Talk:Look Up Child

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Christian music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rolling Stone chart

@Walter Görlitz:, the chart, according to WP:Record charts should not be included. Yes, it was still in the chart last year, but that doesn't mean that it can be included if the album's peak of popularity came before the start of Rolling Stone Top 200 (June 2019). And, your edit summary is misleading when you wrote, "Do not use for releases prior to June 2019 nor for special editions that are not tracked separately", and in that edit, you added in the chart when you wrote not to use it, and the album was released in 2018. CountyCountry (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it re-entrant or that it charted prior to this and charted higher? you'll have to prove either. The album has had a long tail with respect to sales. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having "a long tail with respect to sales" is not a valid reason for the chart to be included. The album peaked at number 3 on the Billboard 200 in 2018, which is a similar chart that ranks albums in the same country that the Rolling Stone charts do. If the RS chart was in existence when the album was released, the peak for the RS chart would be much higher, and it certainly wouldn't be 34. Including the chart for this album points more toward its longevity. There is consensus that peaks should not be included based on the album's longevity (see WT:Record charts). Also on Rolling Stone, if you look what it says under "peak position" it says the number 2 (and weeks on chart is 70), which means that it would've peaked higher if the RS chart was around during the album's peak of popularity. CountyCountry (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox formatting

John Meadow (talk · contribs) has been edit warring and to apply personal preference to the the formatting of the article. The editor does not seem to know the formatting guidelines (which I helped to create) which are listed at Template:Infobox album. It reads, in part,

For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists the use of the class=hlist is preferred as it offers a benefit to users of screen readers (see Wikipedia:Accessibility for more information on Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). To use it, format the items as a normal bulleted list; don't use other list templates or <br/>.

Lists were added a few years ago for reasons of accessibility, but I understand that some readers prefer the bullets that this list adds. I believe it looks like it belongs in the 1990s. JM, as usual, started by reverting without explanation. I reminded the editor that edit summaries are helpful, and a "conversation ensued. Eventually, he made it clear that it is the editor's preference, but I pointed out that they are not necessary and pointed to the documentation. As soon as I did so, another revert without an explanation and no discussion has followed. I intend to restore it to WP:STATUSQUO if no better reason can be provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the editor is not interested in making the change, but has indicated that he will not revert again, so I will implement the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me out of future discussions. I have already stated that better articles uses the bullet format. John Meadow (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but they do so against the documentation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]