Jump to content

Talk:Sweetbox

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

Jade Villalon

[edit]

Jade Villalon is cool and all that what not .. but what about her music .. its awesome and it means something .. like "life is cool" ya know?? o well. i just heard it today and i like it a lot. so .. jade was a great addition to the band :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.193.20 (talk • contribs) .

I agree. I love sweetbox & their music. I added new info to this page & the Jade Villalon page so that I could help promote sweetbox so then their music can be released in America again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J1129 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia isn't here to promote anything. As the article stands, it's terrible - full of typos, POV fancruft and random factoids which are non-encyclopedic. Please read WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:CRUFT, etc. Even if this were all fixed, which I hope it will be, writing an encyclopedia article is not going to help persuade any record companies to release an artist's material. If you believe that you are very naive - what are you, 12? Graham 01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I've only heard possibly 2 of their songs, but they're a pretty good group. To a degree wikipedia does promote the fact that this group existed and references some of their albums, so indirectly, it does promote it. It's a shame I don't know hardly anything or I would help this page. What might be useful is a full track listing of their albums. That way I can find out once and for all if that song I heard was by them. By the way, how can you call a fact non-encyclopedical? An encyclopedia is a place for facts, full stop. Boris17 - Febuary 14 2006

I might have time to try and organise this article a bit, but with school I don't think I'll have time to rewrite it completely. But if you want the full tracklistings, follow the links to the album pages from the discography sections. You should be able to find them there. charneko - Febuary 14

Not all facts are encyclopedic. They have to be notable. It might be a fact that someone drank a cup of tea this morning, we don't have to report it unless it was an important person who drank poisoned tea, or had previously stated his lifelong vow to eradicate the drinking of tea in all its forms (hypocrisy is often notable). By the way to sign your comments just follow the text with four tildas (~ x4), and wikipedia will fill in your name and the date for you. Graham 10:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean about this article not being encyclopedic. It's actually been bugging me for a while. A lot of the article just seems like various people have put random facts together. If I get some time in the next few weeks I'll see if I can get around to fixing it. (Although I don't usually write articles... I mainly just add pictures and stuff.) Charneko 12:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an official user and I'm not sure how safe it is for my IP to be posted on the web, but thanks for the tip. Who decides what are notable facts and what aren't? Who says "Oh yes, that can be put as a notable fact" and "Oh no, that's not relavent and I don't want that to be a fact.". Who made you guys lord and master? The truth seems to be your enemy and a conveniently constructed restricted truth seems to be your objective. A mild form of censorship if you will. No amount of fact can be bad. Are you saying some facts should be more important than others and others forgotten? May I ask have any of you seen the ending to Metal Gear Solid 2? This rather reminds me of that. Boris17 - Febuary 14 2006 23:03 GMT

Have you ever read an actual encyclopedia? You'll find that they are not a random collection of facts, but are usually structured so that the relevant details are included and all the irrelevant stuff is left out. Nobody is "lord and master". What happens is something like natural selection - if you include something in an article that is "fit" to be included, it will stand the test of time and tend to remain in the article. If you add something that's just noise or doesn't add anything relevant, it will get deleted. So over time, an article evolves to become better and more useful to the general reader. You say no amount of fact can be bad. Clearly that's absurd. Do you want a timetable of every time Jade whatshername takes a shit? What about a daily newspaper - if they printed every single thing that happened in a day, it would require more paper than has ever been produced in the entire history of the planet just for one copy, and couldn't be printed in time. The point is writing that's worth reading has usually been edited so that it doesn't overwhelm the reader with trivia, but sticks to the point. It's not censorship, it's just common sense.Graham 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that you'll delete the stuff that you think you don't want to know and once that information is gone then the rest of the public won't need it either because you don't. Unless someone remembers it, it won't ever make it back into the page. The lifespan not to mention the memory capacity of the individual is very limited, that's why myself and many others use this place to check up, research and find facts that we need for that paticular moment, if the fact isn't there anymore, it won't be learned and remembered and is then lost from memory and even history. This place isn't just an dictionary you know. You made a very good point though, the articles evolve. In my opinion, if it evolved to have more and more information on it, that would make it better, not just a small selection of "need to know" bullet points, names and dates. You do not need to memorise every single line of a wikipedia article. Most people look for information they need and only remember a small portion of it, come back later and learn a new portion of it. It does not need to be cut down so it can be memorised in one reading. Yes, quality is more important than quantity, but quantative quality is better than both. Information shouldn't be suppressed, it's up to the person who reads and receives the information to decide what's relevant. Casual readers might also be interested in what you call "irrelevant facts", because one man's rubbish is another man's treasure. If I've lost you there, don't be alarmed, it's early morning and my eye-lids are drooping. But hopefully you can get the jist of my arguement, weak as it might be at this small hour. BTW, tried to get an account, but ran into problems. Boris17 - February 18 2006

Woah I was clearly misunderstood. When I meant promote, I meant that more people might learn more about Sweetbox & so then their popularity would increase. & Wikipedia has helped a lot of people learn about Sweetbox. The article isn't perfect but it's still informative. J1129 01:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

[edit]

Does anyone else think that the discography is to long to fit on the main page? I think it should go back to the way it was before where you click the link and it takes you to the album page...

cleanup tag

[edit]

This article has a lot of POV and really needs to be cleaned up regarding its formatting (referring to group members by their first names, quoting song titles and italicizing album titles, etc., etc.). I also agree with the above statement about moving the albums to their own pages. -- eo 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean it up a bit, but it still needs a lot of work... someone who's better at writing articles should go through and do it.
And about the discography on the front page, it's way too big. Most other groups with this many albums have it on seperate pages. At least if you're going to put the discography on the front page it should be fixed up so it works properly ((like making proper headings so the contents actually make some sort of logical sense).--Lala90 08:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, i am i registered user, and i went through and majorly edited the Sweetbox page, correcting which countries this group is heavily based in, Germany not being one of them anymore. Also i corrected all the dates, corrected the album covers, made a lengthy "About Sweetbox" section that explains a time line mostly similiar to many other Artist pages, the Discography section is all clear up, and all the links work. Every cd i wrote things trying to explain the sounds of the cd in general, as it is the same with other artist's album sections. Everything should be correct without any opinions about sweetbox or jade. So ide say the clean-up tag should be put off.

Whistle register

[edit]

Jade Villalon does in fact access the whistle register in one song, however she is added to the Whistle register singers category as a solo artist so there is no need for Sweetbox to be added. Myke 06:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Afterthelights.jpg

[edit]

Image:Afterthelights.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jadealbum.jpg

[edit]

Image:Jadealbum.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sweetbox jade.jpg

[edit]

Image:Sweetbox jade.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sweetbox. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sweetbox. 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) 16:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweetbox&oldid=1198790231"