Talk:Luxurious

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yet another Gwen Stefani Commercial Advertisement? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Complaints 

message: This page has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD debate link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: 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)
replies: text: Above comment by sockpuppet of , the user who expanded this article. Extraordinary Machine 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something about the song

message: 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)
thread_title: Free image

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support. I understand the idea of wanting to redirect to real-world stuff as opposed to pop culture stuff in cases like this, but I think "Luxurious" is far enough away from "Luxury goods" to warrant a move. Recury 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support. I understand the idea of wanting to redirect to real-world stuff as opposed to pop culture stuff in cases like this, but I think "Luxurious" is far enough away from "Luxury goods" to warrant a move. Recury 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #oppose a reader searching for a topic might not know what it is "exactly" titled at so they will type in similar words like Luxurious. The concept of luxury/luxurious is far more primary then the song. 205.157.110.11 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: Sorry for the late review, i can't see anything wrong with the article except this sentence -
* It entered the top forty of most of the charts it entered but had only mediocre success overall and was less popular than the previous singles from L.A.M.B. I don't like the wording of the first part (It entered the top forty of most of the charts it entered, it entered twice in one sentence) perhaps something like, "It entered top forty charts worldwide, but had mediocre success blah blah". Also saying "only" is a bit POV (implying it's a poor performance). Anyway goodwork and gl with FLC. M3tal H3ad 05:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: :This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Luxurious/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
===GA Sweeps: Pass===
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)
replies: text: Thanks for the review and clean up! — R2 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Reassessment

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the review and clean up! — R2 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: Pass