Talk:Diary of a Madman (album): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:53, 1 April 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diary of a Madman (album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Albums C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Metal C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Diary of a madman.jpg

Image:Diary of a madman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion, April 2013

The page for the album track Over the Mountain is a stub with little potential for expansion. There is zero content about the song in the article that isn't already expressed here. It seems very clear to me that it should be merged with the album article per guidelines. I attempted to do so on the grounds that the song does not meet notability guidelines per Wikipedia:NSONGS#Songs but another editor reverted my attempt.

Merge as nominator. ChakaKong^talk 11:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept separate since it passes two different parts of WP:NSONGS, it has been ranked on a national music chart and has been released by four different notable groups. Aspects (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. This is clearly not the case. An article unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub should be merged to the article about the artist or album, which is what we are attempting to do here in accordance with the very same guidelines you are quoting. ChakaKong^talk 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think sufficient time has passed and no reasonable argument has been made opposing the merge. I'll wait a couple of more days for input, and then if nothing changes I'll proceed with the merge as proposed. ChakaKong^talk 14:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should let more time pass as we are the only two editors have added opinions about the merge, this is not an action that has to happen quickly and a consensus has not been reached. I offered a reasonable argument against the merge and just because you are in favor of it does not make my argument unreasonable. You have provided no evidence in that the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub and in fact two editors have added material with references since the merge template was added and Jo4n removed the no sources template since it now has sources. Aspects (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the single charted, it's been covered by multiple acts and the page has been expanded and better sourced since this discussion began. J04n(talk page) 20:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put out a call for some unbiased third party opinions. Hopefully we'll get it settled. ChakaKong^talk 21:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The song appears to be notable in its own right, considering its hart positions; also, the article does have several reputable sources attached (even though last.fm fails the WP:RS guidelines). Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be kept, it is notable in it's own right and has adequate sources at the moment to justify most of the information in the article. Borgarde (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well it does appear that there is sufficient consensus to scrap the merge. Thanks to everyone for contributing to the discussion. ChakaKong^talk 15:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diary of a Madman (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :I think sufficient time has passed and no reasonable argument has been made opposing the merge. I'll wait a couple of more days for input, and then if nothing changes I'll proceed with the merge as proposed. ''[[User:ChakaKong|<b style="color:#999999;">ChakaKong</b>]]''[[User Talk:ChakaKong|<sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk</sup>]] 14:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 ::I think you should let more time pass as we are the only two editors have added opinions about the merge, this is not an action that has to happen quickly and a consensus has not been reached.  I offered a reasonable argument against the merge and just because you are in favor of it does not make my argument unreasonable.  You have provided no evidence in that the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub and in fact two editors have added material with references since the merge template was added and Jo4n removed the no sources template since it now has sources. [[User:Aspects|Aspects]] ([[User talk:Aspects|talk]]) 16:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
-'''Oppose''': the single charted, it's been covered by multiple acts and the page has been expanded and better sourced since this discussion began. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:J04n|J04n]]([[User talk:J04n|talk page]])</font> 20:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
+'''Oppose''': the single charted, it's been covered by multiple acts and the page has been expanded and better sourced since this discussion began. <span style="font-family:Century Gothic;">[[User:J04n|J04n]]([[User talk:J04n|talk page]])</span> 20:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 : I've put out a call for some unbiased third party opinions. Hopefully we'll get it settled. ''[[User:ChakaKong|<b style="color:#999999;">ChakaKong</b>]]''[[User Talk:ChakaKong|<sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk</sup>]] 21:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 '''Oppose'''. The song appears to be notable in its own right, considering its hart positions; also, the article does have several reputable sources attached (even though last.fm fails the [[WP:RS]] guidelines). Mungo Kitsch ([[User talk:Mungo Kitsch|talk]]) 21:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)