Talk:Club Future Nostalgia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
lockdown protocols
associated with the COVID-19 pandemic?
WikiProject iconPop music Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconR&B and Soul Music Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen in Music
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tom Hull

@

talk) 19:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

First off, it wasn't a cheap shot it was the truth. You were overly combative and agressive in your responses. Second, it is not up to me to provide proof that he should not be included when you are literally the only person saying he should be. Which is especially interesting seeing that as of now you are the only person to have ever edited his article, and the only one who was for his inclusion in the original discussion, making me wonder if you have a personal connection to the subject. Find other people that agree with his inclusion, then we'll talk.Gagaluv1 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. The responsibility is on you to discuss the content you're reverting ! (
talk) 19:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Not to be rude by just jumping in here, but it does appear a consensus was reached on the Wikiproject Albums talk page. On the other hand, the ratings that are put into the table are meant to reflect the aggregate scores above it and the actual Critical reception prose. The writer did not write even close to enough in his work to be fitted in the prose, and is not listed in the aggregate sources so that is definitely a reason not to include, but as of now, I do not have an opinion on the subject matter. By the way, please try to keep things civil, and please stop edit warring. I don't want my GA nomination to fail because of this. Thanks LOVI33 20:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No where at
talk) 20:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Isento, sorry about that, I meant to say "usually meant to" up there. If you can work his review into the prose, I don't see a reason why it can't be there. LOVI33 20:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Np. Sounds good. Done.
talk) 23:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Crazy what happens while you're at work. All I can say is take it easy, guys. It's just Wikipedia.
oops 02:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually I do have one question. I know this is a remix album, so it gets less attention, and I edit pop articles almost not at all, but this is Dua Lipa, a pop artist, we're talking about. Are you certain Tom Hull is the best you can scrape up? I'm not saying this condescendingly either, just as a genuine question. If you can't find any others to fill the table, as I only see eight, that's fine, but if there are more that could fill the space, I wouldn't recommend using him. Not that I'd stop you, it's not the end of the world if you use him.
oops 02:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It really appears to be the only other scored review out there. Which is why the removal surprised me.
talk) 06:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see a problem with including Tom Hull. Blogs are usually considered non-RS unless they're "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", etc. As I said in the WT:ALBUMS discussion, if we're spoilt for choice (inundated with album reviews), then there's no need for such expert-written blogs, but that doesn't seem to be the case here at all – it's not as if we're close to exhausting the 10-max rating threshold in the box.
Have to say, I'm continually confused by the approach to including album reviews and ratings. At some Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles, I've seen Larkin's
Encyclopedia of Popular Music removed because he hasn't written a dedicated review (eg, [1], [2]); same with ratings from The Rolling Stone Album Guide (eg, [3]); yet elsewhere, it's as if the Larkin and RS Album Guide ratings are almost ubiquitous, which can lead to an overreliance on album guides at the expense of reviews, I admit ... Hull's critique is very brief, but I don't see that as a problem either. It's not as if Hull's being included at the expense of one or two more optimal sources. If other, non-blog reviews come to light, then that would be a reason to exclude him. JG66 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by LOVI33 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article was approved for GA on 24 October 2020. It is well-written, sourced, no copyvios seen.
  • The hook facts are cited inline, the article meets the required length. ALT3 is my pick.
  • Has the nominator fulled the quid pro quo requirement? Damian Vo (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for reminding me. Haven't been here in a hot minute. Damian Vo (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is good to go. Great work! :D Damian Vo (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]