[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Pnau

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Otherwise untitled

[edit]

OK, I hope this page is a little more detailed (and cleaner!) - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 27 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good - what needs verifying about it? Ambi 07:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just general information. Is there any more information that we can add to this page? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, they're not my kind of band. However, one thing - for the appearances section, they also had a song on the fairly high-profile Liberdade: Viva East Timor album a few years ago. Ambi 08:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit]

I am currently testing an automated Wikipedia link suggester. Ran it on this article, here are the results:

  • Can link debut album: ...lian dance music act, releasing their debut album Sambanova in 1999 under the Peking ...
  • Can link the USA: ... who's based in Sydney and has lived in the USA and Jamaica, is one of the rising stars...
  • Can link Australian music: ...u tracks), Juno is a rising star of the Australian music scene: he's about to sign a publishing ...
  • Can link The Congo: ...ack 4: Una Noche (Get Up) (Unplugged In The Congo Mix)...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these links may be wrong, some may be right; You can leave positive feedback or negative feedback; Please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. -- Nickj 07:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Did Warner's take down the press release, and if so, why? Justin 06:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncleared samples

[edit]

Hi. im just curious as to wtf "due to uncleared samples" means? its been here for a while and i have no idea what the hell it means - Adrian— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.118.81 (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

How is the name pronounced? Is it a silent 'p'? Fig (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name origin

[edit]

got an old copy of DJ mag kicking around that has an interview with them where they state the name is the only word from a language they made up while tripping on acid, if i remember i'll try to find it for an issue number for the reference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.66.168 (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually pretty much all the sources for the name origin back this claim, including the band's press kits. however, I wasn't sure if this was wiki appropriate. Nick Littlemore in more conventional interviews just says he was speaking in tongues, and the acid trip claim has even been proposed by one publication (forget which, I think allmusic) to just being a joke.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.199.13 (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pnau. 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) 08:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pnau. 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) 03:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pnau. 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) 11:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pnau and PNAU

[edit]

@Elton-historian: Please stop changing "Pnau" to "PNAU" because doing so is not only not in accordance with MOS:ALLCAPS and MOS:TMRULES (i.e. Wikipedia's manual of style), you're also introducing quite a number of syntax errors that are causing links and templates to not function properly. I'm quite sure you mean the best, but this isn't how this is done on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I mean no disrespect. I respect rules and copyright and all those things involved. When I was finished editing the name, I was gonna find a different pic and correct that.
Now, as far as changing Pnau to PNAU. They are actually PNAU, always have been. Because of music streaming platforms and other things involving metadata. It helps to get this right for integrity and making sure that the artists' work all goes in the proper places.
Now, having said that. You may be thinking, "Well why come on here and make a mess of this?". LOL. Well, I had previously made minor changes before, so, I thought this would be a breeze. Apparently, I'm going about this the wrong way. I apologize. How should I go about this? Elton-historian (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you mean well, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style is intended to try and keep things as consistent as possible across all of the project's articles for the sake of Wikipedia's integrity. Music streaming platforms and other things probably do things differently according to their style guidelines, but that matters not here. Unlike such sites, Wikipedia articles are typically interlinked to one another using WP:WIKILINKS and often make use of WP:TEMPLATEs to provide. So, when you change a name like you did, you're also potentially breaking such links and causing such templates to not function as intended. The band may stylise their name as "PNAU" and reliably sourced content about this can be added to the article, but this article is not the property of the band; in other words, none of its members or representatives have any final editorial control over it.
As for the image stuff, you need to find a freely licensed or public domain image to use for identification purposes. You should assume that pretty much anything you find online is copyrighted and probably can't be uploaded unless (1) the image is clearly already released under an acceptable free license or (2) you're able to convince its copyright holder to give their WP:CONSENT. Sometimes free images/video content can be found already published online (there's some info on that Wikipedia:Free image resources), other times you can try contacting copyright holders directly per WP:PERMISSION. You could try contacting the band's representatives and see if it would be willing to provide an image that Wikipedia can use. You could also try looking on sites like Flickr to see whether anyone who has seen the band in concert uploaded any photos and is willing to release one of them under an acceptable free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the advice and help. Going forward I will try doing doing better. I have uploaded a new pic and provided the website link and a description.
Thanks again! Elton-historian (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems with the latest file you uploaded. The first one is that you've overwritten the previous file, which in this case was not a good thing to do since the two files are completely different. It would've been better for you to upload the newer file as a separate file. This is a technical matter that can sort of be fixed by an administrator by "splitting" the files. The other problem, however, is more serious because there's still no license for the newer file and there's nothing to indicate on the url you provided as the source that the photo has been released under a license free enough for Wikipedia's purposes. That's not something that can be fixed on Wikipedia's end, and this file is going to end up deleted unless it the copyright holder's consent can be verified. As I pointed out above, anything photo you find online (particularly one taken by someone else) is going to be assumed to be under copyright protection and under a license that's too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes unless it clearly states otherwise. A photo being used for "promotional" purposes by a website doesn't mean the photo is copyright free or released under a license that's free enough for Wikipedia. There needs to be something that clearly says such a thing; for example, something like "This photo is released under a blah blah blah license" where "blah blah blah" is one of these or a symbol like one of these. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to ask for help at WP:MCQ before uploading any new files if you're not sure how of their licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Marchjuly's assessment of the copyright status of the latest image you uploaded. Finding an image on the web somewhere, even one that's a promotional photo, doesn't mean it's suitable for uploading here. Further, please see WP:NFCC #1. We're not going to allow the use of a copyrighted, non-free image to depict this group. There is no evidence this image is available under a free license, in fact rather the opposite. As a result, this image will be deleted. Further, regardless of our own beliefs on whether the group should be referred to as "PNAU" or "Pnau", this article will be titled "Pnau" due to our guidelines. In cases where the group is referenced in article titles used for sources, it should go with what the source says, not what we think it should say. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! I was only trying to update this page to comply with the correct font, image, logo and/or spelling of the band's name for the very reason why people use Wikipedia... reference. I was updating the page for the fans, the band and consumers of streaming platforms, Google and other search engines for clarification purposes. If you believe that doesn't matter, they have an album stuck on it's own page on Spotify because it's filed under Pnau and not the correct spelling of PNAU. If spelling didn't matter with artists for integrity, then what if someone changed k.d lang's name to K.D.Lang on her Wikipedia? It might start to shift things a bit.
I've been as nice as I can be about this. You've recognized I was new to this, but yet you've continued to go after me. I don't understand how to tag copyright, even after, reading the article you sent. I respect copyright, and I'm trying to understand how to tag the photo properly, but if a link to the website that uses the photo with an explanation of where it came from and also why I copied over the first one I used isn't good enough, then what is?
Oh and by the way, if my explanation of why PNAU and not Pnau doesn't matter, then stop busting my chops over the photo. I don't care about the photo, I was only being nice to update it, since they are a trio now. I'm trying to do the thing, but I feel I'm being monitored very heavily for trying to do something beneficial. Sure I messed with the template, but a simple, "Hey! take it easy", would've sufficed, instead of letting me explain before changing everything back. I understand it could can mess with references... I don't think it will? if I just stick to changing the name in the articles. So, no messing with template or changing Pnau in actual reference. Got it! That's all you would have had to have said, but I apologized, I explained, you allowed no compromise and you've kept referencing for me to read this to do that because you can't do this according to that.
Well, I did read, and I still don't understand. This shouldn't be that complicated.
The photo. I don't care anymore, delete it, delete the other, hopefully someone else, with better skills, will come along and attach a a good pic.
But the name. That's different.
It's always been PNAU. Sure, I realize in the past, articles here and there, even on some platforms. They'll be referenced by Pnau, but now they're not just a smalltown local group from Australia. They've had a big hit with Elton John and Dua Lipa, Khalid, Bebe Rexha, they deserve more respect on their name. It should be all-caps like it's meant to be.
Here's some links to there social media and music streaming platform pages, with there name displayed PNAU and verified.
YouTube link:
https://youtube.com/@pnautv?si=SuRNmjBgFkA3HX-W
Spotify link:
https://open.spotify.com/artist/6n28c9qs9hNGriNa72b26u?si=BtwlAWfDRzqWzYg82uSIHw
X (Twitter) link:
https://x.com/pnau?t=pK-35eLnVnStuAkhdBxaZQ&s=09
Apple Music link:
https://music.apple.com/us/artist/pnau/5555346
Amazon music link;
https://music.amazon.com/artists/B000WOTACI/pnau
Deezer link:
https://www.deezer.com/us/artist/152789 Elton-historian (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft
This is is from your principals on your Wikipedia page. I'm trying to improve something, now I've explained. You wasn't even going to give me the opportunity.
"5. You don't have all the answers, and never will. The project is too large for one person to understand all facets of its operation. It's ok. If you think you can improve something, be bold and do it. If someone reverts what you do, engage in discussion."
I've presented the reasoning for the name change, I've explained and apologized for editing too much. I've explained my ignorance about uploading the photo, while trying to do things in the best matter possible.
The photo can go, I have confidence someone will come along, with better knowledge, and provide a well copyrighted photo.
I'm only asking to edit the name with no hassle, because it's an improvement and it's right. No I don't have all the answers but, I never said I was a no-it-all either. I wouldn't change anything unless I knew it was right. I'll make sure not to mess with the template, any references, anything of that nature. If it seems as if the editing I'm doing is messing things up, I will stop.
I've said my peace, I never thought this would be such a hassle, but I wish I was confronted in a more respectful way, where we could have discussed it.
There's another one of your principals, on down from #5, that pretty much states, everyone makes mistakes, even the ones that have been doing it for years.
So, if I haven't heard from either of you or anyone else in 24 hours, I assume you've "walked away" and I'm going to resume editing this article. But, don't worry I'll be very careful and will comply. Elton-historian (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft
"7.Members of ArbCom, Bureaucrats, and Administrators are just as likely to commit an error as any experienced editor. There are third rails for their behavior, and they are expected to abide by those additional restrictions. See WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ARBCOND. Nevertheless, remember they are as human as you are." Elton-historian (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quasi-declarations like So, if I haven't heard from either of you or anyone else in 24 hours, I assume you've "walked away" and I'm going to resume editing this article. isn't really how Wikipedia works. All Wikipedians are WP:VOLUNTEERS and there are really WP:NODEADLINES placed on discussions like this; so, trying to artificially create and enforce them yourself is unlikely going to lead to anything productive. Moreover, nobody has posted that you can't or shouldn't edit the article; it was only pointed out that changing "Pnau" to "PNAU" isn't in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style regardless of what other websites might be doing. If you disagree with this, the WP:ONUS is upon you to either (1) establish a WP:CONSENSUS that the guideline either doesn't apply or shouldn't apply with respect to this particular article or (2) make the case at WT:MOSTM that the guideline itself should be changed/updated to more accurately reflect what other websites are doing. None of what you posted above indicates there's any need for (1) (at least in my opinion). Wikipedia articles are written about subjects, not for the benefit of subjects; so, as posted earlier, what matters is whether article content is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not whether it's in accordance with what the subject might want or what other websites are doing. Community-wide policies and guidelines can be changed and sometimes are, but discussion is needed on their relevant talk pages because such changes affect the project as a whole. Finally, copying-and-pasting blocks of text from Hammersoft's userpage into this discussion is not really doing anything to establish a consensus in favor of the change you want to make but is creating unnecessary WP:TEXTWALL that is unrelated to this discussion and is most likely going to go unread or even be possibly collapsed. If you've got issues with Hammersoft's principles, you probably should discuss them with him at User talk:Hammersoft because there's nothing about them that can be resolved here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft
Interjected, out of nowhere and was disrespectful. Please stop sending me things about stuff not being right. Elton-historian (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, nobody is going after you. We're only trying to educate you about how things work on this project. I'm sorry you feel like someone is "busting your chops" but honestly that just isn't the case. You have every opportunity to explain yourself, and no one is taking that away from you. I expressed an understanding of the guidelines and policies here. I have to comply with them, and so do you. That doesn't mean people are taking away your ability to explain yourself. I'm sorry you feel you've been disrespected. From my reading of Marchjuly's comments and re-reading my own, I don't think anyone has been disrespectful to you. It wasn't our intention to disrespect you.

Second, yes copyright is complicated. Supplying the source for the image is a necessary component of uploading an image that is not ours. This allows people to confirm its copyright status. However, this is only part of the process. An image must be available under a free license to be used here. Ok it doesn't matter what that is, so long as this is clear: the vast, vast majority of images on the Internet are not available under such a license. The images you have uploaded are not under such a license. Thus, even though you've provided the source and an explanation of the image, it doesn't grant permission for the image to be used here. We do allow images that don't comply with our licensing requirements, but only under strict circumstances, such as a famous photographs of historical events. An image of this band does not qualify for these.

Third, Pnau or PNAU; I don't care. I do care what the sources say, and it's equivocal. Some sources say Pnau, others say PNAU. This might seem ridiculously obtuse and pedantic. But, it isn't. On Wikipedia, we heavily rely on secondary sources to support what we say here. Ok sure, the band refers to themselves as PNAU. But, not everyone does. Wikipedia is a mirror of the world; we support our articles with what the world says about something, not just what the something says about itself. When Rolling Stone Magazine refers to them as "Pnau", that's quite authoritative as a secondary source that the public views the name as "Pnau". Same goes for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. These are strong secondary sources that support referring to the band as "Pnau". I understand you are relying on the primary source of the band itself; that's fine, but it's not absolute. Even the band itself uses Pnau. See [1] where it says "Pnau - Changa". If you try to go to PNAU on Wikipedia it takes you, via a redirect, to this article. If you try searching on search engines for "Pnau", "pnau", or "PNAU" results for Wikipedia always come to the right article here. So, there's no misdirection.

Lastly, your contributions here are most welcome. It is obvious you are passionate about what you are editing, and that is awesome! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft
This is the feedback and discussion I wish you had introduced yourself with and had given me. Whether or not your intentions were not to be critical, you have to understand, when I was trying to figure the process of things on the scale I was doing them, trying to correct myself, document things correctly, having a calm (yet serious LOL), back and forth with only @Marchjuly,
it felt like I was being completely ignored and what I was trying to accomplish didn't matter, when you came in out of nowhere.
I hate we got off on the wrong foot and that I became, as they say,a "keyboard warrior"? trying to defend myself. That wasn't far to you or @Marchjuly. I apologize to you both and I I'm sorry for the outburst or whatever you would call this.
Thank you both for pointing out mishaps and educating me on editing on this platform. I have done some previous edits on other pages, but on a minor scale and that's what I will do later today on this page, being mindful not to get "carried away" and mess up references, templates and other established works.
Thank you both for the feedback, all of it, and the opportunity to sort this out in a better manner.
Again I apologize to you both and I thank you both! Elton-historian (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • wasn't fair to you
Elton-historian (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Text based communication is difficult, as it misses so much of intonation and expression. Let's move forward! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! I'm sure you meant no harm to begin with. Thank you for understanding. Elton-historian (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elton-historian: The first time you made this change, you were bold but subsequently reverted because the change is seen as not being in accordance with Wikipedia's MOS. I wasn't beinging disrespectful to you by doing this, and I assumed you made the change in good faith. The reasons why I reverted the original change were given above, and this is what's (still) being discussed here. However, nothing posted above so far has established a consensus in favor of the change, and disagreements like this among editors are expected to be resolved in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Your mass changing of Pnau to PNAU without establishing a consensus in favor of doing so (not only here but in many other articles) isn't the way to go about this, and continuing to try to force this change through is almost certainly going to end up be something discussed on one of the administrator noticeboards.

Finally, "Pnau" is not really a typo or misinterpretation; it's how Wikipedia treats this kind of thing according to its MOS (particularly MOS:TMRULES). It was also pointed out above that if you disagree with the MOS treatment of this sort of thing and feel the MOS itself needs to be changed, you should post your concerns on the relevant MOS talk page. If, on the other hand, you just feel the MOS doesn't apply to this particular case, then you need to establish a consensus in support of that position here on this talk page. My suggestion to you is to go back and self-revert the changes of "Pnua" to "PNUA" you made in all of those other articles as sign of your willingness to resolve this through discussion, and continue to seek consensus for said change here on the primarily article about the band. It makes very little sense to change in-body mentions of the band's name (in my opinion pronouns, "the band", "the group", or something similar could be used in many of those cases anyway) without changing the names of this and the other articles, and there's no consensus established to do so yet. If you'd like to start a more formal Wikipedia:Requested move discussion with respect to that, you may. If that discussion eventually leads to a consensus to move the article from "Pnau" to "PNAU", then all of the associated articles/templates/in-body references will also be moved/changed accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't believe I'll pursue this any further. It's too complicated to communicate my reasoning and I'm only causing more problems than betterment. I apologize and thanks for your service. Elton-historian (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation for the lead sentence would be
Pnau (stylised in all caps) is an Australian dance music trio originating from Sydney.

instead of
Pnau (commonly stylised as PNAU) is an Australian dance music trio originating from Sydney.

This wording would be consistent with the lead sentences of other groups that are stylized in all caps, and reinforces to the reader that the group's name is always stylized in all-caps rather than just "commonly". RachelTensions (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Thank you for your input. Ultimately that would be upto @Hammersoft, I believe?, since they were the previous editor. I don't wanna cause no more trouble, LOL.
Thanks again for the suggestion! Elton-historian (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's ultimately no decisions on Wikipedia are up to any single editor, it's up to what we, as a group, can come to a WP:CONSENSUS on.
At the end of the day I don't think the particular wording of the first sentence was really in contention; what was causing the hubbub here was the question as to whether their name should be written in the article capitalized in the first place. RachelTensions (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. I started editing Pnau to PNAU, for general consistency purposes, to match their official font on their verified accounts, streaming platforms, etc. However, eventhough, I have made edits before, including adding information, I came in being careless and mistakingly started changing the name within references and templates. I believe that's what mostly, I assume, caught the eye of the others. I was corrected, I assumed I could move forward and make the same changes, strictly within the articles and the discography info. I also tweaked the wording of the intro sentence by reverting the explanation. I tried uploading a pic to show that PNAU are a trio now, that didn't work out because I couldn't figure out proper copyright. So, I was corrected again, everything was changed back, I did say I wouldn't pursue it no longer. I was told about the WP:CONSENSUS and other materials to properly edit these types things. I apologized again. Said, I'd let it go, however, and regretfully I did change Pnau to PNAU on the discographies related to Elton, because, what I've been trying to explain, whether it's believed or not, or it's a silly reason or not, YouTube uses the disriptions from the articles on Wikipedia pages for their albums, singles and sometimes artists' biographies. I was only trying to keep things consistent and official with their name as possible.
So, I got caught making those few changes... and I haven't bothered since.
Yes, I realize that articles, even from reputable sources, like Rolling Stone and streaming platforms like Spotify, who have the Good Morning to the Night album stuck in it's own page because of this issue... have or still use Pnau. It's always been PNAU. Do I have reputable sources, well up above I sent some links of some verified accounts, but like I say, I'm very aware that this is not publicly known. They are not *NSYNC.
So, yeah, that was my only reason, is to help draw attention to the correct spelling. Other people may not, but I feel like it kills the YouTube algorithm since YouTube and therefore Google uses Wikipedia for a source in their info. When you edit something here, it reflects on YouTube or wherever else it's being used.
I'm trying also to help get Good Morning To The Night album on Spotify into both PNAU's individual discography and Elton's individual discography. I figured every little helps.
I mean, this may seem wacky, but it's all about things being where they should and need to be.
That's all. I have reached out to the rights owners of the album, I've tried contacting the band, I've tried contacting Elton's people.
This is just a hobby of mine. Silly as it may seem, these things are important to me.
Anyway, I don't know how else to explain it. When it comes down to it and considering everything in life, this is nothing, but music is a hobby of mine and I've found a new found interest in metadata and ISRC's and trying to help correct those on streaming platforms. Elton-historian (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's not up to any one single editor. I don't have any more say so than anyone else around here. I agree with what RachelTensions has suggested. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the change to the lead seems to be uncontroversial so I'm going to go ahead and make the change. RachelTensions (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Elton-historian (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pnau&oldid=1253446043"