# Talk:Amor Prohibido (song)

I am having trouble allowing the "reference" section to view the url of a website, for example the music video, "TMA", The Final Notes (some of them), and others can't view, at the bottom, the url. I am wondering is that ok or was it a mistake? AJona1992 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also what should I do about a "dead link" and why were some of the sentences such as the Billboard Peaks are "dead links"? AJona1992 (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the reference syntax errors. See WP:REFNAME for some help on getting this right in future.
The "dead link" tag means that someone has tried to click on the reference and found that the web page does not exist. This could be a spelling mistake in the URL, or perhaps the referenced web site has been re-arranged since the link was added. You could perhaps try using Google or such like to find a new source for the information in the article. See WP:DEADLINK for more (too much?) detail. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I will start trying to find more sources for the dead links. AJona1992 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

there's way more artists who covered this song someone should re-do that section and add those artists such as Anais.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.228.247 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 

This song didn't chart in any European country, the Norwegian reference said that the album is available on a cd called Caliente Latin Ballads 6 there is no latin chart in Norway. When a song charts there a flag of Norway appears next to the peak position, like this one [1]. Frcm1988 (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed. AJona1992 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding what the GA reviewer is requesting about. Also the reception table should be deprecated for two reasons: 1) The TopTen Reviews has only one review which Allmusic and that is already mentioned in the article - what are you trying to say here so I can address the issues fast? I also removed what you requested for this section as well. AJona1992 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I also pointing out that the "TopTen Reviews" was not useful because it only one contains one review which is the Allmusic review. Which in turn was already mentioned in the article so it be redundant. Magiciandude (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
"TopTenReviews" is a reviewer, are you saying that I should remove it from the table? AJona1992 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah... got it. Top Ten Reviews simply is grabbing All Musics Review and using it. So, we should point to the original review at AM and drop the dupe at TTR. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 17:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I still don't get it? AJona1992 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Gimme a sec. Checking the links now. -R /ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 18:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
OK... go to http://music.toptenreviews.com/reviews/al172704.htm and take a look at the page. They have two scores. One is based on their users, so it's not theirs or an "Expert Review" as they label them. So, that score cant be used since we can only cite expert reviews. The other score (the 4) is an "Expert Review" but it's not theirs either. It's from All Music, so we can't use that twice. That's why Magiciandude is saying we need to take them off: (1) they dont have a review of their own, and (2) the only expert review they have is from AllMusic, which we already have in the table. Now... had their "Expert Review" been from a different site (some other expert site other than AllMusic), then we could include the score, but we still wouldn't use Top Ten Reviews as the source. Instead, we'd go directly to whoever they got the score from and use them as the source/reviewer instead. Inotherwords, if TopTenReviews had an "Expert" score of 9/10 from "OtherExpertSite" we would find the link to "OtherExpertSite" and use that instead of TopTenReviews.
That's the one problem with sites like TopTenReviews... since they dont seem to do their own reviews, we cant directly use them. We can find who they got their review from, and if we dont already have that other site in the list (and assuming they are an expert review site), then we can enter the score and the site of the original reviewer.
Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 18:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok I got it, I will remove that confusion now. AJona1992 (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I forgot to mention this, but the reference to the Allmusic review also links to a site that took their review of the album. That'll have to be removed as well because it makes no mention of the song itself. Magiciandude (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That has now been taken care of. AJona1992 (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've just asked a GA mentor to look at the review and this is what the user suggested:
"Thanks for contacting me. The review looks very well done, good job on catching many of the article's issues. The only significant issue I see is that the citations should be formatted a bit better. For example, current citations 14 and 15 are vague. In addition, citation 24 links to a YouTube video which is discouraged (also 26). I would recommend that the nominator look for any other more reliable sources that may be available to source the article. If the plot of the music video is being described, then no citation is needed since it's just covering the details (similar to how plot summaries of films/TV shows are not sourced). However, if interpretations of the music video are covered, that would need to be cited. Hopefully this is helpful, but if you would like further clarification, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)" Magiciandude (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magiciandude & Nehrams2020, for cites 24 & 26, we attempted to find other sources, but could not. At the recommendation of a couple admins (who mentioned the same "discouraged") they advised that if nothing else or even worse sources were available, then using YouTube (to prove the existence) would be a last resort acceptable alternative. We've looked, and that's the best we can find. If you have any other suggestions, please let us know - this situation has exceeded the extent of my knowledge in dealing with such scenarios.
We'll be working on the other changes and suggestions later today. And thanks again for both of your time! (on behalf of AJona1992 and myself) Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's the thing about YouTube. It's not necessarily banned from use on references, just discouraged. The reason being that the video could be a copyright infringement. That being said, the YouTube video for Amor Prohibido is not a copyright infringement because it was uploaded by Selena's record company, EMI. On the other hand, the video with Shakira would be because Univision or an associate did not upload the video. If I recall, there is a template that you can use for television episodes. You won't need to find a video of Shakira singing if you just source the episode. Magiciandude (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Much thanks. Will find that and show AJona how to use it. Thanks! ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So a cite:episode would be best needed? AJona1992 (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yup, do you know how to do it? ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 21:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright I'll go check it out but if not, text me on AIM so we can work on this better. AJona1992 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hold on, theres already a Cite:EP for Shakira's cover. AJona1992 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so replace cite #26 (in the Covers section) with the same cite. Looking good. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am still having troubles on what your saying here. Cite #26 currently has a cite episode. So what do you want me to do? AJona1992 (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is the template I was referring to when citing episodes from a show. Use that. Magiciandude (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That's what I am talking about, cite #26 has that template in use right now. AJona1992 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Remove the YouTube link, and either add the season & episode number or the date it aired. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I took care of it myself to not make it too much of a hassle. Magiciandude (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Much thanks. We'll both go over the cite together in a bit, as a learning experience. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
So everything seems to be complete at this moment. AJona1992 (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have searched on the Internet and found nothing in regards to the citations, however, these statements can be found mostly in Selena specials. I found a web site that talks about "Amor Prohibido" being influenced by Selena's grandparents but that web site is on the block log for Wikipedia so I couldn't include it. I added another source for "Selena stepping out of the Tejano genre" with a summary that was found on IMDB.com's review for The Final Notes another Selena special. So I think that the these citations should remain since theres no web site on the Internet that talks about that. With that being said, are there any more concerns so I can take care of them as soon as possible, should we try to address citations 14 and 15 still, or is this article ready for a "GA" status? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to give the article another look soon. Magiciandude (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. AJona1992 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass

The only issue that needs to be taken care of is this statement needing to be sourced as I've mentioned in the review: "Even though considered a Tejano song, "Amor Prohibido" has helped Selena cross over into Puerto Rico, South America, and other Spanish-speaking countries that didn't accept Mexican genres as a favorite tune". The citations for 14 and 15 appear to be same as citation 12, so do clean that. Just fix those two and I will pass this article as GA. Magiciandude (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I searched one book on google books for that claim and since I cannot find it, I removed it. I also fixed citations 14 and 15 as your request. AJona1992 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well then, since everything else is taken care of, I see no other problems with the article. The article passes. Magiciandude (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much! AJona1992 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How can I get this article (if its not currently) upgraded to a "A" status rather then a "B"? AJona1992 (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi AJona1992! I suggest getting peer reviewed to have someone do a review for you. Magiciandude (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! AJona1992 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why the date format is listed as d/m/y when according to MOS:DATETIES, the date format should reflect on strong national ties. Selena is an American singer performing a genre that originated in Texas, so it should be m/d/y. Erick (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I  Fixed it  jona(talk) 19:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Amor Prohibido (song). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626102925/http://i.univision.com/contentuvn/rinconlatino/plnuestro/images/index_historia.swf to http://i.univision.com/contentuvn/rinconlatino/plnuestro/images/index_historia.swf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205000304/http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=31450&Itemid=19 to http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=31450&Itemid=19
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/article/Selena-s-music-revisited-with-Enamorada-de-Ti-3453458.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://reportermagarchive.com/article/04-27-2012/album-review-enamorado-de-ti-by-selena
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 22:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Amor Prohibido (song). 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6juQz28Op?url=http://www.tejanomusicawards.com/winners.html to http://www.tejanomusicawards.com/winners.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/article/Selena-s-music-revisited-with-Enamorada-de-Ti-3453458.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://reportermag.com/article/04-27-2012/album-review-enamorado-de-ti-by-selena
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f=ts_chart_artistname%3ASelena&f=itm_field_chart_id%3A1190&f=ss_bb_type%3Achart_item&type=2&artist=Selena
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) 04:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)