Jump to content

User talk:A Thousand Doors/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

TFL notification

Hi, A Thousand Doors. I'm just posting to let you know that List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 22. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 16:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's great, thanks so much, Giants! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

correction

OCC, iTunes, Music Week and Radio 2 all say Beatles 1 is the 20th best-selling UK album of all time. The figure 3.23 million does NOT include streaming sales. Total sales for 1 are around 3.26 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.98.143 (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pringles Unsung

Hello! Your submission of Pringles Unsung at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Changes (advertisement)

On 12 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Changes (advertisement), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Changes, a 1987 advert for the Volkswagen Golf, is remembered as having "spawned a new era in car advertising"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Changes (advertisement). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Changes (advertisement)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious

featured lists

Thank you quality articles such as Changes and Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut, for featured lists of albums in the UK such as HMV's Poll of Polls, for reviewing and collaboration, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1476 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Kelly Clarkson FLC

Hello A Thousand Doors, I've just nominated the List of awards and nominations received by Kelly Clarkson to FL status. I hope you can review it and post your comments in the discussion page if you're available. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pringles Unsung

On 21 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pringles Unsung, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the music competition Pringles Unsung was described as being "liable to kill the most credible career"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pringles Unsung. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pringles Unsung), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)) 00:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ScrewAttack's Top 10.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ScrewAttack's Top 10.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK)

Hello! Your submission of FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Fram (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK)

On 27 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that publicists promoted the 1999 edition of FHM's 100 Sexiest Women by projecting a 60-foot (18 m) naked image of the TV presenter Gail Porter onto the Palace of Westminster? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

FLC

Hello A Thousand Doors! A while back you left some comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Oh Land/archive2, and I tried my best to address them. If you could look over my edits and changes to the article it would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut

The article Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

what is the justification for having a separate article for The Director's Cut. This entire article should be added to Donnie Darko

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kellymoat (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kellymoat (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Rise Against

Hi there,

I recently took a shot at expanding the lead on my sandbox. What do you think so far? Famous Hobo (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That's certainly much better. I'd strike my oppose if the article had a lead like that. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Alright, the lead has been updated in the article. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UK Christmas number one album downloads in the 2010s

Template:UK Christmas number one album downloads in the 2010s has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UK Christmas number one single downloads

Template:UK Christmas number one single downloads has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

UK Rock & Metal Albums Chart lists

What do you think of having both List of UK Rock & Metal Albums Chart number ones of 2010 and List of UK Rock & Metal Albums Chart number ones of the 2010s? It seems a bit redundant and against WP:CONTENTFORK. There's really no significant information that is provided in one that's not in the other. The general scheme seems to have the main UK albums and singles chart lists by decade and the genre charts by year, but none have both. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they basically repeat the same information, so there's really no need to have both, especially for a chart as minor as the UK Rock & Metal Albums Chart. I've just been reminding myself of when we had this exact same discussion back in ye olde days of 2012, and I'm afraid that I'm just as unsure of the correct solution now as I was back then. Both formats have advantages and disadvantages; I have no strong preference for either. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

About a week ago on the FLC page here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts/archive1, you marked the comments you made there as resolved. I don't know if it's holding things up with the process or not, but you are still marked as opposing the nomination in your comments. If that is accurate and you are indeed still opposed to it, let me know of any additional fixes that you would like to see in the article and I will take care of it promptly. If you are satisfied with the article as it is currently, remove the opposed text from your comments and replace it with support when you have a moment, please. It looks like all I need is for someone to spot check my sources and one more supporter to push this nomination over the top. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Disregard. It got promoted today. Jackdude101 (Talk) 11:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication

Hi there. Thanks again for helping me on this project. As you might have noticed, I've added the Es to your sandbox. I intend to work on this slowly but consistently, adding at least one letter myself per day. I anticipate the nomination will be closed (and likely not promoted) in the meantime, but that's no problem, I'll just renominate it again once we've finished working on it. I've also gone through and added the 'sfn' template to all the sources that have page numbers outside the references in your sandbox. Feel free to leave this part to me as this task goes on if you want.

Also be aware that in the arduous process of populating this list, my priority was finding a source that met WP:RS that supported that the person did indeed die of an overdose or acute intoxication. If said source happened to state it was an accident or suicide or otherwise, I would add this information in as I thought it was relevant. However, as this information did not originally have its own column, I rarely made efforts to track this information down on its own. So basically what I'm saying is what is in the table is an accurate reflection of what is in the sources provided, though I am sure that if a concerted effort was made to search for intent on every current 'unknown' person, I'm confident a significant portion could be found. I did put more effort into establishing which drugs were responsible in each case, so if each 'unspecified' person was searched for considerably less blanks would be filled in, though I'm sure some could definitely be found. I just thought since this information is being placed into separate columns now, and since you are helping, you should be completely aware of the article's shortfalls. Once we've finished building the new table, I'll consider searching for more in depth information on each candidate, and would be definitely keen to work on this if someone else such as yourself also pitched in, but no worries if that's too daunting, and of course I'm completely happy to just take one step at a time and see how we go. Also if you didn't notice there's a list of 34 'potential candidates' to add on the articles talk page. So I populated this entire list by going through 'Category:Drug-related deaths' and adding every single person in that category who met the criteria that I set for the article, and that I could find a source for. These 34 people meet the criteria, though reliable sources could not be found. However, as I added several hundred people to the article myself, I probably only put 20 minutes of searching into each person. So what I'm saying here is that with much more attention to detail I think sources for a handful of those 34 potential candidates could be found. Anyway that's a complete list of what I think could be improved on this article. Thanks again for your help and I'm really looking forward to finishing this new table with you. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A to K is now done - half way there :). Freikorp (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey, great work. For now, I say we just get the info into the new columns, then we can worry about editing any individual cells. I just did N, O, P and Q. I'll try to do more later. You mentioned earlier that you wanted to save space in the Ref. column, hence the use of Template:Sfn. One additional thing we could try is stacking the citation vertically rather than horizontally. I've done this in the sandbox, but it can always be undone. I also centralised the Born, Died and Age columns, just because I think that looks neater. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Centralising the age column is a great idea, I think that looks much better due to how little room the age was taking up within the column. I think the born and died columns looked a bit neater before to be honest, but I'm happy with either way. Stacking the ref columns is certainly a much easier solution than the sfn template, I did consider that myself. I was leaning towards going through the (horrendously long) process of sfn purely because another reviewer did suggest it, so I thought I'd take care of it before the next reviewer brings it up again, but we can certainly stick with stacking for now. Also you may have noticed I took it upon myself to make use of the 'Notes' column to explain multiple drugs. Basically if there were three or more drugs found within the person's system I placed 'Multiple' within the 'Drug' column and then detailed what the drugs were in the 'Notes' column. See 'Adam Goldstein' for a good example. I think this is a good idea for two reasons. Firstly it ensures the 'Drug' column remain consistently fairly short - I think it's better to only have one column that is bunched up with heaps of information, and since the 'Notes' column frequently is anyway I'd like to keep it there. Secondly if there were nine of even three drugs causing the death it doesn't help to have them in the 'Drug' column because only whichever drug is listed first is going to be searchable. It will probably be more useful to the reader to group everyone together as 'Multiple', then they can look at the individual drugs manually. What do you think? Freikorp (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Just finished R. I'm going on a bit of a holiday and anticipate having little or no time to edit between tomorrow morning (AEST) and next Wednesday night. Also just to let you know, 'undertermined' in the original list is not synonymous with 'unknown'. Anybody listed as 'undertermined' in the original list was officially certified as 'undertermined' by an autopsy. The term 'unknown' in the new list just indicates we have no indication at all. I've noticed you used the term 'undetermined' between N and P a lot for cases which should be listed as 'unknown'. I've fixed this, and I've reworded the final paragraph of the lead to explain the difference to readers. Let me know what you think. :) Freikorp (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for my absence over the last couple of weeks – I've been kind of busy IRL. Once we've redone the entire table, we should probably go through it and make sure that you and I have been working to the same standard, e.g. the "Multiple" issue you mentioned above. There's also the question of which drugs should be plural (should it be "Barbiturate" or "Barbiturates", for example?). Plus we also need to decide which drugs need to be wikilinked. Also, notes that aren't complete sentences don't need full stops. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
No worries, I've been pretty busy myself. So as you may have noticed I have finished adding 'T' so the entire list is in your sandbox now. I completely agree that we have to go through and make sure everything is consistent. I didn't realise that notes didn't need full stops, but now that I've consistently put them in everywhere, I'd rather just leave them in there unless you think that's a problem. I've consistenly made 'barbiturate', 'opiate' and 'sleeping pill' always a plural, mainly because I think it reads better. I've consistently made sure all instances where more than three drugs or types of drugs are mentioned it is listed as 'Multiple'. I see two outstanding issues. Firstly the wikilinking which you have mentioned. I think we should just stick to wikilinking the first instance of each drug only and leaving it at that. What do you think? The other issues is when two drugs are listed, which one should be listed first? For example I have made sure it is consistently always 'Cocaine and heroin' as opposed to 'Heroin and cocaine', but there are many other inconsistent mix-matches still remaining. The obvious solution is to just list both drugs in alphabetical order, however, I think this presents a problem. More often than not, one of the two drugs is alcohol. In drug overdose deaths, alcohol almost always plays a secondary factor. However if we list drugs alphabetically alcohol will almost always appear first, which I think will undervalue the more prevalent cause of death (being the other drug involved) when the table is sorted. What do you think? I'm starting to think we should list the drugs alphabetically, with the exception of alcohol, which will always be placed second. Freikorp (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I've now made sure that only the first mention of each drug in the 'Drug(s)' column is wikilinked. The drugs mentioned in the 'Notes' column, however, are wikilinked all over the shop and in many cases multiple times. I'll try and sort this out later. Freikorp (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I've now implemented all my above suggestions and as you probably noticed have moved the article over. We can, of course, keep working to improve it further, but at this stage I see no reason why it shouldn't go live. Thanks again for prompting me to do this. If you now support the nomination, please say so at the FLC, otherwise tell me what you think I still need to do. Freikorp (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I've addressed all your final points in the FLC nomination. I understand you're obviously very busy IRL, but considering this, as you've stated you intend to support the nomination, if you have further concerns at the FLC is there any chance you could support the nomination now and just rest assured that I will address your concerns later? This article has been a pet project of mine for some time and I am not going to cease trying to improve it if it gets promoted, so I can assure you I will make any further improvements you suggest regardless of when you suggest them. I wouldn't ask you to do this if you were logging in regularly but I can't afford to wait another couple weeks after you log in next just to get a vote of support. I'm absolutely amazed the nomination hasn't already been closed due to stagnation. Freikorp (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification – October 2017

Hi, A Thousand Doors. I'm just posting to let you know that List of posthumous number ones on the UK Albums Chart – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 13. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 20:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Classical Compilation Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, A Thousand Doors. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
It is thanks to your input that the List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States is now a featured list! I cannot thank you enough for your help! Erick (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited YouTube Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chudnovsky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Radio Times's Most Powerful People (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to ITV, Out of Control, Shameless and State of Play

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chance Encounter

The article Chance Encounter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not mentioned at target article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

TFL notification – May 2018

Hi, Ivanvector. I'm just posting to let you know that List of songs recorded by Guillemots – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 21. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s

Hi there! I think you remember me from the past FLC for the article above. I wondered if you ever have time working with me on the article to renominate again? You gave an oppose and had some issues with the article, but what you still 'didn't like' about the page remained kind of unclear in the end. Mabye you have some spare time? In any case... Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd be happy to help you improve the article in any way that I can. As I said back in February, this was a particularly challenging list for you to choose to improve, as there seem to be very few third-party sources have been published about this chart, and, without them, this article runs the risk of violating WP:Original research.
Citing primary sources, such as the publisher of the chart, is fine for non-controversial facts (e.g. how the chart is compiled or what its number ones are), but ideally there would be more secondary sources in the References list. Un site de muzică seems like it should be okay, but you only cite weekly commentaries from them – have they published any articles or commentaries about the chart in general, or about the 2010s specifically? These would be particularly relevant for this article.
A lot of the lead (about 40%, in fact) is spent listing which singles spent the most weeks at number one. While it's fine to mention that "Don't Be Shy" and "Shape of You" have spent the most amount of time at the top, I really don't think it's necessary to mention, say, the song that spent the ninth-longest time at number one ("Happy") – that kind of info just seems a little indiscriminate to me. Most of this could be trimmed.
Only two sentences in the lead are cited. While I'm sure that everything else in the lead is true, the question is why it's being included. For example, you draw attention to how Smiley and Alex Velea replaced each other several times at the top of the chart during 2012 – why is this noteworthy? If you can find a third-party source that highlights this particular quirk then it would be okay to include it in the lead, but, without it, it comes across like something that you yourself find interesting, hence the original research concern.
I hope that this has been a help to you. Please don't be discouraged that the article wasn't promoted to FL this time. If I can assist in any other way, please let me know. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for re-writing the aspects of the article that still aren't on point. I will work on those as far as I can in the course of this or next week and notify you when I'm ready. Thank you again! Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi there again! I trimmed the lead now to only contain important aspects presented in the article and added a new source in the lead's first sentence. I hope any WP:OR concern has been solved for now. As for Un site de muzica, it did not say anything about the chart apart from weekly chart reports, and there is sadly no such 'review' on the web (I did a research for nearly 45 minutes). Is there any other significant issue with the article apart from the ones named? Thank you again for your support! Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi again. The lead looks free from WP:OR concerns to me, which is obviously good. But I'm now a little concerned that it's a bit too short. I've made a few copy edits here – feel free to consider them at your own discretion. I've also added a few suggestions at the bottom for things that could be incorporated into the lead. If you want further inspiration, the closest articles that I've written to yours were these two – if any of the prose there seems like it could be adapted into your own list, please go ahead. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
I'm awarding this to you for working with me on making List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s of a better quality. Again, not everyone puts such effort in another user's request. Thanks again and congrats on everything you've achieved here on Wiki! Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: No worries, it was no bother! Nice working with you. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

UK Singles Chart records and statistics

Hi. Your edit to UK Singles Chart records and statistics, while clearly well meant, added incorrect information to the article. All I Want For Christmas Is You has been re-entering the chart since downloads were allowed in the chart, not since streaming. However, I do believe that blip is worth a mention, so I've added some blurb I'd like your opinion on.--Launchballer 18:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

My problem with that blurb is that it's quickly going to become outdated. It's fine for now, but, when the Top 10 is inevitably filled with Christmas classics again this December only for them to drop out of the Top 200 in January, it'll be out of date. The blurb that I wrote was deliberately meant to be a bit more long-lasting. Maybe this is something that we can readdress at the start of next year. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We might have another entry on the list on Friday given how far 3 Lions has sunk in the midweeks.--Launchballer 19:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the OCC have doubled the number of streams that a song that's older than three years needs for the equivalent of one sale (see here), so maybe the Top 10 won't "inevitably" be filled with Christmas classics this December after all. I reckon we'll still get one or two in the Top 10 that will drop out of the Top 200 in January though, so we'll probably need to make a decision about what the blurb needs to say then. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Rushall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third officer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You are invited to WikiProject YouTube

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 100 Greatest (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Play Button listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Play Button. Since you had some involvement with the Play Button redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A Thousand Doors. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A Thousand Doors. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Home media, formerly redirect, now DAB

Greetings! You created the page Home media which was a redirect to Home video. In connection with a dispute over the first sentence of Home video, I realized that Home media covers more than video, so I have changed it to a DAB with contents as you can examine. Do you disagree? And, might I ask you to weigh in at talk:Home video#First sentence? Thanks in advance for any reply. Jeh (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jeh. I have no objections to your edits, so I won't seek to revert. One thing I will say is that obviously articles can't include links to DAB pages within their prose, so, if Home media is going to be a DAB page now, then the "It is a type of home media" sentence in Home video needs to be rewritten. There are a couple of other pages that still currently link to Home media. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I have never understood why linking to a DAB page in such a circumstance is such a bad idea. However I have done what I think WP:DAB recommends to "fix" it, and fixed the links from the other real pages (I'm not bothering with e.g. talk pages). (If there's such a simple workaround for the rule, why have it in the first place?) Jeh (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
But in any case, thank you for your response. Jeh (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (50 Greatest Magic Tricks) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 50 Greatest Magic Tricks.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Thanks for your new article on the show "50 Greatest Magic Tricks".

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Re:Ellipses

If this form of ellipses is not welcomed at Wikipedia, you can move pages back. I was following Polish punctuation rules and the fact that it was welcomed at pl.wiki. Halfbricking (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

TFL notification – February 2019

Hi, A Thousand Doors. I'm just posting to let you know that YouTube Awards – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 18. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want this to appear next year, that's fine, although it might be good to leave a blurb at WP:TFLS since I might forget the anniversary by January 2020. I'll schedule something else on Friday, when I fill the next available date. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add a blurb at WP:TFLS. I was planning on doing so closer to the featured date (e.g. around September–October time), but I can add it earlier than that if you'd prefer. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Romanian Radio Airplay Chart

Hi! Would it be possible to add succession columns for the page above, as you did with List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s? Many thanks! Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to help you with that. We can do it together, or I can talk you through it, if you'd like. Is there anything about it that you're unsure of? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
That is a lot of work actually, but didn't you do it back then with a bot or something? We can do it together if you'll tell me how (I know the standard procedure, but isn't there a method to do it faster?)
No need to do it anymore. But thanks anway :) Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
No, there's no bot – it was just me and a lot of copy-pasting. If it would help you out, I'm more than willing add the succession column to List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s as well. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
There'n no need anymore to do anything at the moment. I was just asking, but it seems like it isn't requested for FLC. But anyway, HUGE thanks for your willingness (is that a word?). Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest

Hi there! I hope I'm not bothering, but I would very much appreciate some comments on my current FLC linked above →. Just disregard if you're too busy at the moment. Many thanks and have yourself a good day Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to apologize. It seems odd to request a FLC review and then not being able to comment on yours, but my spare time is very limited now. I hope I'll get to if next week, otherwise know I'm busy. I'm really sorry... :( Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Motel Movies listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Motel Movies. Since you had some involvement with the Motel Movies redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification – August 2019

Hi, A Thousand Doors. I'm just posting to let you know that YouTube Awards – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 16. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 15:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of George Eaton (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Eaton (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Eaton (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ralbegen (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification – January 2020

Hi, A Thousand Doors. I'm just posting to let you know that Radio Times's Most Powerful People – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for January 27, 2020. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

TFL notification – February 2020

Hi, A Thousand Doors. I'm just posting to let you know that YouTube Awards – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 14. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 18:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

one small source issue

I translated the list FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK) that you promoted to fl, but found a small source issue. footnote 40 seems wrong, is actually "Beauty has a new Hallemark" (footnote 14)rather than "Sexy Louise Is Hottest Babe in a Decade", could you please take a look?--Jarodalien (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jarodalien, thanks for bringing this to my attention. It looks as though the URL for that reference was changed by a bot with this edit, probably as a result of my making a copy-paste error. I've replaced the URL with what it's supposed to be, and I'll go about seeing if I can find an archive URL for the ref. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Thousand_Doors/Archive_4&oldid=1190249432"