| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Katy Perry page. |
|
| Archives: 1 |
 | Katy Perry Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Hey guys! I've created this page for Wide Awake here, User:(CA)Giacobbe/sandbox4, feel free to add anything you find, I've only found genres for dance-pop but I'm sure there will be others soon. Also, if anybody could get some good reviews for the "Critical reception" area, then I'll send it into to be reviewed? Thank you!-- (CA)Giacobbe ( talk) 19:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! :)
teman13 (
talk) 20:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, does The Complete Confection need seperating from Teenage Dream? Cmbcmb999 ( talk) 20:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, I personally don't think it does because it does, there are many album articles with the re-release in them, however if it gets too big than maybe we can move it to its own article. teman13 ( talk) 20:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be some edit-warring going on over genres in various single pages for the song's from Teenage Dream. There's some extremely dodgy interpretation of sources/use of sources for genre. E.g. in "Firework" the song is apparently disco-rock because Torronto Sun says so. "Disc-rock" is not a genre... I belive they mean pop rock. Equally "E.T." is called Hard Rock etc.... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- The genres really aren't an issue, nobodies edit warring over them lol. It's that one troll that decided to come in and change everything.-- (CA)Giacobbe ( talk) 01:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The "To-do" section needs updating. For one thing, the "Wide Awake" article has certainly been thoroughly expanded by now. Also, the "Katy Hudson" album page is no longer exactly a stub. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 03:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Katy Hudson can be assessed as top importance. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Because it was a critical part of her early career. It definitely is at least "high" importance. Please don't underestimate others' level of sense, though. SNUGGUMS ( talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I just created a page for Legendary Lovers. If you would like to if you would like to proofread or polish this draft feel free to! Draft:Legendary Lovers (song) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatyCat42 ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hello there. This unfortunately doesn't warrant its own page when the only credible sources that do discuss the song in more than just a passing mention are album reviews and artist commentary, neither of which are enough. See WP:Notability (music)#Songs for more details. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 15:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I've recently created this following its announcement. Feel free to expand as further details become known. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 21:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "
Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith " Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 21:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (
per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —
CX Zoom[he/him] (
let's talk • {
C•
X}) 06:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)