# Talk:Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

Now that it's been kept, it would be nice if all the sources mentioned at the AFD were actually put to some use expanding the article... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It sound like you are not happy about it. SunCreator (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I just don't like it when users argue to keep an article, and talk about how it could be improved but then they don't follow through and nobody actually does anything to the article itself. Finding sources is all well and good, but actually putting them to use to create content for the encyclopedia as opposed to just trying to "win" at AfD is how it's supposed to work. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This has been  Done. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The two AFDs, and the DYK entry, are all contained within the {{ArticleHistory}} template. Please do not add back duplicate templates that replicate this, they are not necessary. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look through the edits before making ridiculous comments like this. One is the dykdate and the other is the dykentry which contains the dyk content that has been listed. You simply reverted my edit without even checking for what that parameter actually stood for. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Please, do not refer to other editors' comments as "ridiculous". That is not kind, polite, or conducive to a constructive and positive collaborative editing environment. -- Cirt (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Collaborative my foot when you simply ignore my comments and are being blind to what I am saying. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I would actually love to respond, but this type of vitriol is not encouraging of that. -- Cirt (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Then respond, rather than doing unnecessary edits as such, when you know very well that the dyk for June 2010 is not set up and the content for the entry doesnot come up in the link. This kind of ownership of articles is not a "collaborative" environment, that you are right. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong. The ArticleHistory template is set up correctly. It would be a kind gesture for you to strikeout such unkind commentary including "ridiculous", "my foot", and "being blind". Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
LOL. So where's the section which says what was the dyk entry for this book? Where's Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/June? --Legolas (talk2me) 07:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could demonstrate your willingness to foster a kind atmosphere of discussion by striking out the unneeded inflammatory commentary. -- Cirt (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I won't. Where's the dykentry? Please first point me to that, else I will revert back to the previous version. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Your blatant threats to engage in disruption are wholly inappropriate. It is linked to in the template, under the words, "fact from this article". -- Cirt (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
(Outdent)Humor me. At present I just see:

{{ArticleHistory
|action1       = AFD
|action1date   = February 17, 2010
|action1link   = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop
|action1result = Keep
|action1oldid  = 347935138

|action2       = AFD
|action2date   = June 5, 2010
|action2link   = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop (2nd nomination)
|action2result = Keep
|action2oldid  = 366252379

| dykdate      = June 8, 2010
}}

I can't see anywhere what the entry was for which the article received a dyk tag. None of the links take me anywhere the entry is placed. Care to explain that? --Legolas (talk2me) 08:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I just did explain it. See my prior response, above. -- Cirt (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"Facts from this article" takes you to the recent page, where you have to search for the entry. There is no direct link as the June 2010 hasn't been set up. Then why did you revert my change when you could have kept the entry here till the June 2010 was made? --Legolas (talk2me) 08:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The link will then automatically directly go to that month. There is simply no need to clog up the talk page top with multiple different templates, when all necessary links and info are duplicated to the {{ArticleHistory}} template. -- Cirt (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to post here, if anyone comes up with suggestions for additional possible independent reliable secondary sources. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This article was reviewed and passed as GA. Review is at Talk:Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop/GA1. -- Cirt (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Submitted request for copyedit, from the contributors at WP:GOCE. — Cirt (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, many thanks to GOCE, — Cirt (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop. 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/20101203161444/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017733160?First%20Lady%20Gaga%20Biography%20Releasing%20In%20March to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017733160?First%20Lady%20Gaga%20Biography%20Releasing%20In%20March
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) 10:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)