This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Luxurious article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Luxurious has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Luxurious is part of the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fresh from the featured advert for "Cool" we now have yet another free advert masquerading as a legitimate Wiki article. Please explain to me why you feel that in 100 years time someone will type the words "Luxurious" into our search engine expecting to see this article? Yes she should have a bio, but a track by track uncritical puff piece for each song? No. -- HasBeen 14:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
So far one complaint has been filed against User:Mel Etitis, with a second one currently in progress. If this continuous opposition to anything User:Anittas, User:OmegaWikipedia or myself continue, a final complaint will be going to HQ. Winnermario 23:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
This page has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, please explain how this advert copied word for word from a press release is suitable for addition to any encylcopaedia other than one of advertising success? Is wiki just an extention of the commercial iterests of USA recording corporations? -- HasBeen 14:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Another AFD failed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxurious (song). Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I've placed this as a sample article at RfC (regarding disagreements over table formatting), and created a discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The article is pretty good! I applaud the user who improved it. I will take the initative of completing it! – Cruz AFade ( Speak about it | How many?) 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed Image:Luxuriousscreencapwithslimthug1.jpg again, since we now have a free-licensed image that illustrates Slim Thug's participation in the song. Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." Extraordinary Machine 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Luxurious (song) → Luxurious — I can understand that people might be looking for an article about luxuries, but it seems unlikely that luxurious would be used to describe the economic term luxury good, defined as "a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises". ShadowHalo 07:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late review, i can't see anything wrong with the article except this sentence -
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Luxurious article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Luxurious has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Luxurious is part of the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fresh from the featured advert for "Cool" we now have yet another free advert masquerading as a legitimate Wiki article. Please explain to me why you feel that in 100 years time someone will type the words "Luxurious" into our search engine expecting to see this article? Yes she should have a bio, but a track by track uncritical puff piece for each song? No. -- HasBeen 14:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
So far one complaint has been filed against User:Mel Etitis, with a second one currently in progress. If this continuous opposition to anything User:Anittas, User:OmegaWikipedia or myself continue, a final complaint will be going to HQ. Winnermario 23:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
This page has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, please explain how this advert copied word for word from a press release is suitable for addition to any encylcopaedia other than one of advertising success? Is wiki just an extention of the commercial iterests of USA recording corporations? -- HasBeen 14:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Another AFD failed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxurious (song). Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I've placed this as a sample article at RfC (regarding disagreements over table formatting), and created a discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The article is pretty good! I applaud the user who improved it. I will take the initative of completing it! – Cruz AFade ( Speak about it | How many?) 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed Image:Luxuriousscreencapwithslimthug1.jpg again, since we now have a free-licensed image that illustrates Slim Thug's participation in the song. Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." Extraordinary Machine 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Luxurious (song) → Luxurious — I can understand that people might be looking for an article about luxuries, but it seems unlikely that luxurious would be used to describe the economic term luxury good, defined as "a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises". ShadowHalo 07:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late review, i can't see anything wrong with the article except this sentence -
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)