User talk:Popcornfud

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dogtooth (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollywood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I realize that I could have handled editing MSBWYOU in a nicer way

I looked at Wikipedia:Edit lock, and I probably should have used that while I was teething away at the article. I'm glad we're working through compromise and getting things edited so the article is done well! BarntToust (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinkerton deluxe

I had a look at WP:ALTTRACKLIST and I think the tracklist qualifies under it. Firstly, though it isn't a lot of mentions, the article mentions that the deluxe edition received a perfect score from Metacritic, which I think is pretty notable. Secondly, the article also mentions the extensive recording process of the album, such as the scrapped Songs from the Black Hole (which would cover all of the B-sides, You Won't Get with Me Tonight and Longtime Sunshine) and the abandoned I Swear It's True and Getting Up and Leaving. All of these tracks are on the deluxe edition, which i think makes it significantly different enough, especially when considering all the other tracks on there. All this considered I don't really see a reason why the deluxe tracklist shouldn't be on the article. Great Mercian (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't agree that those things make the tracklist worthy of inclusion per WP:ALTTRACKLIST. The extra tracks are not "the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response".

Yes, the reissue has a perfect score, but there's barely anything in the article about those extra tracks. This reflects the reviews themselves, which focus on reassessing the album Pinkerton rather than on the bonus material.

As a point of comparison, see OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017 as an example of a Wikipedia article that discusses the alternative tracks at length. Popcornfud (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgive the lateness of my reply. Ok, Metacritic argument was weak, I apologise for it. I don't really think it's entirely fair to use a deluxe edition that has it's own article separate from the original. With a criteria as vague and confusing as "when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article" when how extensive such commentary has to be is never properly defined, it comes of as really disingenuous, like it's implying that all deluxe editions need their own separate article. There's definitely a lot that do but most don't qualify for such a privilege.

Coming back to Pinkerton, and I'm not certain about this, but I think there may be some sources out there for the deluxe tracks that would justify their inclusion. The reason I say I'm not sure is that there is a very good chance those sources are themselves closely associated with the band and therefore in a grey area as to whether or not it's ok to include them. The best I could possibly do would be to copy sources from the Songs from the Black Hole article into the Pinkerton article, but not only would that not cover all of the deluxe tracks but would also put the Songs from the Black Hole article's fate into jeopardy, which is something I don't want to happen. But I don't want to abandon this issue either. If it comes to such a point I wouldn't be opposed to getting the criteria more clearly defined or however you want to put it.

Again, I'm very sorry for how late I am, I hope we can come to an agreement somehow. Great Mercian (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If there are reliable secondary sources out there that discuss the extra tracks in detail, then we can add that detail to the Wikipedia article. Once there's enough coverage in the article, then the extra tracklist might be justified.

But we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. Getting the extra tracklist into the article shouldn't itself be the goal. Popcornfud (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For the Radiohead studio albums FT, Amen break and Music Sounds Better with You. While I did bring two of these to GA status, a significant portion of them was written by you. You deserve the credit and respect for putting hard work into all of these articles. Good job! lunaeclipse (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Ian Stewart was a founding member of The Stones

Hello I think the above information is vital to the formation of the band. He was a founding member and that info should be added ok ?. Regards 178.167.177.234 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Alone III: The Pinkerton Years

I just saw that you merged Alone III with Rivers Cuomo, and that's good, but I was thinking that some information from that article (such as the infobox and the tracklist) should be put in the article at their appropriate place to prevent loss of information. For an example, I point towards the Panchiko article, which has an infobox for D>E>A>T>H>M>E>T>A>L (though not yet a tracklist, but I think the subject is notable enough that I'll get on that soon). I understand your concern about sources, so I'll try to find some.

Please don't take my mentioning of D>E>A>T>H>M>E>T>A>L as means to remove it's infobox. Great Mercian (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't think the infobox and tracklist for Alone III should be moved to another articles. I can't find any reliable sources to justify expansive coverage of the album, and we don't need to incorporate that level of detail for less notable albums. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of stuff. Popcornfud (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that if more reliable sources are found then I would support moving the album back to its own page. I just couldn't find any when I looked. Popcornfud (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it's that loss of information thing again. So sorry about all this. I'm so sorry. Great Mercian (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about what? Popcornfud (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary revert

Unnecesarily reverting others is discouraged by the guidelines for being quite impolite. Especially if you were going to do a followup edit. uKER (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel OK about that revert, to be honest. Popcornfud (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, your revert is still against the guideline, which in short says not to revert unless it's a bad faith edit. That said, the fact that you feel good about it doesn't come as a surprise. --uKER (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That "guideline" you're citing is not a guideline. Read the notice at the top.

It also says that a revert of a good-faith edit is acceptable when the edit makes the article worse. Which I happen to agree with.

In my 15 years on Wikipedia, I've been reverted countless times, probably hundreds, maybe more. Each revert was a bitter affront to truth and justice, but if it broke my heart every time, I'd be a much less effective editor. Popcornfud (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huw Edwards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rick Astley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologize and explanation

Hello! I wanted to apologize for removing the "See also: Michael Jackson 1993 child sexual abuse allegation" part. I deleted it because it came out in red (so it was a page that supposedly did not exist) so I deleted it thinking that page was deleted or it doesnt existed. But I saw that you reversed it and I noticed (I don't blame anyone, and apparently the article that should be seen was mistakenly written in the article. The article was 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations and not Michael Jackson 1993 child sexual abuse allegation)

I wanted to tell you that and that it was not an edition of bad faith. Thank you and have a good day! :D TheFlawlessKing (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I saw after you removed it that the link was wrong and this was likely why you were trying to delete it. I'm glad you drew my attention to the problem. Popcornfud (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Running Up That Hill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classic FM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of YouTube videos on Publius Enigma

I'm curious about that revert, because it's not like these videos are "someone else's summary of events" or the sort of non-original-research that (justifiably) we would not accept as reliable for WP purposes, but this are actual video evidence of what happened. They seem like they would (or should) meet the standard as something like "this happened, and here's a link to the video showing that it happened". (And again, "showing" versus "claiming" is a big distinction there, IMHO). DBalling (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. In fact, "someone else's summary of events" is pretty much exactly what we DO need. For Wikipedia, we need a reliable secondary source explicitly stating that something happened, both for the purposes of verifiability (this is not just your own observation) and also notability (to show that it matters that it happened and isn't just random trivia). If you wanted to check the community consensus about this you could perhaps start a discussion at WP:RSN. Popcornfud (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

But isn't video evidence of it happening exactly that (reliable evidence that it happened)? [modulo deepfake videos, etc., etc.] I guess that's the part that confuses me. Like I can assert "this happened" (without the cites to YouTube) but then it's basically "oh there's no actual proof of that, it's just dballing's claim". I would have expected youtube videos of events like that to be sufficient evidence simply of of the facts being asserted in the article text. I guess.., what's the right way to bring that information into the article? DBalling (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable secondary source (eg a Rolling Stone article) that states the information you want to include. Popcornfud (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Imagine I see that X happens in a YouTube video. I then add "X happened" to a Wikipedia article, with a link to the YouTube video for other people to check. The problem is: the claim that X happened is based on research that I, Popcornfud, have made by watching the YouTube video. That's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, which isn't allowed. The fact that you could watch the YouTube video yourself to see if you agree with my research is irrelevant. On Wikipedia, we need a reliable third party to make the claim instead. Does that make sense? Popcornfud (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, that sorta makes sense. I'll put it in the category of "it is a logical interpretation of the rules-as-written" but one which I'd say means those rules need a tweak. But that's not a hill I'm going to plant a flag on top of today. Thanks for the explanation. :-) DBalling (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I see how it's counter-intuitive and an example of how strange Wikipedia can seem sometimes, and if you object to this rule then you have a bigger problem philosophically with how Wikipedia works.

I think it's a good rule, though, because if you think about it, if we let people do what you want to do all the time, it would create havoc. I could fill Wikipedia pages with pretty much literally anything I wanted as long as I could find (or perhaps even create myself) some YouTube video (or photograph, or audio recording, etc) that seemed to depict that thing as having existed, bypassing all the usual measures to demonstrate whether something matters or not. Popcornfud (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that as well. I think there's a potential middle-ground where things like this example could be "self-evident" but then if proven false/fabricated/etc. be removed (the same as we might do now if someone cited, say The Onion). But like I said... Not going to poke that bear today. Thanks again! :-) DBalling (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits on Alien

Please can you decrease the edits to Alien to 'trim the text', remove unnecessary 'wordage' (whatever that means) and such like. It's not over-long, it reads well as it is. The article has been edited a lot to get it to where it is. Your edits are starting to come across as toying with it, rewriting it to your personal preference rather than what's good for the article. I reverted an earlier edit but later edits do need reverting. Thank you. ToaneeM (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's discuss on the Alien talk page, please. Popcornfud (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grace (Jeff Buckley album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Medina House

Thank you for your further interest in Medina House and the gentleness of your reason for reverting my correction—though in my view as a historian, 'original research' is not a synonym for correction. I will, as you might expect, come back again with this later. The problem is that the only copies of the illustrated evidence for my correction is in a series of photos which I cannot show you privately, and cannot put on Wikipedia because they have copyright owners. However, I shall try to get a copyright release for my next attempt at historical accuracy.

Purely as a matter of interest—though arguably necessarily a bit pedantic—the 'source' you mention which I have contradicted is a modern newspaper article relating a completely unsourced suggestion of what was thought to be the position a century or so earlier. The 'source' reads, "The new building was designed by award-winning architect Keb Gavarito-Bruhn, and was based on the design of the former Turkish baths which had become derelict for many years," and does not in fact suggest that Medina House was on the actual site of the Turkish baths which, as part of the Hove Baths, stood on both sides of Sussex Road: the Turkish baths, as can be clearly seen in the contemporary photographs, stood with the men's baths, men's swimming pool and laundry on one side (today's Bath House); the women's baths and pool stood on the site of Medina House.

I wonder what grounds there are for Wikipedia to prefer to retain an unsourced statement in a modern newspaper as evidence to a correction deemed to be modern research. There are however, as I have previously mentioned, peer-reviewed sources and local authority documents to support the correction and I will return in due course when I have correctly marshalled them. Best wishes Ishpoloni (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Since no evidence as to it's being a Turkish bath has so far been cited, perhaps the simplest thing is merely to leave it as "… a derelict bathhouse in Brighton and Hove…"? Ishpoloni (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. The way Wikipedia works is that you need high-quality reliable secondary sources to make changes. See WP:TRUTH for an explanation about this.

If the Argus source is wrong, it would be great to fix the situation, but we'll need some good alternative sources to do it.

In the meantime, I don't think "Turkish" is a very important thing to include in the article so simplifying to "bathhouse" seems like a decent workaround. Popcornfud (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Your agreement to my compromise is very much appreciated.

But on the different subject of "the way Wikipedia works", the idea that a journalist writing to a deadline in a provincial daily evening newspaper can be considered by Wikipedia a "high-quality reliable secondary source" for a description of what a building was used for a century earlier—without himself stating his own source for the statement—is something I find fascinating. It would be easy for the Argus reporter, Aidan Barlow, to have said—also without any source—that the building was used to house a rhinoceros, but I would have found it impossible to disprove this as Wittgenstein found (see Elephant in the room) when he "used an example of a rhinoceros in the room either to show the impossibility of disproving negative existential statements, or possibly a more subtle philosophical point." (My italics) Enjoy.

As soon as I relocate the source I temporarily found, I'll pass it on. Best wishes. Ishpoloni (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If a reliable source said the house was used to house a rhinoceros, and there were no other sources to counter that, then the default Wikipedia position would be to report that it housed a rhinoceros.

Wikipedia simply summarises what secondary sources say in an encylopedic style. It should never present editors' own research/knowledge/observations etc. This is often counter-intuitive, surpirising and frustrating to people but on the whole it is much better than the alternative. Popcornfud (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you be happy to change "a derelict bathhouse in Brighton and Hove," to "a derelict women's swimming pool and bathhouse in Brighton and Hove," with a reference to: Planning Projects Team (2013). "Medina House Planning Brief" (Brighton & Hove: the council) p.12

P.S. By the way, if you look at the first photo on page 1 of the brief you can see (centre of image) the opening to Sussex Road. On the right hand side is Medina House; on the left is the main Hove Baths building. If you enlarge the image you can see on the Sussex Road corner of the main building the letters ME for "MEDICAL &" and below it the letters TU for "TURKISH BATHS". There's a postcard showing the corner with the sign removed after the Turkish baths closed.

That PDF is not the sort of source Wikipedia typically uses, but this topic is out of my usual area of editing knowledge. I'd suggest you make a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to ask if this source is appropriate. Popcornfud (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems a good idea, but I'll probably wait a while. Just now there are other easier pages that I need to deal with first. Ishpoloni (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

ALTTRACKLIST revert

Concerning your revert [1] - I saw your link before, but in this case both descripted conditions are kept - a) "they are significantly different", and b) "the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording" - presence of Gilmour's daughter is highly noted in the article.
And besides, the fact of existing of another song feat. Romany would be interesting for most of readers. --Figure19 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. It doesn't meet the second criteria — the bonus tracks aren't even mentioned in the article. Popcornfud (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kris Kristofferson § Lyme Disease - revisited. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Running Up That Hill

I just wanted to recognise the work you've done in improving Running Up That Hill. The article is much better than it was when you started seriously editing it at the start of last month, so well done. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

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

Cutouts

added a link pointing to ABC News

The Smile (band)

added a link pointing to ABC News

Thom Yorke

added a link pointing to ABC News

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yo! Interested in taking a look at a French touch article?

Hey, our paths first crossed when I was kind of an ass about writing prose to the best degree, and, y'know, that's still the case I think. Having said that, I've written the article Braxe + Falcon, and was wondering if you might take a look at it? Maybe touch up some prose, y'know. I'm assuming you're interested in French touch, seeing as you were so dedicated to keeping up the state of "Music Sounds Better with You", but if you're not, hey, all righty. Hope you're doing well! BarntToust 16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, If you don't mind, I'll ping @The Grid and @YodaYogaYogurt154, two folks who were involved in the great touch-up of the Benjamin Diamond-Alan Braxe-Bangalter record, in case they're interested. BarntToust 17:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldnt call the work "ass" per se but theres always more that can be done. see BarntToust started an article for the single. good work so far YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Linn LM-1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantization.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thom Yorke

Hi Popcornfud,

Hope you're well. Could you explain why you keep removing the extra quote from Thom Yorke's interview with Rolling Stone from 2017? It provides important context.

Thanks Rabbitsforever (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You're not providing any source. Popcornfud (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The source is the same interview, which can be read here https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/thom-yorke-breaks-silence-on-israel-controversy-126675/. It is not uncommon or unusual to not repeat the same source since it was a follow up paragraph. Please reinstate the paragraph. It provides important context. Rabbitsforever (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)