Misplaced Pages

User talk:IllaZilla: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:30, 9 February 2011 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,409 editsm Dating comment by Linusvg - ""← Previous edit Revision as of 15:43, 9 February 2011 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to User talk:IllaZilla/Archive 4.Next edit →
Line 26: Line 26:


:::Well, fair use can't go to Commons, but I can certainly upload it here. I'll take a look at it when I get home. --] (]) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC) :::Well, fair use can't go to Commons, but I can certainly upload it here. I'll take a look at it when I get home. --] (]) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

== Your deletion of External links section of ] ==

As for your deletion of the entire External links section and your edit summary "lacking an external links section" is not a bad thing. ELs are not requisite (WP:EL/WP:NOT#LINK). fansites are discouraged, & allmusic should be cited as a source," there is absolutely nothing banning External links sections in any article not does it require that links "should be cited in a source." It only suggests it. As a matter of fact ] states under the '''WHAT SHOULD BE LINKED''' section:
:"''Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.''"
Please stop removing this entire section. --] (]) 05:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to your claim that "fansites are discouraged", ] states:

:''"There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, '''including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.''' See ] for some guidelines."'' (emphasis mine)

Again, please stop removing this section.--] (]) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:It is not required that articles have external links sections. A well-written article shouldn't need one unless, as EL says, there is relevant, reliable material that can't be included in the WP article due to amount of detail or copyright issues. The majority of fansites are notoriously unreliable and full of copyright violations, and it is difficult to determine if one "major fansite" is more appropriate than another (inevitably this leads to an EL section that is a list of fansites). For reliable, informative sites, it is greatly preferred to ''use them as sources'' to reference the article rather than slap them on as ELs. For example, the Allmusic biography would be useful as a source for the article content, and could be linked via a citation. Ditto the interviews: If they contain information useful to explaining the band's history, use them as sources & cite them. If they don't, then what's the point of linking them (again, an inevitability as evidenced in many musical artist articles is that the EL section becomes a list of interviews, most of which would be much more effectively applied as sources to verify & enhance the article). One should always consider a link's usefulness as a ''source'' first, and try to apply it as such, before slapping it in an external links section. I will copy this reply to the thread you started on the article's talk page, so that other can see my response & comment. --] (]) 07:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

== Weezer ==

Hello, I recently undid your edits to both the ] and ]. I honestly don't want to start an ] on either article, but I feel as if your edits didn't match up with what ] has stated about the record. It doesn't matter what WE consider the album to be; if the lead singer of the band considers the record to be their ninth studio album, then it is. We have no say in that situation as editors, and constantly editing the article for our own preference isn't going to do anything. I have to admit, I thought it was a compilation album as well for the longest time, until reliable sources proved me wrong otherwise. I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd help prevent an edit war by not continuing to edit the articles in a disruptive fashion. Thank you. ] (]) 18:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:] lists it as a ] (or did at the time I made my edits, anyway), and it is one by definition: The tracks weren't recorded together with the intention of being released as a single body of work. They were ''compiled'' from 20-odd years of outtakes and unused songs from the band's various album sessions. They could put out a live album that Cuomo might consider (and call) their next proper album, but it'd still be a live album. Being a ''compilation'' album has entirely to do with how it was put together, not its status in the band's canon, and there's no denying that it was ''compiled'' from 20 years' worth of outtakes. --] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

::Actually, that's not entirely true. Just off the top of my head, I can think of two albums that were released as and considered studio albums despite the fact that most of the songs on the albums were recorded live, and both are listed among the studio albums on the artists' corresponding discography pages: ]'s ] was almost all recorded live (with a few songs recorded backstage, on the tour bus, or in hotel rooms), yet it's listed on the main album list on Jackson Browne's ]. Similarly, ]'s album ] was all recorded on tour (most of it live, with a few studio tracks, a few soundcheck recordings, and one song recorded in a dressing room), and yet it's listed on the main albums list on R.E.M.'s ]. So things aren't always as clear-cut as you might think. ] (]) 21:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Like I said, it has to do with how the tracks were recorded and how they are put together to form a release. You're confusing "studio albums" with "''main'' albums" ("main" and "not main" are essentially a judgment on an album's importance, as opposed to a classification based on how they were created). Whether a release is "studio", "live", or "compilation" is about how it is created, not its importance to the artist's discography/canon (Kiss' ''Alive'' albums, for example, are just as important to their canon as their studio releases, in terms of success, but they're still live albums). Some albums' creation process crosses different lines, making their "type" somewhat ambiguous, but that doesn't seem to be the case with ''Death to False Metal'': Cuomo and the sources all state that the album was compiled from unreleased outtakes spanning about a 20 year period of recording sessions. Whether Cuomo considers it as important to Weezer's catalogue as, say, ''Hurley'' doesn't have anything to do with how the album itself was put together. --] (]) 23:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Let me clarify then: The albums I discussed above are all listed as '''studio albums''' on the corresponding discography pages, even though they don't fit your definition of what a studio album is. In addition, ''Death to False Metal'' isn't ''just'' a compilation album. Yes, the songs were originally recorded over a twenty-year period, but the final versions that appear on the album aren't just the original recordings—Cuomo and Weezer took the original recordings, replaced some of the parts, added some new parts, re-recorded some parts and vocals, added some new vocals and new lyrics, added new guitar solos, etc. They produced a new, unified studio album, and I agree that if Cuomo considers it their ninth studio album, which is what the cited articles seem to say, then it should be considered their ninth studio album. ] (]) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::That argument certainly makes sense, but the ] article doesn't say anything at all about replacing/adding parts, re-recordings, etc. It merely says "The album comprises several previously unreleased tracks from throughout Weezer's career" and "the tracks are great songs, great recordings, but for some reason they didn't make the final cut for a record they span a vast period of time from the very beginning of our career in the early '90s right up to the present day." These statements lend to the conclusion that it's a compilation album. Perhaps the confusion could be alleviated by expanding the "Background and recording" section to include referenced commentary on how the album was created, what was re-recorded/added/etc. to show that it's not merely a compilation of unreleased tracks, but something that was heavily worked on in-studio to create an album of "new" recordings. --] (]) 23:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::Good suggestion. I'll try to do that, or at least make a note on the talk page that that should be done, in the near future. ] (]) 00:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I looked to the album's liner notes for clarification, but unfortunately it didn't help much. It lists the recording studios and studio personnel (recording engineer, mixer, etc.) for each track but doesn't say when they were recorded or if any parts were re-recorded. For the band it just lists their names; it doesn't say exactly what they did on the album (I mean, we know what instruments they usually play, but it doesn't give any info about re-recorded parts, overdubs, or whatever). Perhaps some of that info could be found via Weezer's website or secondary sources. --] (]) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::::I don't have the physical CD, but I guess I'm not too surprised to hear there's not much info in the liner notes (though it would be nice). The info I found about the recording process was all online, like in . ] (]) 02:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)



== Et Ducit Mundum Per Luce == == Et Ducit Mundum Per Luce ==
Line 150: Line 115:
Re: your comment on ], I removed the gross because none of the other ''Terminator'' films state their grosses in the lede. I was going for standardization, though I honestly don't care enough one way or another to bother reverting your restoration; my only concern was to end the edit warring over the reception. :) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 01:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Re: your comment on ], I removed the gross because none of the other ''Terminator'' films state their grosses in the lede. I was going for standardization, though I honestly don't care enough one way or another to bother reverting your restoration; my only concern was to end the edit warring over the reception. :) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 01:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


==The Boat that Rocked== == The Boat that Rocked ==

You are being overly-protective of the article for the film ] by immediately reverting all of my good faith edits. You do not ] the article. Your revert of my last edit to prevent my correction of a run-on sentence is completely wrong and misguided. Please explain yourself. ] (]) 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC) You are being overly-protective of the article for the film ] by immediately reverting all of my good faith edits. You do not ] the article. Your revert of my last edit to prevent my correction of a run-on sentence is completely wrong and misguided. Please explain yourself. ] (]) 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


Revision as of 15:43, 9 February 2011

I like to keep conversations in one place. If you make a comment here, I'll reply here, so keep an eye on this page for my response. If I left a comment on your talk page, I'll be watching it awhile, so just respond to it there.


Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Aquabats

Hey IllaZilla,
Thanks for keeping up on The Aquabats page. I don't really know how to go about making edits, as I see what I did was removed. I was the Aquabats original guitarist and was in the band from 1994 to 1995. How do I go about getting credit on the Aquabats page? If you search on google for the Aquabats and my name, Matt Van Gundy, you will find me. I have photos from my days in the band as well. Please advise on what I need to do.
Thanks, linusvg —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

The Hippos

Hey IllaZilla,
Thanks for keeping tabs on The Hippos page. You reverted my addition of an album picture for the page's picture, saying that promotional picture should be fine. Do you know of a picture that could be used? I'd love to see some kind of media on the page.
Thanks, Badums (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few I found through a Google search (it's tough cuz of course you search "The Hippos" and you get 1,000 pictures of hippopotamuses): --IllaZilla (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey buddy, I think those are all great pics, especially . I also found the photo from their Heads Are Gonna Roll album cover on a LTJ wiki: . Unfortunately, I'm a big purist when it comes to uploading stuff, so I'm never comfortable with just casually deciding that something is fair use and uploading it. Any interest in uploading it to wikimedia commons? For some reason, it's less objectionable to me if someone else does it... - Badums (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, fair use can't go to Commons, but I can certainly upload it here. I'll take a look at it when I get home. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Et Ducit Mundum Per Luce

Hi, could you help me improve the text? I do not agree that this is a "trivial detail that does nothing to exlain the album or its nature". Tom put the song as the first on the album so this might not be accidental. And the error in the name of the title song should mean something. Could you shorten the text so you feel comfortable about it not being a Latin class and I will look for the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohts (talk • contribs) 07:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems:
  1. Your text is unsourced
  2. The issue amounts to at most a minor grammatical error, or at least a typo. The difference between the title and your "correct sentence" is a single letter.
  3. There is no indication from any sources, primary or secondary, that the error has any deep meaning.
  4. There is no need to expound on the grammatical rules of Latin in order to state that there is a simple 1-letter error.
As a P.S., you don't need to put your text (in either articles or talk pages) on multiple lines. Simply type normally; Misplaced Pages will wrap the text when it reaches the right margin. All these unnecessary carriage returns have to be cleaned up, especially if you use them in article text. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Point by point: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohts (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. What source would be preferrable? Do you think such source is ok: http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/lang/lprep.html ? You can checkout "per" which is used only with Accusative conjunction. And here is the link for Accusative form of "lux" (search for lucem): http://www.learnlangs.com/biblelatin/lesson6.htm
  2. The difference is one letter, sure, but would it seem ok to you if they spelled London as Londun?
  3. Any error has its meaning, for some deep, for some not. Especially when you are pretending to be "leading the world through the light".
So here is my another version of the addition to the "Love" entry:
The title of the first song "Et Ducit Mundum Per Luce" is written in Latin and means "And leads the world through the light". Unfortunately it has a grammar error in it, so the correct phrase would be "Et Ducit Mundum Per Lucem" (plus the above mentioned links to the Latin grammar sources)
--Kohts —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC).
  1. I'm not keen on giving readers a lesson in Latin. Find a source that remarks on the song title and its meaning; that's what I was getting at.
  2. I point out the difference being merely 1 letter to reinforce that we do not need an extended Latin lesson to explain the error. Common sense says that an error of a single letter is most likely a typor or a simple grammatical mistake.
  3. We cannot assume that the error has any meaning unless there is a reliable source stating that it does. Without such a source, assuming that it has some deep meaning is original research. As I said, common sense says it's nothing more than a typo or simple grammatical mistake.
--IllaZilla (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree with you about typo or simple mistake. But as long as most people nowadays do not understand Latin, this should be pointed out for them, so everyone can make his/her own judgement about the meaning or the absence of the meaning in this typo or simple mistake.
As for the sources you can google "et ducit mundum per luce" and find out on every page that the correct version is "lucem". Do you want a column in the The New York Times as a source? --Kohts
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about a source that remarks on the Angels & Airwaves song title and its significance. I didn't mean "meaning" as in translation. That's what I mean by showing the significance of this factoid rather than simply giving readers a lesson in Latin. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I got you but you are not following me. Here is my question again: what source do you expect for such theme? The New York Times? Britannica? Who's gonna write about that?
The error we are talking about is indeed typo or small grammar error, but people can't understand that because they do not know Latin. --Kohts —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

Flys (1970s band)

Hello there, I was wondering if you could point me to any books or old album reviews for this band, Flys (1970s band). I'm looking to expand the article and haven't been able to find anything beyond what is already in there. Thanks in advance, J04n(talk page) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Riddance

If you don't mind, I'd like to take another crack at the Bound by Ties of Blood and Affection cover. It still doesn't seem right. I believe it's 200x190, so it's a tad lopsided. I'd like to try to fix that, without going too big. Also, the current image is more grey than white. Just trying to do good for a band I've recently begun to appreciate.Jasper420 01:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, feel free. My main concern with the one you previously uploaded was that it was large & hi-res enough that it could've been used as a replacement for the CD cover. I'd aim for no more than 300px on one side. They were a very good band, weren't they? I only recently came to appreciate them myself, after having a passing interest for years. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks a little odd on the file page, but fine in the article. 300x300Jasper420 04:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Would you update the source link in the Summary with the URL of where you got the new version? Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Done and done. Although it seems a little superfluous, seeing as the cover is basically one image,the same no matter where you get it, like a logo. But whatever. Image sourced.Jasper420 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my indents

On the frustrating Terminator conversation. Just wanted to drop a line saying that in case someone brings it up as refactoring someone's talk page stuff. I'm always okay with that on my own behalf as long as it's obvious like that. That said I'm afraid I'm done with that conversation since I feel no more niceties are going to get through any better than they have thus far. I commend your efforts. You are always a class act. Millahnna (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I sometimes get heat for adjusting indents, but there was an edit conflict between your edit and mine & I didn't want it to appear as though the wrong person was being replied to. I'm going to attempt to clean up the offending text, then I'm washing my hands of it. The other editor is at AN3 already & is likely to get blocked for 3RR anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Image from No Devolución

Hello! You recently removed File:Past and Future Ruins.png from the article No Devolución under the grounds that it fails WP:NFCC criteria. I must say that I disagree with this course of action. This image was of a promotional split single that was placed next to a section devoted to this single. Let's say someone came along and created an article for the single. But it was later determined that the single fails the notability guidelines and the result of an AFD was to merge it with a relevant article. The result of this action would be a small section devoted to "Past and Future Ruins" on the No Devolución article that would retain the cover art from the single's article. So my thought process here was in part to display the cover art for this single next to a paragraph that detailed information about the single, and to prevent an inappropriate article for a non-notable release from being created. Also, the article World Painted Blood passed GA evaluation while displaying cover art for its two singles: "World Painted Blood" and "Psychopathy Red." Fezmar9 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." There are only 1 or 2 sentences in the article discussing this single, and all they say was that it was released and what song was on it, so an image of it doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of it. Especially considering that the article is not about the single, but about the album. As for World Painted Blood, I have no doubt that if the article ever goes through an FA review (or if an editor with a keen eye for NFCC comes across it) those images will be removed for the same reason. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Could one not also argue that the cover art for the album does not meet these criteria either? The policy opens up with "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Misplaced Pages." The cover art in the infobox hardly helps anyone understand this album, and removing wouldn't hinder that. The cover art is also not discussed anywhere in the body, so its presence isn't supporting any text. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:NFC explicitly allows for cover art in the context of critical commentary of the item in question (not requiring that the covert art itself be the topic of discussion, but rather the item it represents). Longstanding consensus is that the use of cover art for an item in the infobox of an article about that item is covered by this, since our articles are supposed to contain critical commentary (the definition of "critical commentary" being somewhat vague but generally understood to be encyclopedic coverage sourced to reliable third-party sources). This has been discussed many times at various NFC/NFCC talk pages. Yes, some articles are poor, but we understand that poor articles are works in progress that in time will either be improved or removed, and thus removing cover art from an infobox based solely on article quality is not a good rationale (one should instead attempt to improve the article or nominate it for deletion/redirection).
That said, having non-free cover art outside the infobox, particularly multiple items of such that are not even the covers of the article's main topic (as in the cases named above), requires a bit more in the way of rationale with respect to NFCC #3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In other words, the album cover in the infobox is OK because the article is about the album and contains a good deal of critical commentary about the album. Justifying also having the covers of the album's singles in the article would likely require either (A) critical commentary about the single covers themselves, or (B) a good deal more critical commentary about the singles. Otherwise, what stops me from going around to every album article & adding all the covers of all the singles? --IllaZilla (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album

With regards to template talk:infobox album#"Greatest hits" → "Greatest hits album": would you be able to create a stub for video album? It's not a good look to have a red link in the infobox and I'm not too versed with video albums. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I can give it a try, but it might take me a few days. Quite busy IRL right now, mostly just doing watchlist activity this week. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Quotations

Hi, by the way I saw your edit summary on my talk page when I removed your comment on my talk page (on accident), I removed it now since you didn't reply in a few days. Anyways, I was going to say that I probably will need help on condensing the Allmusic reviews I added to those Rancid articles. And I decided to move this to your talk page just because I find it much easier to comment on other people's talk page rather than my own. So if you could help me out that would be great. Thanks! :) --Blaguymonkey (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have to work today but I'll take a look later & see what I can do. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I?

If I'm not allowed to post the fates of the characters in the plotline, then can I do it on the Character section? --SonnyBobSampson (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Aliens (film). Please don't. Note that the section you refer to is called "Cast", not "Characters"...the idea is to focus on the real-world aspects of the film: the actors, how/why they were cast for these roles, and how they played them. It is not "Plot Summary Part 2" where we continue to expound on the actions of the characters in the plot. The plot section adequately and concisesly covers what happens to the individual characters. The individual fates of all the minor characters are not important to the overall flow of events and do not need to be described in detail. It may benefit you to read manual of style for film articles, particularly the sections on Plot and Cast sections. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed gross

Re: your comment on Terminator Salvation, I removed the gross because none of the other Terminator films state their grosses in the lede. I was going for standardization, though I honestly don't care enough one way or another to bother reverting your restoration; my only concern was to end the edit warring over the reception. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Boat that Rocked

You are being overly-protective of the article for the film The Boat that Rocked by immediately reverting all of my good faith edits. You do not own the article. Your revert of my last edit here to prevent my correction of a run-on sentence is completely wrong and misguided. Please explain yourself. Mice never shop (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I explained it in my edit summary: It was not a run-on sentence, and breaking paragraphs after 2 sentences is poor structure. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What means "sensical"?

Hi, I was browsing The Terminator and noticed the most recent change was flagged '(rv to last sensical version)'. What means "sensical," please? --David F (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The opposite of "nonsensical". Or to put it another way, "sensible", "coherent", or "logical". --IllaZilla (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)