- Comments
- Are there any controversies that can be added to the lead? What media thinks about the award? A sentence or two would be beneficial.
- Alas I have researched multiple times for such controversies to enlarge the lead yet the category seems to have a boring history.--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- The nominees are too important to be so small. Make them bigger, not as big as the winner, but still. I think font size 90% would work.
- Almost all featured Grammy lists have the same font size, so I was still trying to keep it all the same. Is that ok?--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- It still does not change the fact that it's too small. I don't think it's a lot of work to enlarge them, so I still want to see them larger.--
Cheetah
(talk)
17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- This does make the list inconsistent with other Grammy lists with FL status, but I made the change per request here and on my talk page. --
Another Believer (
Talk)
02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
In the 1995 nominees, first link to Seal is a disamg., please fix it.
- Done--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
There are two links to List of Grammy Award categories on this page; the one in the see also section can be removed
- Done--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- The "Category description guide" does not have the citation on its 3rd page.
- I don't quite understand, do you mind clarifying?--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- The "albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded pop vocal tracks" citaion is not on the 3rd page of 52nd OEP Category Description Guide.--
Cheetah
(talk)
17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Oops, I see now. It's on page 1. Silly mistake.--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
18:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
In the 1967 Grammy finalists reference, you have "10', which should be changed to "p. 10".
- Done--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see any changes.--
Cheetah
(talk)
17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- The page parameter is designated as 10; this is done correctly and its appearance is based on the display commands of the "cite journal" template. --
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Agreed, the various citation templates use different formatting which is a nightmare. This usage of the template is correct (although possibly undesirable).
The Rambling Man (
talk)
18:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
CBS News is linked twice in the references; once is fine.
- Done--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
--
Cheetah
(talk)
21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for the comments! If you can clarify on a few that would be most appreciated!--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks again! Give me a bit because I'm busy to get to them today, but I'll get them done by tomorrow! --
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
18:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- What makes Rock on the Net reliable?
- Numerous conversations between editors have been discussed to create the consensus that it was a reliable source. Almost all featured Grammy lists use it.--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Can you provide a link to one of those discussions, please?--
Cheetah
(talk)
17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- See
discussion here. --
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- It does not have a consensus, does it? One is undecided, the other is tempted to use. It's only for 3 ceremonies, I think it's possible to substitute them.--
Cheetah
(talk)
19:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I'll try but multiple other Grammy lists use this site as a source and it hasn't brought up any problems, since most discussions on the topic lead to the consensus that it's okay to use.--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
19:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I think compromise here can dictate that if a more reliable sources than Rock on the Net can be used, it should. If a more reliable source cannot be found (I have seen instances of this), Rock on the Net should be acceptable. No? --
Another Believer (
Talk)
21:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
(→)I see what you're saying here, but it means that we all will trust editors even more. There will be some who are too lazy to look for reliable sources and use this Rock on the Net website instead. By the way,
the 41st award nominee list is at CNN, as well as the
40th. If you're more of a MTV fan, you can click
here for the nominees of the 40th ceremony. --
Cheetah
(talk)
08:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Just replaced all of the Rock on the Net links! Thanks again for the comments.--
Blackjacks101 (
talk)
21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
|