User talk:Doggy54321/sandbox2

Questions about sources

Use this to asks questions about sources. If your source/question does not have a section, add it.

worldmusicawards.com/index.php/news

Ability to be used for WMA awards tables

Hi all.

I decided to get it over with and do [worldmusicawards.com/index.php/news] right now. However, I already have a problem. On articles such as Namie Amuro#Awards, the News section is used for the award. Would this be accepted, or should it be removed? Thank you. TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 17:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCartoonEditor: You should remove the reference and try to find another source (that is reliable) to replace it's place. If you can't, that's okay. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 17:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: It seems that that would be such, but the award in question happens to be a World Music Award. Would it be reliable for awards publishing since it itself provides the awards? TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 17:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCartoonEditor: Uh... I think Doggy54321 should answer... I have no idea... Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 17:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: courtesy ping TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 17:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question is asked again (ish), but for attributed opinions such as here. TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 17:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JackReynoldsADogOwner and TheCartoonEditor: If there’s a way to find an article that's not in the "news" section, that is acceptable. But, since the article is in the "news" section, that is not reliable and should be removed ASAP, both the citation and the award. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: Alright! Thanks so much, I'll get right on it. TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 17:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can the attributed opinion be kept? Or should it be removed? TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 17:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCartoonEditor: Could you clarify what you mean by "attributed opinion", please? Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations in insource:

Courtesy pings: @Doggy54321, 48Pills, JackReynoldsADogOwner, and FredModulars:

Hi gang!

I've been following this project for a little while and I thought I might help! I saw that you guys were having trouble with websites that had (for example) "Madonna" and ".com" when you search insource:madonna-charts.com. Well, if you search instead insource:"madonna-charts.com", it will give you only every site that has madonna-charts.com! Hope this is some sort of use that saves time for our wonderful work. Hope everyone is having a great day! TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCartoonEditor: You are a freaking lifesaver. Thank you so much, I really appreciate this, I’ll adjust the insource links on the page now. As well, would you like to join the project? The more, the merrier! Thank you so much, again! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem! It's a great thing what you all are doing, so I thought I would help out! I'd be glad to join and help out! I've added myself onto the page and begun working on hitparadeitalia.it. Thank's so much for the invite! TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 14:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: forgetful ping.

Thank you, no problem! Be careful with hitparadeitalia, it is used in more than 500 pages, so it won’t be a day-long task. I’ll be surprised if it gets done in a week. But, thank you for taking on such an ambitious task. I’ll help as well, and I assume Jack, 48 and Fred will also help. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCartoonEditor: OH MY GOD! Thank you soooooooooooooooo much! Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 14:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hey! I have a suggestion: Should we place our username next to the website that we're currently working on so we don't mess up somebodies' groove (if you know what I mean)? Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 17:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: @Doggy54321, 48Pills, TheCartoonEditor, and FredModulars: Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 17:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea, but for very large websites such as [hitparadeitalia.it] and [ukchartsplus.co.uk], it seems to me almost impossible to be done by 1 person only. TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 17:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: I refrained from doing this while I was setting up the page, and I still am against it. I don’t think people should claim websites, as this is meant to be a collaborative project. It would also clutter the section. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: That makes sense! Thanks! Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 17:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of the project

@48Pills, JackReynoldsADogOwner, FredModulars, and TheCartoonEditor: Hey gang! I was thinking of something today that I’d like to share with the group before I actually implement it. I’m thinking that, after our current workload is coming to a close, we can work through lists such as WP:KO/RS#UR and WP:RSPSOURCES, removing all the unreliable/deprecated sources. Obviously, these lists are big, and I don’t want to overwhelm everyone, so I was thinking that this could be something we do after we’re done our current work with WP:CHARTS#Websites to avoid. I’ve started to add different sources such as WP:USERG and WP:SOCIALMEDIA sources, but it seems like our big focus right now is on WP:CHARTS, so maybe a little expansion after the fact could be a fun thing to do. Obviously, if you don’t want to help after WP:CHARTS, that’s totally fine, but I just want to get a feel on where we're at. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. 48Pills (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About "Songfacts.com/blog/interview"

I've been going through sites that has songfacts and been deleting them. But, with a recent edit of mine on Woodstock, a user reverted my edit stating: "It's not USERG if it's an interview with the person of interest. It would be USERG if a user wrote that. That interview is also referenced by news outlets such as CBS News." So, my question is: should I or shouldn't I delete references that has songfacts.com/blog/interview/...? I understand where that user is coming from and I would agree with them. Just concerned and making sure that I fully understand. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 12:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: Songfacts, as the URL suggests, is a blog, which is unreliable. You were right in removing the blog from that article. As the user suggests, this same interview was also published by CBS News. Since the same information that was published in an unreliable source (Songfacts) has now been published by a reliable source (CBS), the reliable source (CBS) should be the one cited, and the unreliable source (Songfacts) should be removed. Moving forward, I would keep removing the source from articles, just make sure that it's not written by the person of interest (very unlikely, but make sure to double check). Hope this helps! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: Thank you for explaining that to me! I will find that CBS source! Best of luck to you! Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 12:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: You're welcome, best of luck to you too

D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]