page also. However, please, read the message I wrote here. I know that you would like the G-Unit family to be as large as possible. I understand. But please... trust me on this one. If you read everything I said there carefully, it will make sense. I am not saying to never give those guys a mention, see here. I know we don't always agree on everything (although lately we started to work cooperatively on some of the articles), but I am begging you to listen here. The message I left on JP Casey's user talk should please all of us. Also, most of those artists signed to imprints owned by G-Unit Records artists do not have pages anymore, a lot of them were deleted because they were simply not notable enough. Will try to answer your questions as soon as possible. --- Realest4Life 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I just read what you guys wrote at the project page. Pretty much all of those pages were deleted because they were not notable. By creating them, you would be going against what an administrator decided is notable and what is not. Please reconsider. --- Realest4Life 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, just in case you did not get what I was trying to say at the Shadyaftrmathgunit talk page, there are no subsidiaries under G-Unit Records... because G-Unit is an imprint label. They might all be Interscope subsidiaries (or whatever label distributes for those imprints), but G-Unit Records can't distribute for another imprint. I am actually begging you to reconsider what you are going to do with all these minor artists and imprints, because if you continue with what you are planning to do, a lot of them will be deleted, and some articles will be messed up. I know that what you are trying to do is under good faith, but some of it is incorrect. --- Realest4Life 01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Another thing, don't decide for everyone else "which article need to be created". There should be a discussion first. No one should add something like that without discussing first. Also, don't leave messages that say that this project will also cover these imprints that are owned by G-Unit Records artists (read what I wrote on JP Casey's talk page for a solution with which we should all agree with) without discussing first. You seem to be acting like you are the "boss" of this WikiProject, which you are not. --- Realest4Life 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Spellcast (the guy that helped with the 50 Cent article and brought it up to GA status) also agrees with me (last paragraph). User Shadyaftrmathgunit said he was OK with what I had to say, and JP Casey also said I was right. I am just saying this so you know that I am not the only one that thinks you should reconsider. --- Realest4Life 12:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- All right, although I have many things I have to talk to you about (the message you left me is only one small part, and even that isn't solved), I think the WikiProject template you made has some problems of some sort. See Talk:Curtis (50 Cent album). That is not a biography of a living person. I don't know what is wrong with it, I think you created the template, so just to let you know about that. --- Realest4Life 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ignore everything that was crossed out. I am going to explain everything now. OK, read this, this, this (last three paragraphs), this (messages 7 to 10), and this. I agree that if we had articles on the imprints owned by G-Unit Records artists, we should focus on maintaining a good standard for those articles. However, not on artists signed to the imprints. I mean, a friend of DJ Whoo Kid is not necessarily an affiliate of the rest of the G-Unit family, so Cut Killer (who is signed to Shadyville Entertainment) can't be considered a G-Unit Records affiliate (Note: On JpGrB's talk page, I proposed to discuss the requierements of an artist being considered an affiliate, a certain number of songs collaborated (otherwise it would be considered a POV, and that is against the rules; we should have this as a rule, after we all discuss the number of songs needed to be considered an affiliate, have it like a heading at the project page, so that users will know when to consider someone an affiliate) etc., so in the G-Unit Records article, you can mention that Dr. Dre, Eminem, and maybe Kon Artis frequently collaborate with G-Unit Records artists.). Now, read the message I left for Shadyaftrmathgunit on his talk page (if you didn't already), and then you will understand that G-Unit Records is only an imprint, and it can't distribute for another imprint. Therefore, G-Unit Records has no subsidiaries. Now, I don't know who distributes for Infamous Records, Ca$hville Records, Dumout Records, and all these other imprints, it is either Interscope Records (the distributor for G-Unit Records), or some other major distributor (the Universal Music Group article is completely wrong). Also, we will need to clean up the G-Unit Records page sooner or later (there is absolutely no need to mention all of these artists signed to imprints owned by G-Unit Records artists), and so we should have one heading with the title "Record labels owned by G-Unit artists", and if you didn't already read my proposal at JpGrB's talk page, I said we should mention all of these labels and current members in the pages of the artists that own the labels. For example, you will have a heading for Ca$hville Records at Young Buck's page, with one or two sentences which will talk about the history of the imprint and how it was formed, when it was formed, etc., and another sentence can list the artists signed to the record label. JpGrB agreed with this. Spellcast also agreed with my idea of not having so much information in the G-Unit Records article, and that we should not re-create the articles that were already deleted (I am referring to the articles on the imprints and the articles on the artists signed to the imprints; be patient, after they release their debut albums, they will be notable enough (both the imprints and the artists), and then you can create an article for them, until then however, don't do anything). Now, before you add anything else to the section "Articles that need to be created", please discuss first, that is what the talk page is for. You, I, or someone else, can't just make decisions for everyone else. This has to be discussed (by the way, I removed all of the articles from that section other than "Lil' Fame" and "Billy Danzenie" (because they never had articles which were deleted before), because the other articles were either on artists/labels that were not notable enough... yet (again, patience comes into play) or on articles that were previously deleted). Also, the message you left on the talk page of the project page, "We will also be working on subsidiaries" (which is wrong, because there are no subsidiaries, but that's the point), might give someone the impression that you are the "boss" of this WikiProject, even though I am sure that that is not what you intended. Also (as Spellcast suggested), you should have a deletion review for the G-Unit feuds article before you re-create the page. Then, if everyone agrees that it should not have been deleted, you can re-create the article. However, the subject or theme of the article (whatever you wish to call it) simply does not belong here. The result of the AfD proves this. Also, look at the 50 Cent article (which is at GA status), it does not mention all these rivalries, and it is still a very well written article. We should use that article as an example. I know you will have some questions now, so I will try to reply as soon as possible. Thank you. --- Realest4Life 15:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aftermath can't distribute either. They are vanity labels. Also yes, you are absolutely correct. If they are distributed by G-Unit Records, then they are automatically signed to G-Unit Records. However, see the infobox in G-Unit Records where it says that it is distributed by Interscope? That is what I mean. I mean, it makes sense, if a label can't distribute for its own albums, then how is is going to distribute for another imprint? They are just imprints, Eminem has Shady, Dr. Dre has Aftermath, 50 Cent has G-Unit, Jay-Z has Roc-A-Fella, etc.. Basically, most of these labels owned by artists today are imprints (a way of having some artists they admire working with them, and of making some extra cash). OK, I hope that settles that problem, because we still have a few more (what constitutes an affiliate, re-creation of deleted pages, pages to be created, etc.). --- Realest4Life 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't get to read your whole message carefully, but I will reply to two parts of it. OK, even if G-Unit Records distributes for the imprints, we still shouldn't list all of them there. It will only make the page very messy, and it is much easier to list them in the pages of the artits which own them. Also, no, it can't govern affiliates, I was just saying to give them a mention in the article as some affiliates, not a section, just a few sentences. Also, your first paragraph confuses me a bit. If you can, please try to explain it again. I'll be back in like 4-5 hours and then we can solve any other problems we have. --- Realest4Life 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- My bad, I mean second. --- Realest4Life 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- so i was wonderin..i get the invite to join the gunit project and i was wondering how to join..thanksGoat47
Well done in making the Wikipedia:WikiProject G-Unit Records/Assessment and i redirected Wikipedia:WikiProject G-Unit Records/Assesment to Wikipedia:WikiProject G-Unit Records/Assessment, for some reason you made the assessment page twice.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that the template should be split into sections such as artist,label,company etc. just an an idea.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
By that i mean something like this, e.g. on the 50 cent talk page "{{G-Unit Records/Project|nested=yes|artist=yes|label=no" something like that i saw this feature on the WPBiography template, I hope this makes it more clearer, if not tell me. --Shadyaftrmathgunit 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The template, assessment are good and barnstar is cool and on the assesment page it states some categories which aren't made.
--Shadyaftrmathgunit 19:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Should the template be included in the talkpage for songs and albums by G-Unit Records Artists?.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi G , I noticed you removed the tag about the disputed on the Eminem page , im supprised you took this action, was it a mistake? I have put the tag back, unless these claims are sourced they will have to be deleted, im sure you feel the same way, please get back to me on this. Realist2 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not a problem ive done the same myself many times, thanx . Realist2 10:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
G-Unit WikiProject Problems
Hey "GUB", I was wondering if you like AIM, MSN, or YIM, because I need to talk with you about some problems that are existing in the Project. If not, please tell me, so I can message you back on here. This is very important, so please don't ignore this message. --JpGrB
Thanks for reverting this. I was about to do it myself and then I noticed you changed it back. One thing, don't call those edits vandalism, they are good faith edits, so just say they are unsourced, because the edior failed to provide a source. Thanks. --- Realest4Life 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'll try also to get it to GA status and good work with the G-Unit category.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
|
