Jump to content

Talk:Aaliyah (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAaliyah (album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 7, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 14, 2013Good article nomineeListed
March 6, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
GA toolbox
Reviewing

abstruse sentence

[edit]

Sorry but I really don't understand this paragraph (what do you mean?):

The album spent 188 weeks on the Billboard 200, making them a women's record time in the charts with an album (188 weeks) and more than one (while) (I Care 4 U with that until the exit "Aaliyah" was with 94 weeks and had already left the Billboard 200 for over 1 year) with 282 weeks. The record was passed in 2009 with Taylor Swift (283 weeks and two albums) and in 2010 for herself album with 189 weeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.207.143 (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong.

In its sixth week it moved 27-19 before leaping to number one the week after, having debuted at number 2 seven weeks earlier.

[edit]

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

please do not change it is r&b/alternative metal not pop or hip hop soul it is a dark album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.100.213 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth do you come to this conclusion. And based on what source. I'd ask you to read the wiki entry on Alt Metal, NIN, Soundgarden... Aaliyah does not fit this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.108.21 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment

[edit]

Promote "More Than a Woman" on GermanTV ?? i read this.. is this true & which station? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.120.91 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

The previous album cover image was of higher resolution than the actual cover, so I replaced it when moving my version of the article from my sandbox. As for the other images, both are freely licensed (am I wording that right?) images, so there should be more leeway when using them. The first is an image of a recording locations of the album's, and the second is merely a supplement in the middle of three sections that are only prose, blank/lacking anything illustrative. Dan56 (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found on Wikipedia:Non-free content about using low resolution, but an explanation would have been helpful, and I am not going to argue further about it. As for the free images, just because they are free does not necessarily mean they should be used. With that rationale, we could add a lot more images to the article. What do these images actually add to the understanding of the album? The outside of a building that houses the recording studio, among other rooms, that was one of three recording studios used in the album. A picture of the actual studio or if it was the only recording studio used might make sense. The image is also located at Manhattan Center, which the article links to twice, once in the infobox and once in the recording section. Would it be acceptable to put images of the other two recording studios if they were found? By your own explanation, the image of Aaliyah simply illustrates the article, which then in my opinion means it does not add any information to the article. If it is being used to show what she looked like it would not be needed because most editors who would happen upon this article would already know what she looks like and if not, the album cover shows what she looks like and there are multiple links to her article that also contains an image of her. I will not remove these images unless there is consensus that the images are not needed. Aspects (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would, but I couldnt find any free images of other studios at Commons or Flickr. The only problem I had with writing this article was appropriate images. Primary contributors like Static Major and Bud'da have no usable images of them. I have encountered the issue of an article lacking images/media in GA/FA reviews, so I added those two. And yes like I said before, the image of Aaliyah is only used to break up the monotony with the last three body sections. I hope to get this article nominated to FA, so if this comes up again there, I hope it wont be a problem, image or no image. Dan56 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked on my talk page to comment here. Cover art passes WP:NFCC as long as it is low resolution (like it is here at 300x300). The building that houses the recording studios is welcome in this article as long as it is PD as it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Aaliyah (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khanassassin (talk · contribs) 18:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the article, don't see many issues. However, did the album really receive "excellent" reviews - excellent is more Stankonia style (95 Metascore). That's pretty much it, lol. "Highly posititve", or simply "positive", would do.

Changed to "highly positive". Allmusic source had "excellent", and Metacritic wasnt too comprehensive with this album (missing The Guardian, Slant, LAtimes, The Independent, and Chicago Tribune) Dan56 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed Metacritic samples a not-so-big number of reviews. Anyway, I guess this is it. Pass! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production credits

[edit]

Will Missy's name be allowed to be recorded in the last sentence of the opening paragraph: "Aaliyah worked primarily with Blackground's in-house crew of writers and producers, including..." seeing that she did serve as a writer for the album. AllMusic has also credited her as a composer/writer. WillieLimpD (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read this article's Recording section. Elliott's only contribution was writing the lyrics of a song that was originally recorded in sessions for One in a Million in 1996. She was not enlisted as a writer for this album, that song was just revisited by Aaliyah. Dan56 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Album

[edit]

It's important include the alternate name, "The Red Album" with this title. It would be great if it could be added to the overall heading of the article. Aaliyah, herself, refers to the album this way in several interviews, and google cites it over 5 million times. It is similar to the commonly used "White Album," for the Beatles self-titled album. Best Ethan82 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No other reliable source uses this phrase (GoogleBooks, News). Including one writer's nickname for the album in the lead would be undue weight (MOS:INTRO). If the assertion that this album is "also known as The Red Album" is not a fringe theory, it should be supported broadly by reliable sources in the relevant field. For example, when looking through books on Aaliyah (such as bios and profiles) at GoogleBooks, I found no mention of a "red album". Dan56 (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dan56! That makes sense. It's so commonly used when discussing the album, but I can see that no major sources use it officially. Thanks again.

Best, Ethan82 (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the Critical Review of the album to "Generally Positive," based on Metacritic's Score of 76. It was erroneously listed as "Highly Positive." Thanks. Venuzza67 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't erroneously listed. It's clearly cited here, attributed to Allmusic's article ("received excellent reviews"). It was agreed upon in this article's featured-article review that "highly positive" would be more formal language than "excellent". Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

[edit]

I made a simple correction to this section. Metacritic assigned a score of 76, which means "Generally Positive." Also, the reference given was AllMusic guide, which is just one review, and would not qualify to call it "Highly Positive" based on that one review. Should we correct that reference? Thanks! Venuzza67 (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was reviewed in FAC ("excellent" is cited in the source). Metacritic is not the be-all, end-all of review sources (they happen to omit several reviews from notable publications that are included in this article that they would now have included, such as Slant Magazine, The Guardian, Chicago Tribune and The Independent). Your other changes were reverted as well. The reviewers are speaking of the album in present tense in their reviews, and you added more verbiage than is necessary. Also, a quote in the lead is not neutral, as it highlight the viewpoint of one writer; the lead is purely a summary of the article's main points (MOS:INTRO); citations would effectively be unnecessary if the material is already cited in the rest of the article (WP:LEAD). Dan56 (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This addition of Johnson's quote introduces additional information that is not relevant to points of criticism of the album (WP:OFFTOPIC), including a speculative remark on Aaliyah's film career and a seemingly off-handed remark about her being "interesting" because of her 1998 song "Are You That Somebody?". Dan56 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you guys allowing this one guy to control the page? He will not allow anything true to be put, only his own opinion. Metacritic gives the album a 76. That means "generally positive." That's a very nice review. Why does Dan56 keep removing that when I add it? His opinion should not count more than the 14 critics cited. Please help with fairness. I understand he loves Aaliya. On the Nicki Minaj page two days ago, he reversed editors who made positive comments inthe review section of "Roman Reloaded" and said this:
By a show of hands (or comments), does this revision to the article's "critical reception" section smack of POV content removal (WP:VNT), editorializing (WP:WORDS), and undue weight to minority viewpoints (WP:UNDUE)? Oh, and being neutral in form, considering most of the reviews that the album received were "mixed", as verified by Metacritic and The Independent, both of which are cited in the article, yet the editor seems to overlook that ("using metacritic is lazy"?), along with a few other reliable third-party sources (GoogleNews' index of sources, The Huffington Post) Dan56 (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Why does Metacritic carry weight for every artist except Aaliya? The album is great. It got generally positive reviews. Let's keep things honest folks.

Venuzza67 (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting my position on some other article and accusing me of bias isnt going to justify your change. Congratulations, you know how to cherry-pick a paragraph. Wish you'd chosen the one where I cite several news sources that explicitly said "mixed reviews". And didn't address this already in the preceding sections at this talk page? Dan56 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misrepresent you. I printed your exact full quote. So stop. I recheched the Aaliya reviews via Metacritic. Actually, they were quite a bit less positive, but became moreso in the wake of her death. You can't change things in hindsight, much as we'd like to. "Generally Positive" is the apt description of the reviews for this album. Certainly can't be "highly positive" when 14 top critics in Metacritic disagree with your opinion. Venuzza67 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Venuzza67 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write one paragraph at that talk page, so yes you're misrepresenting me, and clearly ignoring that I used an independent news source (one of many available for that article) to verify "mixed reviews" (if you have a problem with the contents of that article, comment there, not here). Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say at Metacritic "quite a bit less positive but became moreso in the wake of her death"? Why aren't you addressing any of the points I made in this section before you started your rant about "you guys give control..."? As I said at your talk page (ignoring it?), you are weighing a premature Metacritic source (you clearly didn't address my comments here) against a book source (which I found... after researching the most reliable source available to promote this article to FA). Context matters for reliability, and you're willing to give more weight to a website launched (Jan. '01) in the same year as this album was released over a book source. You're awful flattering with regards to an incomprehensive Metacritic entry (Playlouder, Launch.com, CDNow, and E!Online are "top critics"?) and unfortunately ignoring my comment made here on 21:12, 11 July 2013 (look above please). More importantly, why are you so adamantly against this source? An actual writer using the phrase "excellent reviews" ("highly positive" was an accepted paraphrasing of this in both GA and FA reviews of this article, which means nothing to you?) in a published book by a reputed source (i.e. Allmusic) carries more weight. Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dan is correct to prevent non-neutral information from being added into this article. Can I remind all users that Dan carried the article through FAC and is rightly very critical of new information which is added now it is featured content. As a reviewer at FAC, I would never have allowed such POV to remain in this article before posting my support. Featured articles should be guarded with the utmost ferocity to ensure that they are kept in the kind of condition which earned them the prestigious gold star in the first place. If any parties wish to add any large pieces of information, then it should be discussed first on the articles talk page. Surely it will only be a matter of time before someone throws around the cliché WP:OWN accusations, so before you do, we have heard it many, many times before and it most certainly does not apply here. -- CassiantoTalk 22:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So Cassianto are stating that the information I added is "non-neutrl."? For the record, I added the fact that a 76 score on Metacritic constitutes a "Generally Positive" review according to Metacritic's own system. How is this my "POV."? As far as Aaliyah being a featured article, that does not mean you can bully good-faith editors like myself. There are no rules stating that I cannot make good-faith changes that are well-sourced. Don't change the subject- answer the question: Does, or does it not mean "Generally Positive" to have a 76 in Metacritic? And, if so, why am I not "allowed" to state that?Venuzza67 (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, people! I'm the GA-reviewer of the article and have been invited to join te conversation. Regarding the critical reception of Aaliyah, it's an album held in a high regard, and very well reviewed, certainly leaning more towards "acclaimed" than "panned"; the Metacritic page, like Dan says, is not the "be-all, end-all of review sources" and leaves out some notable reviews, especially with older albums, but I'm sort of neutral with this. I do agree though, that Roman's Revenge, definitely got "mixed" reviews, and most of them are "mixed" or "negative", and those that are positive, are rarely very positive. I do remember, however, that I had the same issue with Dan at The Marshall Mathers LP, an older album, which had a 78 Metascore, and the score was downgraded by only a few reviewers who were critical of homophobia and such. The album regularly tops "best of" lists, and was placed first on "best of 2000" lists more often than any album of the year, and is one of the most influential, well regarded and best-selling records of the last 14 years, but Dan insisted that the album received "generally favorable" rather than "highly favorable" or "general acclaim". --Khanassassin ☪ 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find source for The Marshall Mathers LP saying anything more than "favorable" rather than "highly" or the like. And the description would be for the contemporary reviews, which would be distinct from year-end lists. The issue here is that the editor gives almost no weight to the Allmusic article/book (where an actual writer explicitly says "excellent reviews") and opts for an incomprehensive entry from Metacritic that omits several reviews from highly regarded publications (that it has since included in their aggregating process, but back when it was launched in Jan. '01 did not). My question to the editor was which would be considered more reputed, and the editor has not answered that question. He has instead tried to smear my name and made baseless accusations by cherry-picking paragraphs out of POV discussions from other articles, such as Yeezus and Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded, where I clearly argued for citing more reputed independent news sources wherein an actual human being with credentials says "this album received...", but the editor "forgot" to highlight those arguments that I made. Apparently I hate Nicki Minaj and love Kanye West LOL :) Dan56 (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Metacritic's score is merely one source to gauge an album's reception. If there are more specific/explicit and reputed sources that speak on it, they add context. For example, at Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album), the album's MC score indicates "generally favorable reviews", but there were other reliable sources that spoke on the reception in more specific terms, one of which is cited in that article to support that statement that "the album received lukewarm reviews". I would understand if an article lacked notability (and consequently third-party coverage) and several high-quality sources on it, but there's no reason ever to lean solely on Metacritic when more reliable sources write explicitly about the article's topic; The impression I got from WP:RS and from most quality FA articles is that books usually are considered more scholarly and reliable than a newly launched website, the opinion of an author, right? Dan56 (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, generally is almost always an excess modifier. Highly, though a bit vague, does add some information that generally does not and its the term currently used in the lead. I would suggest a compromise such as, "Released in July 2001, Aaliyah earned positive reviews at Metacritic." Then drop the excess detail about Metacritic's rating system into a note. Hope this helps, cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? Dan56 (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to using "generally," I think it helps add neutrality instead of simply stating "[So and so] received positive reviews" or "[So and so] received negative reviews." The word generally lets us know that there is some disagreement on the matter, though it can be assumed that everything will have at least one critic, and use of "generally" is usually preferred over "highly," "critical acclaim" or "mostly" when it comes to the reception sections for our film articles. But I don't have a problem with using the term highly or any of the other examples I mentioned in this paragraph...as long as they are used correctly. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The disagreement with Yeezus was over his insistence on using the term "Rave Reviews." I can't imagine any objective "encyclopedia" using such a subjective term. What is wrong with allowing reviews to speak for themselves, rather than spin something that is, in itself, already a spin? In the case of "Reloaded," the two reviews I mentioned were from "Rolling Stone," and "Spin," magazine. And, contrary to Khanassassin's assertion that no reviews were overly positive, these two happened to be extremely so, with very little, if any, negative criticism. There were actually quite a few "raves" for the album, and I gave extra weight to Rolling Stone because it is a magazine often cited by Dan56, who's edting was serving as my model, and because Rolling Stone did not base their response on Minaj's "rejection" of hip hop, as some in the hip hop community see her actions. Being a more rock-base source, the review seemed quite nuanced and even-handed, while many of the hip-hop oriented magazines seemed annoyed with her "pop" side.

Venuzza67 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic already gives "extra" or less weight for you. And frankly, only a fan with no objectivity would consider this to be a positive contribution. As I stated at that article's talk page (and every experienced editor agreed), several independent news sources and Metacritic said most reviews were mixed, hence the section leads off with mixed reviews, not this monstrosity wherein the first sentence says Spin magazine named the album one of the 50-best of the year. You must be delusional to think that editor was being unbiased and constructive. Dan56 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep responding with facts, and Dan56 keeps taking personal shots at me ("Delusional," "Fan.") Please stop harassing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venuzza67 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venuzza67 keeps nitpicking my word choice because he cant handle or legitimately respond to my argument. Dan56 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually taking exception to your calling me cruel things, like "Delusional," because I have a different point of view. I'm a new editor, and I've tried to do a good job. From the beginning, you did not welcome my discussion, my input. You pretended to be helpful, but did it in a patronizing manner. Wikipedia has attempted to make editing easier to include less experienced editors. Saying you are "experienced" is not persuasive in making me feel my viewpoint is less valid than yours. Yes, your knowledge of the Wiki system has made it possible for you to remove my good-faith contributions. And I worked hard and belieive in what I was saying. You chose to only mock me, suspend me and belittle me. I'll quit Wikipedia, and you will have achieved your goal of not allowing contrary points to be considered. Yes, I know you present the charade of a "talk page," but you tend to bully everyone here who disagrees. I'm disheartened, because I wanted to add to the discussion, but I've found no fairness, or even kindness here. And I'm truly sorry for any unkindness on my part, but I don't believe I had a chance. You removed my first edits, and then gave me a list of Wiki rules. You are a selective rule-follower, and even that, in spirit only. Following the letter of a rule, versus the intent are sometimes two different things. You use the letter of the rule to block opposing views. In reality, opposing views should be welcomed and presented. But I suppose you will disagree with that, put it up to a vote, and ban me for saying it. If I hadn't already quit. Take care, thank you for any actual give and take, and good luck with everything Dan56. I honestly wish you the best, because I know you believe you are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venuzza67 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's best for the article is what should be presented, and it is. You did not justify any of your changes, which were taken into consideration, but you initially showing good faith is not enough to let them be accepted. Erroneous grammar changes, impertinent overquoting, and what you made an issue out of--removal of sourced material in favor of a less reputed source--don't play victim. I offered fair and reasonable explanations which you impolitely rejected at this talk page and chose to smear my name at other editors' talk pages (Special:Contributions/Venuzza67). I said that you were delusional and biased for your view of fancruft made at another article, which you erroneously called "positive" and used it to criticized my character here. I know you're not really this sensitive (considering your bad-faith messages to my talk page), but in a goodbye, you might as well use it. Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something fancruft is considered uncivil on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fancruft.

Venuzza67 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fancruft ... Still trying to get the last word in? Dan56 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No.

Venuzza67 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you?

Venuzza67 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm just responding to your continuing off-topic comments here, whether you start talking about different discussions at Yeezus or Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded, or a fake goodbye message. I've got those other articles' talk pages and my own on my watchlist, so I'll know if you comment there. I think this article's talk is done. Dan56 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. so no need to respond to this comment, "dude." Venuzza67 (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Performance of the album

[edit]

In this article it hardly if ever states the album's achievements before Aaliyah's death. The album was her first top 5 album and her biggest first week sales of her career at that point. That's an honorable achievement that deserves to be mentioned in the article and I see no reason why it was changed even with a reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy4100 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources that makes that observation determines whether being her first top-5 (why 5?) album is noteworthy. Part of the threshold for inclusion in an article is that a reliable source has published this observation, which both verifies it's validity and proves it's notable, rather than one of us observing it ourselves. The latter detail about first-week sales is clearly mentioned in the article's Commercial performance section. Dan56 (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it states that the album was selling "less" than 1996's "One In a Million" which is completely false. One In a Million debuted at # 18 on the billboard 200 with 40k sold in it's first week http://books.google.com/books?id=yxIEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA69&dq=billboard+1996+aaliyah+one+in+a+million&hl=en#v=onepage&q=billboard%201996%20aaliyah%20one%20in%20a%20million&f=false also, RIAA certified 2001's "Aaliyah" for Gold sales/shipments in just four weeks, while it took 1996's "One In A Million" several more weeks to go Gold as shown in the RIAA database. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy4100 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sales-slash-shipments, it's shipments to retailers rather than actual sales from those retailers that is the basis for the RIAA's certified awards (List of music recording certifications). And the RIAA gives out these awards on their own schedule (see their database for how I Care 4 U was given both gold and platinum records on the same date). Their awards, not indicators of much (maybe projected demand); put more stock in Nielsen SoundScan and actual sales. Dan56 (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation conversion

[edit]

Hey Jerome Kohl! I recently converted the citations in this article to a consistent Harvard reference format, but was wondering if you could see if everything was done correctly or quickly review it for mistakes? I'm pretty sure they check out, but felt it couldn't hurt to ask. Dan56 (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan56. Is my enthusiasm for parenthetical referencing so notorious that I am now a sought-after consultant on Wkipedia? ;-) Well, you are correct in thinking that author-date format can be used with footnotes as well as with parenthetical inline refs, but on Wikipedia the footnote version is usually called "short-footnote" or SFN format. On the whole, your implementation looks good, but I see two (easily correctable) problems, both having to do with making the entries in the list of sources match the appearance of the inline (footnote) citations. The most important one has to do with the fact that you have a large number of anonymous sources without dates of publication. In the footnotes, you have differentiated these with parenthesized letters following the "n.d." placemarker (e.g., "n.d.(a)", "n,d,(b)", etc.), but in the alphabetical list of references, these markings are missing. The entire point of this style of referencing is to provide an orderly list of the sources used, in order that the reader can easily see what has been consulted and what may have been overlooked. Dozens of "Anon. n.d." entries will inevitably be difficult to sort out, but the little supplemental letters are at least a small help, and may be vital when you jump from a footnote to the list of sources and see a screenful of seemingly identical entries. The second thing has to do with the use of the various templates you are using for the source-list entries ("cite web", "cite book", "cite news", etc.). With Harvard referencing, the inline citation contains just two or three things: (1) the author(s)' last name(s) followed by (2) the year of publication and then, following a comma, (3) the page or other location (such as a numbered section or chapter). (The third element is not always appropriate, especially for websites.) Each entry in the list of sources, correspondingly, should begin with the author's (or authors') name(s), followed by the year of publication, enclosed in brackets in the case of the template-driven format you are using here. The problem with these citation templates is that the "date" parameter will accept month and day as well as year (see, e.g., Template:Cite news#Date), and will then display these elements in the brackets as well as the year, which not only can be confusing, but suggests a sort order contrary to the convention of sorting all items with the same author and year of publication alphabetically by title. For a newspaper article with a byline showing two authors, for example, the correct display layout is: [author1 last name], [author1 first name], [author2 first and last name] ([year]). "[title of article]". [Newspaper name] [volume and issue number (optional)] ([month and day of publication]): [section and page number (optional)]. Web-page dates may be displayed similarly (although they often add a time-stamp to the day and month information, I cannot recall ever seeing this included in a reference list). Punctuation between elements may vary from one style to another, and in these templates this can be set to something other than the defaults by using the "separator" parameter (in at least some of them, there are sub-parameters, such as "name-separator", "author-separator", "editor-separator", etc.). The only way I know to display the month and day data in the correct position in the list of references is to add them after (enclosed in brackets) or in place of (not enclosed in brackets) the issue number in the "issue" parameter. I presume you are already familiar with the need to use "ref=harv" with these templates, which is necessary to produce links with either the "sfn" or "harv" families of templates used for the inline citations. The exception to this rule is the global "citation" template, which automatically provides an anchor to link from either sfn or harv, though it introduces further formatting complications when it comes to differentiating different types of sources. I think the citations in the article Noise in music (which has just been awarded "Good article" status) are exemplary in this regard. You may find them worth looking at.
This is all very complicated, and is one reason why many editors (including myself) find these templates frustrating to use. Their advantage is that they enforce uniformity of formatting, a mind-numbingly tedious business which can be difficult to maintain even for a seasoned professional copyeditor, and I have only recently begun, grudgingly, to employ them myself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

who is dan56?

[edit]

dan56 always edit the Aaliyah album without discussion it with people but as soon as other people make edits/changes especially with cited sources he's quick to undo them?

Genre warring

[edit]

this album is not a neo soul album show me evidence that's states that this album is a neo soul album I provided my evidence that this is a pop album on july 12th 2001 the guardian said Aaliyah's raunchy latest is a perfect fusion of pop and R&B, on july 20th 2001 

entertainment.ie reviewed the album and said that this efficient blend of funky pop and edgy dance rhythms on july 20th 2001
@Mulaj:, at the end of the sentence that begins with "An R&B and neo soul album...", there is the footnote [30] that includes references to page 328 of Werner's book, which includes Aaliyah in the "starter kit" of records in neo soul. Additionally, the Chicago Tribune is cited in this article's Critical reception section as calling the album's music neo soul. Neo soul is also referenced in the third paragraph of the Legacy section. Dan56 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
entertainment.ie refers to its rhythms as "funky pop and edgy dance". Please research the the most reliable sources available on the topic rather than anything you can find that mentions "pop" in the same sentence as this album. Dan56 (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the legacy section and it said "Aaliyah's re-emergence with the album in mid-2001 had coincided with a period of peak activity in contemporary R&B, as well as the popularity of neo soul" it doesn't state that the album is neo soul Mulaj (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Mulaj[reply]

You obviously didn't read the Chicago Tribune if you are still arguing this same line of nonsense. Dan56 (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


the Chicago tribune is the only source that says its a neo soul album Im going to need more sources than that one source is not enough the guardian stated that said Aaliyah's raunchy latest is a perfect fusion of pop and R&B, on july 20th http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2001/jul/13/shopping.artsfeatures2 and on july 20th 2001 entertainment.ie said this efficient blend of funky pop and edgy dance rhythms http://entertainment.ie/album-review/Aaliyah-Aaliyah/110329.htm Mulaj (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Mulaj[reply]

"Im going to need"? First of all, there's no need for an arrogant tone here. Second of all, BBC's Daryl Easlea in #Legacy verifies "neo soul" ([2]), as does the book by Craig Hansen Werner I mentioned earlier. If you don't agree with either Werner, Easlea, or Brad Cawn from the Chicago Tribune, then that's just tough. Genres are concrete facts, but subjective interpretations (WP:SUBJECTIVE) Dan56 (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you never responded to what the guardian said about the album the guardian stated "Aaliyah's raunchy latest is a perfect fusion of pop and R&B", on july 12th 2001 http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2001/jul/13/shopping.artsfeatures2 Mulaj (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)MulaJ[reply]


Dan56 I would like to apologize if I appeared to be rude or arrogant we can agree to disagree without coming off disrespectful we can have a rational debate in a mature manner once again I am truly sorry Mulaj (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Mulaj[reply]

Its fine. Dan56 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aaliyah (album). 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}}).

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 04:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aaliyah (album). 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}}).

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 05:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aaliyah (album). 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}}).

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 18:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You messed up those 4 links now they do not work they were fine just the way they were you need to undo those changes Mulaj (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Mulaj[reply]

[edit]

hey Dan56 on may 27th 2016 a bot modified 4 external links on Aaliyah (album) and now the 4 links doesn't work but they were working perfectly fine until that bot made an edit we need to restore those 4 links to its original form so the can work properly again Mulaj (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Mulaj[reply]

after your recent edit the links to those 4 sources still do not work the bot rearranged the links and their formats Dan56 Mulaj (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Mulaj[reply]

I've inquired about this once before (User_talk:Green_Cardamom#Re:_Webcite). The BOT will automatically do what it does, but with my recent revision, at least the WebCite archive is preserved as the main link in the citation, even though the original remains dead, which shouldn't matter much as long as the archived link is there. Dan56 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Years of recording

[edit]

@Carmaker1:, I didn't read the entirety of the wall-of-a message you left at my talk page. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know you have to cite reliable sources to verify whatever it is you want to add or change in an article. Once again, you haven't done that; I've reverted you. The burden is on you to cite a source verifying the changes you want to make, not on me (WP:BURDEN). Please don't turn this into an edit war. Obviously you have a reason for believing what it is you believe, so please cite the source of whatever knowledge you'd like to share with the readers of this article--a website? A book? A magazine article?--rather than questioning the sources currently cited in the article. They remain more than anything you've offered so far in terms of evidence or proof. Keep in mind, this is a featured article that underwent a thorough review, of its sources and its information. Dan56 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article I assume you've been challenging:

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 77 external links on Aaliyah (album). 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) 21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Aaliyah (album). 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) 08:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Paragraph

[edit]

Since no one wants to use edit summaries, I would like users who keep reverting to explain here why they are doing it. "Aaliyah is the third and final studio album by American R&B singer Aaliyah. It was released by Blackground and Virgin Records America on July 7, 2001" Which is what I have changed it to, is the proper format that albums on this site follow. And yet people keep changing it back to "Aaliyah is the 2001 third and final studio album.." Not only does this not follow standard album articles, it also reads awkwardly. Please provide your reasons or I will seek administrative assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.89.31 (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

[edit]
Eaccessx (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Aaliyah's album was released internationally on July 7, 2001 and released officially in the United States on July 17, 2001. Can you guys please update the release date to "July 17, 2001" and add "Released Internationally: July 7, 2001" - something like that.

In this YouTube video, an interviewer interviews Aaliyah and the interviewer mentions that her album was in stores on a Tuesday. Many fans have said that her album was released officially in the US on July 17, 2001. July 17, 2001 is a Tuesday and July 7, 2001 is a Saturday. (YouTube video: youtu.be/oF7lluo606k at time stamp 0:22)

Thank you.

Okay. I've added a footnote beside the sentence indicating the two release dates. isento (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single dates

[edit]

@Status:, I'd like to work on this with you, but I'm not home now. I realize a few of the single dates are not verified within this article, so let me know which sources you can provide to verify them. I know the date for We Need a Resolution is cited in this article's marketing and sales section. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the infobox guideline recommends using the commercial release date, meaning the date the single was released for purchase, not a release to radio or music video channels. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon and other online retailers are not reliable sources (WP:ALBUMAVOID). Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlighttt, there is no mention of any single release dates in this NYTimes.com source you referenced. The previous dates, before your changes, had been verified by sources within the article, in the marketing and sales section. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NYTIMES source has nothing to do with the singles dates, it has to do with the new album release date coming next month. I stated the single release dates based on what's stated (and sourced) on their individual Wikipedia pages. Moonlighttt (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs is not a reliable source either, WP:ALBUMAVOID. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The dates at the song articles are not reliably sourced, and one of them is a radio date as opposed to a commercial release date, which is preferred per Template:Infobox album#Song and Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits regarding the album's release and rerelease

[edit]

Moonlighttt, I am opening this thread to discuss your proposed changes to the album's release information. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rerelease report is so far just a report, coming from lawyers of the Empire company. We should avoid including it in the release table, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. As for the table being "incomplate", yes, that is sometimes a consequence of being consistent with sourcing guidelines, as explained at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_comprehensive#Exceptions. If the sourcing is not available to "complete" the table, then perhaps that is an indication that this is not essential information for readers' understanding of the article subject. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you had linked the Empire company to an article on a company of that name, but then undid it. Is the link accurate? Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said in your edit summary that the "international version" wasn't digital, yet the source shows the format to be mp3s and the songs appearing available for purchase that way. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the link is accurate, I just undid the edit so it doesn't seem disruptive considering you had just undid my previous edits.

You should restore the link then. It is helpful to readers, definitely not disruptive. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 2007 release, does that mean the digital edition was only available for a short period of time? Because for years there's been a discussion in media of the album not being available digitally.

I would assume the media you are referring to has been Western/American media which often sensationalizes or phrases things from their point of view, which would overlook something like this edition being available abroad. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I understand the Discogs source being unacceptable, but the Amazon US one? Amazon's always used as a reliable source for albums' releases. Moonlighttt (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Amazon is used elsewhere, that is also not ideal sourcing. WP:ALBUMAVOID names Amazon as an example of online retailers being avoided as sources. Along with the explanation offered there, I will add that companies that play a role in the purchase of a product have a conflict of interest and as such are not the most reliable. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of the new reports, I do understand if it seems like "he said she said" but the album's already been made available for iTunes pre-order and Spotify's announced its streaming release. Moonlighttt (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should tread lightly here and just wait till it happens. Aaliyah's estate issued a statement yesterday claiming the planned rerelease is "unauthorized". Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over sales start

[edit]

You are misattributing the point of comparison. "Slower" is attributed to "start," not "total." You need to cite a source that actually mentions the sales. Chart numbers are not entirely based on sales and are more an accumulated measure of a record's popularity. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot cite chart numbers from 1997 and compare them to those in 2001. Billboard's chart methods have measured musical releases' popularity differently over the years, with a crucial policy change in 1998 that incorporated radio airplay as opposed to commercial release. See Billboard charts. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard charts#History, methods and description. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what evidence is there that you have that it was selling slower than One In a million besides that one article that made a claim with no proof or numbers when BILLBOARD (a more accurate measure of sales than that article you are using as a souce) shows that the album never fell as low as the bottom 50 unlike One in a million?

Self Titled’s chart run 2>5>17>25>27>19

One in a millions chart run 20>23>33>42>46>51

As you can see above, One in a million was the slower seller in comparison. Here are links, again more accurate and credible than that article you are using.

https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200/1996-09-14

https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200/1996-10-19

To further prove my claim, its also worth noting that Self Titled also revieved an RIAA certification in a shorter amount of time compared to “one in a million”. Here is proof as well.

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?share=9810&t=t

In conclusion, there is nothing credible that backs up your claim of Self Titled selling slower than One in a million. Self Titled not only had a better chart run, but also was certified faster. So what is your basis that self titled was “selling slower”? Dboy4100 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take it easy, seriously.

Certification are industry awards based on shipments to retailers. Chart figures are based on a number of metrics, including both sales and non-sales related.

If you think this is proper conduct, to just revert impulsively back to your preferred revision, without a consensus determined here, after your bold edit was undone (WP:BRD), then you have no business editing Wikipedia. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read this article to see your misapprehension of certification figures. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you still provided no evidence of the album selling slower.

Billboard and RIAA are still better metrics of record sales than the guardian. This is common knowledge. It seems you want to keep this untrue narrative for whatever reason.

Self titled sold 187k in the first week, how is that logically a “slower seller” than One in a million that sold 40k in the first week and fell out of the top 40 in it’s 4th week? Please, provide numerical evidence that counters billboard and ill stop changing it. Dboy4100 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are obligated to stop changing it by WP:BRD. I am here in an effort to discuss this content dispute with you. You will get nowhere brow-beating me with demands like that. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All im asking is to provide numerical evident to this claim. Unless you are unable to do so because that claim of “selling slower than one in a million” is untrue and inaccruate. Dboy4100 (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already attributed this as a point of view from the writer (i.e. "according to ..."). The Guardian remains a prominent news source, and the album's diminishing sales up to the time of her death is sourced in Billboard as well, if you read the section. Furthermore, album sales were known to have boomed in the 1990s and then declined in the 2000s, as documented at Album era. So it is very likely those chart numbers you are pointing to are inflated or misleading. Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

[edit]

I know it's a featured article and anything but I think the sources should have a layout is a bit easier from readers who might not understand. I been making test edits at my sandbox lately and this how the article look like without making an enormous mess of it [3]. This is just my opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to misunderstand? Not only does the Harvard citation template render more attractively (as opposed to cite clutter with ref tagged citations), but it also allows us to cite individual pages from say a book source that is referenced more than once. Piotr Jr. (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was making an suggestion, editors such as Moonlighttt who are new to Wikipedia might not understand the layout and try to change the format. The reason why I saying this because I see you have get in some edit conflict with editors who changing the article's format and end up making an enormous mess of it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was one editor, and there's no mess as far as I can see... Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just leave the article as it is. glad to see you back again. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Album Sales

[edit]

Hey, you guys, so it has come to my attention that the "Aaliyah" album certifications do not add up anywhere near 13 million. From the provided certifications, the album only adds up to a little over 3 million. I think we should find a source with a lower album claim, since there are albums on wiki, with higher certifications with lower album claims than this one. Also, let me say this, in no way shape or form am I trying to come after the singer, but we must be fair among all artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaxh (talk • contribs) 23:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the actual article. The claim is attributed to a reliable source. And the listed body of countries/certifiers do not account for the entire world... Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Music and lyrics section should be expanded

[edit]

After reading many reviews of the album, I think the music and lyrics section should be expanded and discuss every song from the album. Songs like the album's lead single are not addressed in that section. I noticed that every song got practically reviewed, and many reviewers either identified each song by genre or identified instrumentals/other sounds used on those tracks. Many reviewers would even break down the meaning of certain songs. Overall, since there is a lot of information provided through reviews, this section should discuss the album in its entirety, not just select songs.

OkIGetIt20 (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OkIGetIt20: First of all, work on your sloppy editing. You have miss up the article's formatting yet again. I don't have to clean up every time you make an edit in this article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you better watch your tone with me! you don't have to be rude. Second of all I don't intentionally mess up the formatting, the formatting is actually difficult to learn, because a lot of the articles I edit don't use that formatting. third of all if you're not going to respond to this request then you can go on about your day or night. OkIGetIt20 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAmazingPeanuts First of all you better watch your tone with me! you don't have to be rude. Second of all I don't intentionally mess up the formatting, the formatting is actually difficult to learn, because a lot of the articles I edit don't use that formatting. third of all if you're not going to respond to this request then you can go on about your day or night OkIGetIt20 (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OkIGetIt20: Maybe I was a little harsh to you and I sorry. Just make sure you don't add the same sources that are already in the article and be a little more careful. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's fine and I fixed the formatting. you can double check if I did it correctly. OkIGetIt20 (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OkIGetIt20: The format is correct, good job on that. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OkIGetIt20:, this article is not meant to be a review of the album, although it can take on elements of a review. But we cannot list out every description of the music available (WP:PLOT). 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 23:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Album sales not listed

[edit]

On Februrary 23, 2003 "Aaliyah" reportedly sold 350,000 units in BMG Club Sales. https://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=4631

Following it's 2021 reissue, "Aaliyah" Sold an additional 27,500 copies re- entering Billboard's 200 albums chart on September 25,2021 at #13 in its's 69th week selling over 16,300 units in pure sales. It was the top selling R&B album of the week. https://thatgrapejuice.net/2021/09/chart-check-billboard-200-20-years-its-release-aaliyah-the-weeks-top-selling-album/ https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200/2021-09-25/ 2600:1700:A50:CB80:6D78:F1F7:8BC1:5F41 (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. FifthFive (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add under “Marketig and Sales On Februrary 23, 2003 "Aaliyah" reportedly sold 350,000 units in BMG Club Sales. https://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=4631
Add under “marketing and sales”
Following it's 2021 reissue, "Aaliyah" Sold an additional 27,500 copies re- entering Billboard's 200 albums chart on September 25,2021 at #13 in its's 69th week selling over 16,300 units in pure sales. It was the top selling R&B album of the week. “https://thatgrapejuice.net/2021/09/chart-check-billboard-200-20-years-its-release-aaliyah-the-weeks-top-selling-album/https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200/2021-09-25/2600:1700:A50:CB80:6D78:F1F7:8BC1:5F41
under “marketing and sales” 2600:1700:A50:CB80:79B7:4B1D:2091:1134 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaliyah_(album)&oldid=1254405831"