User talk:Popcornfud/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of DX7II section

Can you explain in more detail why you removed the DX7II section? I've added source and reference and it was a factual list. Second you also removed all edits to legacy section. The current FM decline explanation is wrong: "In later years the DX7's sounds came to be seen as dated or cliched, and interest in FM synthesis declined, with used digital synthesizers selling for less than analog.[5]". That reference doesn't address that. Rather if you read that book you can see it matched my edits: FM synthesis made way of rise of digital wave sample synthesis as ROM memory become cheaper. Now it says FM Synthesis interest waned since used DX7's were becoming cheap. That seems effect, not causality which can be explained by D-50/M1 wave synthesis Lucienen (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're saying here, but that part doesn't say FM synthesis became less popular because it got cheaper. It says used FM synthesisers sell for less than used analog synthesisers. The source for that claim supports this: "Sadly, and unlike most of the other entries on the list, time hasn’t been kind to Yamaha’s popular FM flagship ... FM synthesizers still don't pull in the kind of after-market prices that you see attached to their analogue brethren". But it's missing a citation for the "dated or cliched" claim specifically, so I'll fix that shortly.

I removed your additions because vintagesynth.com is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Popcornduff (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Wouldn't you agree a bigger factor was drop in memory cost that enabled rise of mainstream wave based synthesis? The book mentions that and FM Synthesis simply could not compete anymore with the more complex sounds like Roland's LA Synthesis in 1987. In my opinion should be added and I argue if you go through a library of FM sounds few sounds are really that recognizable. Both modern Korg Kronos and Yamaha Montage snyhts feature FM based synthesis and Yamaha continued FM synthesis synths after the DX7.

Regarding the DX7II section, I hope someone else can then can add it. I would not know which reference would meet that standard and not seeing other pages for guidance Lucienen (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You know what, it looks like I'm wrong. According to WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, vintagesynth.com is regarded as a reliable source, so it should be safe to use it as a citation. However, I have to say I'm surprised by this (sites like this usually don't pass muster) so I'll do a little bit more investigation. It's bedtime now so I'll get back to you later. Popcornduff (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I suspected, it seems this was added to the list of reliable sources without consensus, and after a discussion it's been removed. So I don't think we can use it. Popcornduff (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I question the source that is referenced for the sounds: https://www.factmag.com/2016/09/15/14-most-important-synths/. I'm not familiar with that site but if you happen to have a DX7, listen to ROM preset 'BASS 1' and it doesn't match. Definitely a DX7 but not that preset. Same is true for the other mentioned (also more muted) preset patch E.Piano 1. And that's not explainable by EFX. At that time studios had a vast array of DX7 libraries (E.g. checkout RHODES1 RH). That said I'll refrain attempting any changes, given the complexity of the issue for references. I do think there are several issues so hopefully someone else can correct them.Lucienen (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Sakura Wars

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Sakura Wars. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey!

I just happened to stumble on this and thought you'd find it interesting, in case you hadn't seen it already. JOEBRO64 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Yes, these are great, aren't they? I've used them when teaching copyediting classes. Unfortunately, it seems the author has had more than one meltdown over the years and might not be coming back too soon... Popcornduff (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Comfortably Numb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In the Flesh Tour (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) 09:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Would like your help one more time

Hi Popcornduff. You've been very good to me this last year or so, but I must ask for your assistance one more time. Sega is now at FAC - yay! First reviewer was Eric Corbett, and I know how Eric reviews, and he noted a number of prose issues but did not want to take the time to list them all. I did address the concerns he listed. That being said, I will continue to look deeper, but I know you had begun work on a copyedit a while ago on this article when I was prepping it for GAN - over eight months ago. Could you do a second pass for the FAC and let me know what I need to address? (A side note - I've nothing wrong if you want to list comments for me to fix at the FAC, but if you do, please don't support or oppose to avoid WP:CANVAS since I reached out to you). Thank you for all you do! Red Phoenix ^talk 22:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Red Phoenix: Your work on the Sega article has been stellar, and necessary - for years it was an awful article. Your researching skills in particular are fantastic. I'm sure you'll get it to FAC.

I think Eric's comments are harsh but fair, though I'm sure at least a few of his problems are things I should have caught myself at some point. I did do a big sweep a long time ago and I'm happy to do another one. Are you happy for me to edit the article directly and drop clarification-needed tags in or whatever, as before? Popcornduff (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that would work just fine. Just let me know when you do so I can fix them ASAP. I always appreciate having your help. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of information on influence of the Best Loved Game

Hi, given that I know for certain that the Best Loved Game influenced Still the Best Loved Game?, could you advise me what source you would accept if Amazon isn't acceptable? The new book does not have its own web page and there are no online interviews with the author to cite. Neilinabbey (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've found a source on Google books which, hopefully, is acceptable. Neilinabbey (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Neilinabbey: Yo.

If there are no reliable secondary sources covering the information you want to add, it probably isn't notable and shouldn't be added. See WP:NOTABILITY for more information.

For information about what Wikipedia considers a good source, see WP:SOURCE.

Your Google books reference is empty. Try clicking on it, it goes nowhere. There's some information about citing Google Books here: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages Popcornduff (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a newly publishd book, so there won't be many references yet, but that doesn't mean it's not influenced by the earlier work.Neilinabbey (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but bear in mind that everything we write on Wikipedia has to be attributed to a reliable source. Popcornduff (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your coverage of the Minidisc leak on OK Computer. puggo (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Previous revert

Hi, it would help if you could elaborate/give a reason why for what gave you the impression of "confusing additions, bad prose, can't figure out what's going on here" considering you also restored the reviews I added in. 8eatle (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yo. Your edit added some poorly written and non-neutral prose (such as "a up beat composition") along with inappropriate sources such as IMBD. I reverted the edit, then re-added the constructive parts (the Reception additions) and cleaned them up. Popcornduff (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for consensus on Michael Jackson page.

Could I ask for your vote on whether the total individual child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson should be noted on his Wiki page? Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)#Regarding a certain detail in the plot

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)#Regarding a certain detail in the plot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for consensus on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations page

Could I ask for you to submit a vote on the Talk page please? There are some issues today. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm so so sorry to bother you again, but if you could offer Partytemple & I an opinion to launch from, it would help our stalemate. Cheers & Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hammelsmith Sorry, bit the discussions on these pages are overwhelming. I may wade into them at some point but not right now. Could you stop pinging me, please? Popcornduff (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for that, I didn't notice. I won't ping again. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to save Yesterday

Thank you for trying to save this dumpster fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keb Hustle (talk • contribs) 11:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

All my troubles seemed so far away... Popcornduff (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

But it looks as though they're here to stay, because your wholesale revert of my changes suggest some ownership problems on your part. Reverting good-faith edits is not a constructive way to approach Wikipedia... or to treat other people. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I hurt your feelings. I explained the rationale for the revert in my summary. I can go into more detail if you like. Popcornduff (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you didn't explain any rationale in your revert summary. I've begun a discussion... if it doesn't bore you as much as the movie you wrote an admittedly careless synopsis for. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I wrote that your edit added unnecessary details and bad punctuation. That's a rationale.

Are you sure you actually want to have this discussion? You're frontloading it with accusations and insults. Popcornduff (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a personal opinion followed by an insult.

I don't really want to have this discussion, because a decade an a half on Wikipedia tells me that an editor who thinks he's defending an article (as you seem) is unlikely to listen with an open mind, and it'll be a waste of time. But I'm willing to try. Are you? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A decade and a half of Wikipedia ought to have given you a thicker skin than this. You were reverted. It happens.

Marching over to another editor's page, making accusations, and insulting them before the discussion even begins is not the way to win hearts and minds. I'm asking you to be WP:CIVIL and not begin a discussion with attacks. Popcornduff (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Leaving Neverland Background

Hi Popcornduff, Oh my. Look at all the hard work Partytemple & yourself put into the page. I was wondering if the Background section on that page could be restored to the way it was before: "In 1993...etc"? Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this message the first time. You don't need to ping me so soon after messaging me. I'll get back to you at some point. Popcornduff (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Hammelsmith (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Popcornduff. I'm just posting to let you know that List of songs recorded by Radiohead – 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 19. 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) 01:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Aphex Twin SoundCloud demos.

User:Barkeep49 while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

I admit I was a little skeptical as I started reading that this would turn out to be a notable topic. But as I looked at sources it appears to be. Cool incident.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Barkeep49}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

c/e

Hey Popcornduff! Been a while since we've interacted, hope you've been doing well. Anyway, I just wanted to ask you something. I've been planning to rewrite the Happy Gilmore page and have begun drafting it (see here). I just finished the plot summary, but I feel like it's a little lengthy (especially for a lighthearted comedy like this) and no one can copyedit like you. Would you mind taking a look? It's 100% fine if you can't or don't want to. JOEBRO64 16:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Done! See the edit summary for more details. Popcornduff (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! JOEBRO64 20:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	…. LonerXL (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Minor Barnstar
		For identifying the problem with Various. Also, for your valuable work in deleting redundant wording which duplicates what has already been said at least once already earlier in the article and then says it all over again; and for generally sharpening up articles. I see to my dismay that List of music considered the worst doesn't include Paul Anka's cover of "Smells Like Teen Spirit". (Find your own link.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Radiohead 12" Vinyls

Hello. I'm assuming you're probably more familiar with their releases than I am. I searched online to check if Karma Police and Paranoid Android were released on 12" vinyls and found these: [1], [2]. Do you think these are credible sources to add a 12" release to the respective infoboxes? I hesitated to add it directly since the latter article is an FA.--NØ 17:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, considering my nerdy knowledge of this band, I know very little about the physical releases because I'm not into that side of things (record collecting and so on). I don't even really know anything about different types of vinyl.

Discogs seems to think both of those releases exist... but I don't know what sorts of releases we're meant to add to infoboxes, or anything like that. Sorry. Pretty useless. BLZ may know better.

BTW, don't hesitate to change anything on the PA article - in my view it needs major improvement, FA be damned. Popcornduff (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Galaga

Hey. Really sorry about that guy's behavior, I've been dealing with it for a while now. I've reported him to Sergecross and waiting for a response. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Galaga

The information added was accurate and RELIABLE sources were cited. The sources were the FACTUAL documentation of the information. This removal of information that is going on is ridiculous. It's like a bunch of kids are running around trying to make sure nobody can add valuable content. If you don't want "edit warring", stop editing (deleting) useful AND ACCURATE content. You, Asher and namcokid are in the wrong. Too much history is lost in doing this. Sometimes people aren't able to recover certain information. Sometimes people pass away that have knowledge nobody else does. When you remove factual information from a site that is portrayed as providing information (and supposedly open for people to edit and ADD information), you are reducing the integrity of said site. I am the Administrator of Galaga Forum. I (and many others) can verify the information added and that the sources are, most definitely, reliable. You (nor Asher, nor namcokid) have any business removing said information. Namcokid has been destroying wiki pages for quite some time now. He needs to leave Galaga alone.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Hello. Why'd you delete the direct quote then? I'm confused. I'll just add the quote back as I think it adds a lot of context. I'm working on something else at the moment. So please let me know if you have a problem with it for some reason. Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

One thing you most definitely were wrong about though when I read the paraphrase and then the quote again is saying it wasn't neutral writing. If you read one and then the other, it's clearly neutral. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed the quote as I don't think it added anything useful. Tarantino merely points out that it was tragic that Polanski's wife and child died. The reader knows that already.

Describing something as "tragic" in Wikipedia's voice is not neutral. Popcornduff (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not in Wikipedia's voice anymore. It's in Tarantino's. Also, I don't think it's safe to assume what Wikipedia readers know. There's a reason I've added some of this information. I've talked to people I know about this film, as well as chatted with folks on YouTube. It sounds like you'd be surprised how little some people know. A lot of people have told me they didn't know anything about The Manson Family or the murders until they saw the film and looked up the movie on Wikipedia to learn about it. It makes sense that Wikipedia serve as a tool for them to learn about the context that wasn't on the surface.

Of course we have to explain that the film deals with the Manson murders and how Tarantino went about developing that side of it. But that quote from Tarantino isn't the way to do it. That's just Tarantino basically saying "it's sad what happened". It explains nothing for people unfamiliar with real events. Popcornduff (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the fact that Cliff Booth is a reference to his Inglorious Basterds seems like valuable information. Perhaps it better belongs in a different section though? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It's an easter egg at best. You'd need source to show otherwise. (The previous source just says it's an easter egg.) Popcornduff (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I know. It was sourced. I'd have to read it again. If it or another source says it's a reference than I feel it can be added to pop culture references. Which seems like a more appropriate section. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Somehow I missed what you said about the Easter Egg. Still waking up. I got you. I'll see what I find. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Right now the plot reads to me as though Booth fought Lee at some point and later Lee saw him on the Green Hornet set and kicked him off because of a previous fight. If that's how I interpret it, then it's not clear. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a very peculiar interpretation. But can you find a way to fix it that doesn't create a wordy sentence? Popcornduff (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Although I do think saying getting fired helps clear it up. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of jumping around here, so please excuse that. I entered my comment about Basterds before you posted your response about Polanski. We must gave wrote those at the same time. I don't think it's just Tarantino saying it's sad. I think it's him explaining why he felt a need to reach out to Polanski, because he sympathized with him for going through something so horrendous. Whereas he didn't reach out to Shannon Lee and she says how she's annoyed by that because Tarantino reached out to Debra Tate and Polanski but not her. I don't feel it lacks context by not pointing out the specifics of what happened but that it does if doesn't explain why he did it. Do you feel that if it stated that Tate was murdered by members of the Manson Family it would do more to put it into perspective? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added an explicit explanation that Tate was murdered, which should help the context problem. I'm still opposed to the Tarantino quote as it doesn't illuminate anything. The reader does not really need to be told by Tarantino (or anyone) that the murder was bad. The important part is that he showed Polanski the script to reassure him. Popcornduff (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. I disagree with you but maybe that much of the quote doesn't have to be there. Also there was a talk page about the Wikipedia ending and the last thing it mentions is that it can be added to one of two places including where I added it. I don't think it should have been removed without consulting the talk page first so I'm reverting it. Maybe we don't make it it's own section or we cut it down but for now without consulting the talk page first I don't get it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I just saw what you did with the Tate section. It looks good. The second line wasn't needed. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I just saw what you did with the Tate section. It looks good. The second line wasn't needed. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, as far as the Wikipedia ending. Including it shows that Wikipedia is being transparent about a big mistake we made, not you or I personally, in this page. It's good for transparency reasons. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Er, hang on, no. That's not in the purview of Wikipedia articles. We do not have a corrections column. Popcornduff (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Then regardless of transparency, it's cited with an outside reference and connected to how the film was received. You made me think of something else. Should Wikipedia have a corrections section? It wouldn't be a bad idea. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it's a bad idea. Newspapers print corrections because (traditionally) they couldn't update articles that had already been published. Wikipedia doesn't have that problem. A corrections section - essentially a list of every change to an article - would have to be longer than Wikipedia articles themselves. We also, in a sense, already have it, with the version history function.

I don't believe the Wikipedia incident is deserving of more than a sentence at best, let alone a subsection. Popcornduff (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I can edit it down and move it so that it doesn't have its own section. Where do you feel it should be moved to? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll restructure the article today so it makes more sense. I'll make cuts as well. However, the first editor you're referring to didn't want the descriptions in the cast section, so they were moved. Also it seems as though people are unclear about how some of the content ties into the film. Deletion is not the only solution. Better editing is. I get that. Making it flow better doesn't mean only deleting. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. Happy editing. I ask you put time and thought into it. Please look at how you can trim and reword instead of complete deletion. Total deletion is easiest but easiest isn't usually ideal. A lot can be reworded to flow better and trimmed down quite a bit without losing the content. Thanks Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Several editors are telling you that content has to be deleted because it's irrelevant or poorly sourced. This is not simply a matter of tightening up the prose. Popcornduff (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A look at the article

Thanks for your edit on The Favourite film article. After looking at the article, it seems to be fairly stable and I am wondering if you might have any thoughts about if it is worth moving the article forward towards an FA review. What do you think might be its strong points and what points could be improved? CodexJustin (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating The Good, the Bad & the Queen.

User:Newslinger while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thanks for contributing this article on a British band to Wikipedia!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Newslinger}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

— Newslinger talk 05:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

London Underground acid link to 303

Hi, you said it needed a link. But I linked the wiki page which states:

In London, the acid techno scene developed via illegal network of parties; the 1997 compilation It’s Not Intelligent…And It’s Not From Detroit…But It’s F**king ‘Avin It was subtitled The Sound of London’s Acid Techno Underground and helped to solidify the genre in the underground consciousness.[3]

The term Acid specifically refers to the harsh "acidic" sound of layered 303s.[3][5]

And if you read the ref [3] in the above, it's an interview with the Liberator crew and others talking about the 303, the party scene and the unique sound of their London Underground sound.

Surely that's enough? Or should I put it back as it was - London Underground Acid linking to the wiki Acid_techno page but with that reference with it?

That explains the importance of the 303 to the unique London Underground sound. Ganpati23 (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Indiam" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Indiam. Since you had some involvement with the Indiam redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"Indiom" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Indiom. Since you had some involvement with the Indiom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Jackson cultural impact again

Regarding this, I guess we will see if the new version is worth keeping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wrote last time: "Perhaps if Awardmaniac built a well cited, expansive page in their sandbox, demonstrating great content that would be too extensive to fit on the main MJ page, I'd be persuaded". I'll wait and see. Popcornduff (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Here, you can perhaps better explain what is happening. But be careful to not let the editor extend the section into WP:Too long; didn't read, which will dissuade a lot of editors from commenting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

We might want to report this IP. Clearly a logged out editor and clearly has no desire to discuss as a logged out editor. If the article will need WP:Semi-protection, so be it. The IP is restoring or adding new wording. Not just restoring "thriller breaking racial barriers" and accolade material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jet Set Radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isometric video game (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For continuing to be an important asset to the VG project overseeing many important articles, and having a good taste in music. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing ;-)

Literally LOL in response to this, so thanks.

Sincerely, 71.121.143.237 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC), aka 71.121.143.99

Half Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For your contribution in Jet Set Radio Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens in the GAN, I just want to let you know that even though I disagreed on occasion your approach with Jet Set Radio, I also valued your contribution to making things concise in the article and agreed with the majority of the other edits. I believe both of our inputs were necessary for improving the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shenmue-3-logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shenmue-3-logo.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

TR-808 editing

The reason why I edited the English wiki page for the TR-808 is simply because the current article is not true, according to what I heard from Tadao Kikumoto himself every time I meet him in person; he was the leader of the TR-808 R%D team. The current article is being mis-interpreted from Japanese peculiar collectivism way of describing things which is way too complicated to comprehend by most Westerners.

I've been trying to correct the article according to the real story by Tadao himself, which I also uploaded to the RC-808; Re-Create the 808 webpage as the webmaster. There are plenty of media around the world who are happy to know this real stories from us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectorcriterion (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll reply on the article talk page at Talk:Roland TR-808. Popcornduff (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Jude1313

Regarding Jackson articles, Jude1313 is also an issue, but in the other direction. I was going to point out to the editor that stuff like this needs a WP:Reliable source and should be absent of WP:Editorializing, but, looking at the editor's talk page, I'm not sure that the editor would listen. I might still leave that message on their talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh God, we need some sort of dedicated taskforce for Michael Jackson-related articles. Definitely warn the user, can't hurt. Popcornduff (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Synthesizer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Clockwork Orange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Floyd stuff

Heya, I was ruminating yesterday how difficult would it be to make Pink Floyd discography a good topic. The discography article needs a bit of work with sourcing, but AFAIK all other Floyd studio albums are at GA or above except for The Endless River and one other. I don't suppose you fancy sprucing it up and nominating it for GA; I haven't touched the article other than addressing that one tag, so I can probably do the GA review in good conscience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm - not sure. I've sort of gone off doing FA and GA stuff. I'll do a few sweeps, and have started already, and see how it goes. Popcornduff (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks like everyone else is the same - three of the main WikiProject Pink Floyd stalwarts, Parrot of Doom, John and Yeepsi have disappeared, and nobody's doing any of the major lifting anymore. Oh, I never said congrats to getting Roland TR-808 to FA, so I'll say it now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your help with that! I think I'm still doing plenty of heavy lifting (I'm currently trying to overhaul the synthesizer article, which is no picnic), but I've come to believe that pursuing FAs isn't the best way for me to help the project. I'll think about the Endless River article though. Popcornduff (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I still do GAs and DYKs, but often I find that just getting sourcing halfway up to scratch and some copyediting is enough - on a couple of occasions (such as Bootleg recording) I did it so often I eventually found it wasn't far off GA anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Bootleg recording - now that sounds like an interesting article... Popcornduff (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Drake

I should have used the talk rather than editing re indie centric. Would be interested to talk later on that - its an article I have read more than once. Doing a bit of a restruct on ther drake lead, hold on :) Best. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I went through each and every change you made to the Nick Drake lead; agree with all. Thank you muchly. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

FAC

Just out of curiosity, are you comfortable sharing your reasons for swearing off the GA and FA processes? --Laser brain (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am interested in this also; imo the nom of the beautifully written and insightful A Moon Shaped Pool, for example, would set high standards for others to follow, not just for those going for GA/FAC, but how album articles are approached in general. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Thanks, that's kind of you to say.

@Laser brain: Sure. There are a few reasons.

• I've seen so many bad articles with FA/GA status that I've lost faith that these statuses means much. I'm not just talking about once-good articles that have since deteriorated, but articles that pass with substandard prose. I believe my greatest strength on Wikipedia is writing (which is also what I do for a living), so I have certain opinions about what a good sentence looks like.

• When reviewing articles, I often got stuck in fix loops. It's like having someone else brush your teeth. You just want to grab the toothbrush and do it yourself.

• I'm concerned about the possible negative consequences of FA and GA status in the long term. On numerous occasions, I've attempted to improve FA/GA articles and been reverted on the basis that, since the article passed the review in that state, the status quo should be preserved and I'm just some clown making trouble. This is doubly frustrating when, had I been the reviewer for those noms, I suspect my suggestions would be taken more seriously. But once an article is an FA, it's untouchable, apparently.

• In the shortlived FA review for Radiohead stage collapse, Mike Christie made some great suggestions (I've already implemented some of them). But as soon as I read them, I thought: this is silly. If the goal is to make the article as good as possible, I could just have nominated it for a peer review, or asked an experienced editor like Mike for their opinion directly. Everything else is just a weird sort of ceremony for a badge I don't think means much.

I asked myself: what is my motivation for nominating an article for FA? If I'm honest, I think it's mostly vanity, adding a badge of honour to the ol' userpage. The goal, surely, should instead be to improve the encyclopaedia, and I think I can do that more constructively without FA/GA.

I suppose some of these reasons are more emotional than completely rational... but at the end of the day, Wikipedia is a hobby, and until the paycheque arrives I'm going to spend my time here on what makes me happiest. Popcornduff (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I tell everyone who will listen to do what makes them happy on Wikipedia. Or to take a break if none of it is making them happy. Others have, of course, commented on the condition of FAC and the current standards for prose. I've seen it all evolve in many directions over the years. In the end, it can be only what we make it! Perhaps it will outlive its usefulness someday, in which case I'll find something else to do. "You're either part of the problem, or you're part of the solution, or you're just a part of the scenery." - Robert DeNiro in some movie or other. --Laser brain (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Laser brain, yes, and I think what they mean is that FAC needs to tighten its game before Popcornduf would be interested in becoming invested. It comes back, imo, to the whole; reviews can be too bogged down on trivialities, while at the same time too easy, with not enough opposers. I know, from observing, this is a common feeling among alt music editors, a congregation of bright sparks, where the bar is already very high. Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree. I'd like to see sub-par nominations hit with early opposes so they can be archived and brought back when ready. Since PR is moribund, we are where we are today. --Laser brain (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

CIV is a problem however, as hopefuls tend to be offended when knocked back, and try and back oppsers into, as above, fix loops; a term I hadnt heard before, but very apt, compliments to User:Mike Christie. I say CIV because of preciousness, and sometimes you have to hold your tongue. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Just seeing this now. Thanks for the compliments above -- I appreciate them. Popcornduff, I can't really disagree with your points. My two cents: I think the reason I mostly focus on reviewing at FAC (when I'm active) is that it's a process where people expect that kind of review. I don't want to waste my time providing a detailed review of an article to someone who will ignore the work I've put in, because there are no criteria to refer to. If I'm reviewing an article by someone who I know is a good writer, or who I know really wants thoughtful input and will act on it, I'm happy to review outside FAC. There's a lot of overlap in those groups, of course: you're a good writer who is not active at FAC, and Pbsouthwood (for example) is an editor who thinks deeply about the input he gets regardless of the forum. FAC is just a convenient nexus for me where I don't think my time is wasted, but it's not the only place that that's so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ping User:Katolophyromai, another gifted editor disenchanted with the review processes (specifically because of me), which I regret) Ceoil (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Discord

Pinging the regular Sega editing crew: @TheJoebro64:, @Sergecross73:, @Dissident93:, @Red Phoenix:, and anyone else I've forgotten. Do any of you guys use the Wikipedia Discord? Might be useful for coordination if anyone is interested - but no pressure. Popcornduff (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t really “use it” regularly, but I have Discord and have signed onto the Wikipedia Discord before. I’d be willing to sign on and use it more, but lately I’ve had some family medical issues that have caused a temporary reduction in my editing. Hopefully I’ll be back around a little more here soon. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I did make a discord a while ago, but I've only used it once (I think it was so I could make a Cutting Room Floor account?) JOEBRO64 18:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I use it. A lot of Wikipedia regulars, WP:VG included, use it too. It’s kinda like WikiProjects really - sometimes populated and helpful, other times, not all that helpful because few people are in an area. But overall I recommend. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I actually forgot to join the last time I was invited... ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:20, 12 November 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Short description

Hi. Please see this - "The short description should be as brief as possible". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I was just this minute about to leave a message on your talk page. Apologies for the revert - it was a misclick, completely accidental, didn't realise I'd done it. Popcornduff (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Popcornduff, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Popcornduff, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 15:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Question

But is "the player" or "players" in prose? Example: The game is open-ended, allowing players/the player to take on several activities... Would "players" be preferred for multiplayer games (pvp and co-op both), or is there really no difference at all? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Good question. Either would be correct, because "players" refers to "players who play this game" (ie there doesn't need to be one of them, just as there doesn't need to be one of this particular game). And "players" has appeal because it's simpler and shorter.

But "players" might be ambiguous, in that it might suggest a single-player game is multiplayer. Certainly I think "players" is better than "the player" for multiplayer games. Popcornduff (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I was thinking, but wasn't sure if there was some obscure rule about it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

MJ

It's like playing Whack-a-Mole. There is still much puffery and little real content. Sigh.TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

TheLongTone, yeah I'm going to respond to the latest developments shortly. I think we should probably nominate the article for deletion as it's just a WP:POVFORK and despite a few months of discussion and back-and-forth editing doesn't seem likely to improve any time soon. What do you think? Popcornduff (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Really the article says little other than that Jackson was a big star who sold lots of records.TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

TheLongTone, it will be a pretty painful nom but I think it's time to go for it. What do you think is the best approach? Put together a nomination myself and ask others for feedback? Or just nominate it and see what happens? Popcornduff (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't know the form I'm afraid. I'd simply nominate it. One can notify interested editors of both stripe... I would do this since there are obviously a number of Jackson obsessives who will clearly vote keep & who probably don't need notification but some of the other persuasion may well not notice.TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, any thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Eponymous

Thanks so much for WP:ELEGANT! -- this will become one of my favorite links for explaining stylistic edits, along with WP:REFERS. One of the plagues on WP is the overuse of "eponymous", "of the same title", etc. I've added a bit more about "eponymous", which is not only ugly for all the reasons that "of the same title" is, but pretentious and often abused. Sadly, WP:EPONYMOUS already leads to a discussion of eponymous categories.... --Macrakis (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Macrakis, thanks for the kind words. Yes, "eponymous" is the same deal for sure, so thanks for adding the extra stuff. Popcornduff (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's genres

Hi Popcornduff, I believe that Post-disco and Dance-pop are unnecessary for the Infobox as the genres should really only be the main 'standard' genres of Jackson's career. Post-disco generally falls under Disco and Dance-pop falls under Pop. Also, New jack swing falls under rhythm and blues. What do you think? Isaacsorry (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Isaacsorry, that sounds reasonable to me but I'm not a genre master. You should probably discuss this on the Michael Jackson talk page instead. Popcornduff (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I did yesterday but got no answer. I'll re-add it just in case. Isaacsorry (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Isaacsorry, sometimes these things take a little time. No need to delete something just because no one replies to it. If no one responds it usually means no one cares if you make the change you want to make. Popcornduff (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Musical instrument

I worked a lot on musical instrument back in 2011 or 2012 but I didn't bother bringing it to FAC at the time. I've been thinking about polishing it up and trying. Are you interested in a collaboration? I could make a short bullet list of what I think needs to be done. --Laser brain (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Laser brain, sure, let's take a shot at it. Not sure how much use I can be since my main area of knowledge is electronic music gear, but I can at least help with that and do some copyediting. Popcornduff (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I felt like the 20th century and forward was my weakest area of the history, honestly. Most of the definitive works (Sachs, etc) were written in the 80's or earlier so I kind of glossed over the last few decades. Do you know of any authoritative works we could draw on to flesh out the modern era a bit more? --Laser brain (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Laser brain, not exactly. For sources on synths, I've relied mostly on articles from online sources like Sound on Sound and Red Bull Academy, which are great for very specific stuff like a new version of a TR-808 or something, but less good for sourcing more general statements about how the music industry changed over a period of time.

However, I'm sure at the very least we can recycle some information and sources from articles I've already worked on - we could beef up the article with some brief summary information on the advent of drum machines and samplers, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I think the article right now is lacking information on modern but ubiquitous instruments such as the guitar and drum kits. Popcornduff (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm going to start a worklist on the article talk and ping you. Feel free to add to it! --Laser brain (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Laser brain, will do! Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on producer entries in infobox album

A discussion has begun at WT:ALBUMS#RfC on producer entries in infobox album regarding the |producer= parameter used in this infobox. Please add your comments there. – TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Radiohead - I Promise single artwork.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Radiohead - I Promise single artwork.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit assistance for Lumines: Puzzle Fusion

I'm currently needing assistance for copy-editing for the article. IN the past, i made a generic request, and it did more damage than before. Although there are things that are pointed out. I'm perfectly capable of editing, but it's been pushed so long, and i don't think anyone has the time to give a detailed review. Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 22:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Uncut Gems; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bobherry Talk Edits 14:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

(friendly talk page stalker) With respect, Bobherry, are you familiar with WP:DTTR? I’m sure Popcornduff is pretty well aware of the policy. I looked at the history of the Uncut Gems article and it doesn’t look like hardcore edit warring yet. If I know Popcornduff like I know I do, he’s an experienced editor and he’ll know how to handle it within policy. Regardless, a personal message would be more appropriate in this case. Templated messages are usually considered rude to experienced users. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding reviews from magazines I cannot find

Hi there! I am currently working on In the Aeroplane Over the Sea and I'm just about ready to put it up for good article nomination. The only section I still want to work on is the first paragraph of the legacy section, regarding retrospective reivews. In it's current state, it's fine, but I still think it can be touched up. The problem is, I don't have access to two of the legacy reviews (Mojo and Uncut). I cannot find them anywhere. The references do come with short quotes from the review, but another problem is that neither reference contains the issue number, just the year. Whoever added those references more than likely got it from websites like this. What do you think I should do about this? Should I just get rid of the reviews altogether? Famous Hobo (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Famous Hobo, here are a few things to try, but you could ask on WP:ALBUMS if anyone has access to those old issues. I'm about to get on a plane and I'll be busy for a while but if you haven't resolved this I'll take a look at it myself at some point soon. Popcornduff (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Phantasy Star Online

You are obviously completely correct in your edit here and I failed to look further in the article, sorry about that. Eik Corell (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Eik Corell, ah, the sweetest, rarest words on Wikipedia. no problemo. Popcornfud (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You were absolutely right

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Picasso

I must admit this edit summary brought a wry smile to my face. As said on the talk, I have respect for both you and Modernist, hopefully there won't be any long term hard feelings, now that the tagging has stopped. Anyway, how is the Moog, eh, synthesizer project going? Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil. I think "the tagging" was possibly perceived as some sort of passive-aggressive gesture but was an honest attempt to improve the article, separate from the debate over the lead sentence. I often use clarify tags when things are, to me, not clear and I don't know the subject matter well enough to check it. This has led to very productive collaborations on, for example, the Sega article. I have to say I've found Modernist's responses so far bewildering.

The synthesiser page still needs lots more work, particularly on the technical side of things, but I'm proud of the history and the lead at this point, which I wrote from scratch. I also am proud of the sheer amount of junk I ripped out of it. I hope one day to get all the technical stuff covered too, but that's much harder to source... this would all be so much easier if there were other people doing heavy lifting on these articles, but I'm working on my own... again, very unlike the video game stuff! It actually surprises me how few of the gearheads out there seem interested in helping Wikipedia - I would have thought it would be nerd heaven for a lot of 'em. Anyway, whinge over. Popcornfud (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If I was to be honest, ye are both strong minded and reactive; you maybe lost ground when you started tagging; although your rational was basically sound, that never ends well. But whatever, life is short. You certainly bit off a huge area with Moog, and yes am surprised the whole area is such a mess. Gear heads tend to be obsessive and over representative on the internet, usually they are annoying but highly productive. People I know that have invested; they never, bloody, talk about anything else. What gives here i dunno. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, this will sound bitchy, but in my experience the gearheads do leave their mark... but by inserting endless technical data and trivia. That's rarely combined with any sense of what's due weight, how well that meets the need for the encyclopaedia to not simply be an indiscriminate dump of information. The pleasure in Wikipedia for me is in writing articles that are fun to read, that tell stories with beginnings, middles and ends... but I think a lot of gearheads just wanna see the tables of data. It's a pain to fight that sometimes. Popcornfud (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, Sampling (music) is another article I've rewritten from scratch in recent months. If you have any ideas for improving that further I'm all ears. Popcornfud (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Would mention how the Beastie Boys / Dust Brothers were largely responsible for creating an industry around charging for sampling rights. They talk about it here [3] though its probably not that reliable (ie they are bullshitters). But for me, "Shake Your Rump" is the most dense, layered sample heavy thing I've heard, outside of KLF. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so a double edged sword. There was an article in the NYT about a year ago about some dude that wrote a 700kb article on a Fiat car model. Maybe be thankful for small mercies. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Read fair amount of the sampling page just now, looks good, especially on legalities, considering the law is shaky, and it could easily descend to a big list. Late here, talk again. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Half-Life 3

Do you think there's enough information to make this a full-blown article? I know there was a draft a while ago that got deleted due to inactivity, but I was thinking of making it my next project. JOEBRO64 15:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, hmm, it's a very tricky one. It did occur to me that the whole "unreleased games" section has become quite long, but it all contains critical info imo... but is there any other obvious place to put it?

The thing is that Episode 3 was at least announced. Half-Life 3 was never announced or mentioned by Valve... it has only ever, effectively, been a codename invented by fans that meant "the next Half-Life game", after it became increasingly clear that Episode 3 wasn't materialising. (This is partly why I'm slightly baffled by fans who are now crying out for HL3 instead of Alyx - surely Alyx meets that criteria of next Half-Life game? But that's a different matter.)

So I'm a little uncomfortable with that as an article title. Not just because HL3 was never announced or discussed, but because it's unclear what Half-Life 3 really even means as an idea. Among other problems, what if Alyx is Half-Life 3? Is Aliens Alien 2? Do you see what I'm getting at?

Additionally, the article might also encompass the other cancelled HL games we know of, like the Junction Point Studios episode...? I feel there's enough material to make an article out of, but I just can't work out what sort of umbrella it could live under. Popcornfud (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is obvious and we just have an article titled "Unreleased Half-Life games" or something similar. Just take the current overlong section and expand that into an article. Redirect Half-Life 3 to that article. Popcornfud (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Half-Life 3 is the same thing as Episode Three, and it'd fall under WP:COMMONNAME to call it Half-Life 3. JOEBRO64 16:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm - don't think so... got some sources for that? Half-Life 2: Episode Three was announced as Episode Three, not Half-Life 3. And I don't think anyone ever imagined Half-Life 3, whatever form it might take, would be an episodic game. Popcornfud (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few sources ([4][5][6]) that refer to Episode Three and Half-Life 3 as the same thing. What probably happened is that people just shortened Half-Life 2: Episode Three to Half-Life 3, and it eventually became so common that now it's just called Half-Life 3 by the general public. JOEBRO64 17:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. Those sources seem mixed to me. The second source explicitly treats Episode Three and HL3 as separate concepts: it’s logical to presume that Episode Three is no more, and a full-size Half-Life 3 game is now what to expect. But the third source says this: In the minds of fans, Half-Life 3 and Half-Life 2: Episode Three essentially amount to the same thing: a new installment. I actually think these sources say more to back up my position, which is that people were at first expecting Episode Three but as the wait dragged on - and the idea of a new HL2 episode seemed more and more anachronistic - the expectation shifted to a new, full sequel, ie HL3, which surely is a different proposition.

... But maybe none of that matters. Maybe there's enough coverage of this quasi-mystical idea of HL3 to justify covering what little we know about Episode Three in the same article... presuming we consider it an earlier incarnation of a single continuous idea we can call HL3. In any case I think there's enough material out there to justify an article, and if you and other editors think Half-Life 3 is the right title for it then that doesn't seem totally crazy to me. Popcornfud (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, on rereading, maybe I can state this more simply: maybe it makes sense to have an article about Half-Life 3, and maybe it makes sense for that article to also cover Episode Three. Popcornfud (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Secret History

Dear Popcornfud,

You supposed Plano, California would be a fictitious location. Why? It really exists, but perhaps you know more, why it can't be? Please explain. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hansmuller, good question. I had to ask myself where I'd got that idea from. Perhaps it just came from this previous edit by a different user (see their edit summary). I have no further knowledge here so I'll leave it to others with better understanding. Put it back if you're confident. Popcornfud (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Roland Juno-60

Dear Popcornfud,

The links are only 3 and are very relevant to the article. Please stop repeatedly deleting my meaningful content. 2001:56a:7772:3d00:ddc:a831:299a:3b8a (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you actually looking at the changes? I'm not removing your three links. I'm replacing your primary source, to Roland.com, with a secondary source, MusicRadar. Generally secondary sources are preferred as per WP:PRIMARY. You keep removing this without explaining why. Popcornfud (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for Bad

Hi Popcornfud, I was wondering whether you would not mind contributing to making Bad a featured article? You can see here [[7]] for all the feedback, which I have already acted upon as much as I can. Isaacsorry (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Isaacsorry, sorry, but I just took a look at the FAC and had to oppose it. As I explained there I think it's a long way from FA quality as a lot of the sources have been mangled. Popcornfud (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-modular synthesizer

Hi. Perhaps you can help develop this new article - fix up the redirect etc.? Have you seen how much is going on in the semi-modular world lately? Let’s get Wikipedia up to date on this interesting new genre of instruments!

-)

Oliver Low (talk) Ojl —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ojl, I don't think we need an article on the subject yet. Sourced, notable information about semi-modular synths can be covered in the modular synthesizer article. If it becomes too large, we can split it into a separate page. Popcornfud (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I see where you’re coming from, but the time is ripe to start on the new page. With lockdown etc. I know a lot have been sold so there are more users out there, and there has been a lot of coverage in the YouTube synth channels. There’s plenty of copy waiting to go into the new article, including from me, and the are already articles on specific models of semi-modular synth, e.g. Mother 32.

I see you have edited the modular article before - are you a modular enthusiast yourself?

Semi-modular is not the perfect name for these new machines is it? They’re not literally half modular, more patchable non-modular - but the name has stuck and it’s good enough. I suppose they 'look' half modular at any rate.

Perhaps you could expand the stub on the new page yourself? I have plenty to add to it, but I think it’s good to start with a stub, link to it, and give ::others a chance to contribute. I’m a better editor than copywriter.

Look forward to seeing what you come up with.

:-)

Oliver Low (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Oliver. Yes, I am a synth enthusiast.

I think it’s good to start with a stub, link to it, and give others a chance to contribute

I don't think this is a good start, and I speak from about 10 years of Wikipedia experience when I say that. If we do that, the article will sit with almost nothing in it until someone starts adding content to it, which will probably not be properly sourced. Slowly, over the years, it will grow into an indiscriminate assortment of accumulated stuff (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE), most of it without proper sources.

Articles on music gear are pretty niche, so (unlike, say, articles about movies or video games) there aren't lots of experienced editors working on them all the time, keeping them in good condition. Note that the modular synthesizer page is already in very poor shape. It's basically a long, meandering list of technical specifications, with few proper sources. What I'm keen not to do is create yet more clutter. If you have good content to add, add it to the subsection in the modular synthesizer article (please remember to include sources). If that ever gets too big, we can split it out. There is no reason to create a separate page. Why jump the gun?

One more note. You mention "and there has been a lot of coverage in the YouTube synth channels". YouTube videos do not usually cut it as reliable sources. See WP:YOUTUBE. For more information about sources, see WP:RS. Popcornfud (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Groovy. Me too. I take your point about clutter, but have to go with the general guidance “ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia” and say that I would not expect semi-modular synthesizers to be covered under “modular synthesiser”, though I would expect both modular synthesizers and semi-modular synthesizers to come under “synthesizer”.

I think a degree of clutter is inevitable in the majority of articles from the way Wikipedia is written, but it will improve in time.

The point about YouTube videos is that the viewing and subscription statistics are good primary source evidence of the popularity of the material. I.e. the large and growing number of views of videos about semi-modular synthesizers indicates a growing number of people interested in them. The number of such videos suggests interest, but is indirect. A single video with someone saying that semi-modular synthesizers are popular would be less reliable and not a primary source.

I would be inclined to put an external link to a loopop video explaining what semi-modular synths are and demonstrating the operation of one, as per WP:EL.

:-)

Oliver Low (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I suggest: gather some reliable sources (see WP:RS) that discuss semi-modular synths, and use them to make a good section in the synthesizer or modular synthesizer articles. That would be a good starting position. If the section grows too large, we can create a separate page. Popcornfud (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I am collecting sources. It might take a while. If you have some good sources now - please let me know. Oliver Low (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with figure skating

Hi Popcornfud, it's taken me a few days to reach out to you, but User:Flyer22 Frozen suggested that I ask for your assistance. I just finished improving the bio about Johnny Weir, a figure skater who's currently a commentator for the sport. I'm thinking about submitting it to GAN and then perhaps to FAC. Would you mind looking at the prose for tone, especially the sections about LGBTQ issues? These sections in particular, please:2005–2006 season (paragraphs 1, 4), 2009–2010 season (paragraphs 1, 4, 6), 2010–2013 (paragraph 1), Broadcasting career (paragraph 1). Thanks, I'd greatly appreciate it. Take care and stay safe! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, yo. I'll take a look at this, though it's not a subject I'm remotely familiar with. If I don't make any edits to it over the next few days, nudge me here again - I probably just forgot. Popcornfud (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think that I need your eyes for the figure skating stuff, but I need help the tone of the prose about Johnny's coming out, his interactions with the press and the skating community, and LGBTQ issues. Flyer says you're a good resource for that. I've edited articles about communities other than my own, and I don't want them to come across as clueless or insensitive or whatever. Even writing the previous statement concerns me, so please be patient with me and assume my good faith. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, I've started looking at this now. The prose is extremely thorough, but it's dense, and the way information is structured is quite hard to follow.

Thanks, Popcornfud. I think part of the reason the prose is more difficult to follow, as you put it, is because I felt compelled to keep all the content about an event or competition together. I've just gone through and broken up the longer paragraphs, so hopefully that helps. Some of it is also my discomfort with the material.

The New York Times reported on the costume and music he chose for his short program, "a black-and-white costume that sparkled under the lights, and one red glove symbolizing the beak of a swan".[78]

Why is this quoted? It just sounds like some factual description that can be paraphrased; we only really need to use quotes for expressing more subjective stuff we can't do in Wikipedia's voice.

Is is factual? I mean, is it up to us to describe attire and appearance? The costume and the program itself was kinda a big deal, with the gender bending and Johnny's refusal to follow social norms and expectations. I really avoided the use of the word "flamboyant", a word every news outlet used for him. Perhaps you can provide a suggestion for a better way to report on the costume?

As a rule of thumb, I try to paraphrase things that are simply statements of fact (like what clothes someone wore). In this case I would write a sparkling black-and-white costume and a single red glove symbolizing the beak of a swan. (This is actually close paraphrasing - it's very close to what the original quote said, but IMO that's OK because it's the simplest plain-English way to express it... that's a separate issue though.)

There's nothing in that quote that says anything about gender-bending or a refusal to follow social norms, and on the face of it I didn't assume it was unusual. Is that something you're trying to cover here? Popcornfud (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This section continues:

He later reported that the initial reaction to it was laughter and that he told reporters, when they asked about the red glove, that he had named it "Camille", in honor of the piece's composer.[81]

Are these pieces of information related? The initial reaction was laughter and he told the glove he'd name it Camille - did they laugh because of the name? Is it important that he told the reporters this, or can we just mention that he named the glove Camille when we describe the outfit in the first place? (Is it important that he named the glove? Maybe.)

Then:

He debuted the program, an interpretation of Camille Saint-Saëns' The Swan, choreographed by Tarasova, Shanetta Folle, and Evgeni Platov, during a practice session at Skate Canada

Oh, so that's why he wore a glove symbolising a swan. It would be better to structure this so we know what the program is before we learn about his costume.

Easy fix; I moved some sentences around. I appreciate the assistance; this was one of the more difficult paragraphs for me.

Generally, I would suggest three things:

1) Trying to break the paragraphs up a bit more

Done, please let me know where else I should break them.

2) Really focusing on connecting related bits of information so they form a logical narrative - introduce A, then B, then C, not B, A, C etc

3) Paraphrasing where possible - both because it avoids WP:QUOTEFARM problems and because it helps prose flow smoothly.

I will work on the above points. Again, the quotes happened more when I felt unfamiliar with the topics, like the paragraph about Camille.

I'll continue to look at this but I think the problems are a bit knotty at the moment, so it's hard to jump right in there and tweak stuff directly. Popcornfud (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think just what you've said so far is helpful. I'll let you know when I finish my own tweaking, and perhaps it will make things less knotty. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, so I went over the article again. I think I got rid of a lot of the Quotefarm as per your suggestion, where I thought it wouldn't take anything away. I also tried to follow your suggestion about how the content is structured. I think that it's a much stronger article as a result. Hopefully it'll be easier for you to review it further. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, I know I haven't got round to going back to this yet. Sorry about that. If I don't get back to it soon just ping me again because I've forgotten and I'm poorly organised. Popcornfud (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem, I thought we were done! ;) I think I'm going to take Johnny to GAN, so I can eventually take him to FAC, even though I'm a little nervous about it. I'm starting grad school in a few weeks, so I'm gonna wait and see how much time I have. I suspect my editing will decrease, but we'll see. In other words, take your time; there's no hurry. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Request

As you are one of the best writers I know here, can you take a look at Five Go Down to the Sea?, which is at FAC. I think I have most of the POV issues (am a big fan) weeded out, but input most welcome. This is an article however where I'd like to weave a story and give insight into how life was in a low level early 80s ex-pat post-punk band in London. Some of the members were very charismatic, which I dont think I've explained properly yet. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, I've gone through the first section. It looks like a really good article, and as usual I have lots of thoughts. Popcornfud (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Very happy with the edits. Article is much tighter and on-point; there are only two corrections that I can see...but small stuff. Work away! Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It passed fac...thanks again for help. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

About the TR-808

Hi. I was just trying to translate the Roland TR-808 but I ran into a problem, so I thought it would be best to ask you since you made it a featured article.

From Legacy: "The track informed the development of electronic and hip hop" — What does "informing" mean here? Does it mean something like being a pioneer track to the genres?

Thanks, Dijkstra (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dijkstra. Thanks for translating this article, that's a cool thing to do.

Yes, your interpretation is right. In this context, it means "The track influenced the development of electronic and hip hop music." In fact, "influenced" is probably a simpler, clearer word to use here so I've changed it in the article. Popcornfud (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I also think the infobox has some issues in the current version. It says timbrality is "12" but 808 has 16 voices (bass, snare, low-mid-high congas, low-mid-high toms, claves, rim shot, maracas, handclap, cowbell, cymbal, open and closed hats) and I'm not sure if we can name the machine "polyphonic", wouldn't that make it "multitimbral"?--Dijkstra (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Dijkstra, I have to confess that when I rewrote pretty much the entire article from scratch a few years ago, the infobox was the one thing I didn't really touch. It's full of technical information I'm not well informed enough to check, and I don't think anyone challenged it during the FAC review. Shamefully, I think very little of the info in the infobox is actually sourced.

Since it's not sourced anyway, changing the timbrality to 16 is no worse than leaving it as 12. But if you have a source that specifies the exact number of voices, then that would be ideal. Or we could remove the entire parameter.

I'm not sure what "polyphony" really means in the context of a drum machine (number of sounds that can play simultaneously?) so maybe we should remove that parameter too. Popcornfud (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW, can I ask what you're translating this for? A non-English Wikipedia? I'd like to see it once it's done, just out of curiosity, not that I'll likely be able to understand any of it. Popcornfud (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm translating the article for the Turkish Wikipedia. You can see my current progress here. Best I could find for a source was the Operation Manual PDF (looks official but not sure), it explains the voices on the "Voice Selectors" section (page 4). I will look for more sources btw. What I get from the manual is the polyphony is "11" (since you can't use the toms and congas, or maracas and clap, or claves and rimshot at the same time) and the timbrality is "16". Sorry for the English too, it's more broken than usual because I'm kind of in a hurry now.--Dijkstra (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for spamming your talk page but my statement above is possibly wrong. Multitimbrality is playing more than one timbre at a time and polyphony is playing more than one note at a time. With the TR-808, you can play 11 voices together at maximum but can't play chords, so the instrument should be monophonic and its timbrality should be 11. I will let you know if my translation gets to be a featured article, see you.--Dijkstra (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Dijkstra, no problem about the messages. Please continue to send me any thoughts, questions or suggestions you have. Popcornfud (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the thoughtful and much-needed essay WP:ELEVAR. I have long battled the redundant use of "eponymous" (John Doe is the eponymous album by singer John Doe). I have had to defend my removal of the word in lengthy talk page discussions with editors who add it because they've seen it used redundantly in dozens of other articles and who think it sounds impressive. I've been threatened with a trip to WP:ANI for removing it. The icing on the cake is when someone suggests a solution: change "eponymous" to "self-titled". Now I can link your essay. Sundayclose (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sundayclose, thanks for the message. It's always good to hear when people find that essay useful, as it's a major pet peeve of mine. I personally find it at least useful to have all the arguments set out in one place so I can just link to it rather than having the debate several times a year.

It's funny - I was toying just a few days ago about whether I should add "self-titled"... perhaps now is the time. Popcornfud (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you should. I still sometimes have to remove "self-titled". Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sundayclose, the thing is, I'm not sure if it's actually an example of elegant variation. The problem with "eponymous" and "titular" is that, for example, people are afraid of writing that Batman features in the film Batman Returns because they think it's repetitive, so they write "titular character" instead. That isn't the case with "self-titled", which is simply redundant.

This has actually made me realise that the section on "self-titled" probably focuses on the wrong problem, so I've rewritten it. Popcornfud (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. You certainly have thought this through much more thoroughly than I have. Sundayclose (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Rest assured, whatever your loathing for pointless "self-titled"s, it probably doesn't beat mine... Popcornfud (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

QAnon

Your edits to this article appear to have the purpose of making it look more legitimate than it is. Please stop doiong this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, before we go any further, I have no sympathy for this ridiculous and harmful conspiracy theory.

What I am doing is remove needless words from the prose.

QAnon[a] (/kjuːəˈnɒn/) is a far-right conspiracy theory detailing a supposed secret plot by an alleged "deep state" against U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters.

The very nature of a conspiracy theory, by definition, is to allege things that supposedly are real. I could live with the "supposed" but the "alleged" is simply overkill - including both adds no clarity. Popcornfud (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Those words help to make it clear what QAnon is to the reader. Please do not continue to remove "unnecessary" words, or take your argument to the talk page if you insist on continuing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"Alleged" and "supposed" mean the same thing in this context, so why include both? It's like saying "Jack alleged that Mary supposedly ate Jack's burger" - the "alleged" does the work of "supposedly" so it's redundant. You say it makes something clear, but you haven't explained how. We don't need to hammer that the theory is BS by throwing two or three of these synonymous adjectives into sentences - readers are not that dumb. Popcornfud (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's my suspicion. Since you have assumed that I am trying to add legitimacy to this theory, instead of taking a step back and wondering if these words are actually useful, you have leapt to defend them. I don't think we need to take extra steps here to discredit the theory. Popcornfud (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Proof for unbelievers

I noticed you were having some trouble believing in pencils, at least vis à vis scissors, and I found this seemingly rigorous proof that I thought might be helpful. Just remember that semicontinuity implies P_x,Γ = ∅ if g₀ — g>dim(P_x) and dim(P_x,Γ) = dim(P_x) — (g₀ — g) if g₀ — g ≤ dim(P_x). You're welcome. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэl3 12:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Eleven even, obvious pseudoscience. Popcornfud (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to work through the 10-page proof. You are quite rapid! I've discussed your claim with Michel Foucalt through a medium, and I'm given to understand your attitude as a textbook case of crypto-normativity. You will be assimilated. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэl3 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Eleven even, fucking hell, that went badly. Popcornfud (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, badly is irrelevant. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэl3 12:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Copyedit request

Hi again, Popcornfud. I know, I ask you for favors quite a bit, but at least for this one the research is all done and I'm not trying to hit a status; it's a featured article already! I've long felt that among my FAs, Master System just doesn't feel professionally worded as I read it, especially in its lead but in a few spots along the way as well. I've seen you've touched it a few times, but do you think you could give the article a once-over for me at some point? No rush as there's no deadlines with this project that I'm trying to hit; I'd just like to see this look even better. I think it could use your scissors ;) . Red Phoenix ^talk 02:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Phoenix, always happy to work on Sega articles. I'll do a sweep on this soon but if I forget just ping me. Popcornfud (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Phoenix, the article so far looks pretty good to me. I'll continue tweaking, but I do have two comments so far:

• when Sega learned of Nintendo's plans to release a games-only console, the Famicom, they began developing the SG-1000 alongside the SC-3000. I think we need a bit more context - why did they decide to develop two consoles simultaneously based on Nintendo's plans? I don't know anything about the SC-3000, was it also a games-only console?

• I clearly don't remember why we used the word "console" or if it was added when I wasn't paying attention. SC-3000 was a computer, not really a console. But, it was cross-compatible with SG-1000 games and used the same hardware.

• As the SG-1000 II did not sell well, Sega continued work on the video game hardware used for the system. Again, I think I need a bit more context here. Why did they decide to work on it? It might have also made sense to abandon it, right?

• So, this wasn't something I had in 2014 but I do now; a translated interview with Hideki Sato had him reveal that they did so to compete better with Nintendo.

It's possible that some of this background might be excessive for this article anyway, and could be trimmed, but I'll think about that once I've gone through the whole article. Popcornfud (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Phoenix, as you've probably seen by now, I've put a few clarify tags on the article. The quality of the research in this article is great (as ever), but I think the story needs a bit of unknotting.

Another question I have:

Sega sold the US distribution rights for the Master System to the toy company Tonka, which had no experience with electronic entertainment systems. Tonka blocked localization of several popular games. Though the distributor of the console had changed, the Master System continued to perform poorly in the market.

When had it changed? Did Tonka have the rights from the start, or did they get them later? Or did they lose the rights again? Popcornfud (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Also not something I had in 2014 but I do now: in 2016, Ken Horowitz of Sega-16 published Playing at the Next Level, which has a whole chapter about the Sega and Tonka partnership. (I may have to consider using it to expand more). Previous sources didn't give a date, but Horowitz reveals it was 1987, a year after the launch. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Phoenix, as you've no doubt seen, I did some fairly heavy restructuring to the article a couple of days ago. I haven't finished work on the article yet but I intend to get back to it later this week. You should definitely review my changes if I haven't already, just in case I introduced errors or threw the baby out with the bathwater. Popcornfud (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a good look over it—sorry, it's been a very busy week. I do have to say from an initial look that I like the changes you've made to the structure. I think it helps to balance out the material better. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

DK

So you know how we all dismissed those rumors that Miyamoto didn't like Donkey Kong Country because it conflicted with Yoshi's Island as baseless?

Well... there seems to be a new development [8]. JOEBRO64 03:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, yeah, the leaks are interesting, aren't they? But I'm not sure if we can draw any conclusions regarding DKC and Yoshi's Island - I doubt, for example, that Nintendo would have let Rare make a Donkey Kong game if they had wanted to make one themselves. Miyamoto would have likely been one of the key decisionmakers regarding what games were greenlit. Popcornfud (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's probably true. My guess is that Miyamoto planned to make a DK game, Rare wanted to as well, so he just let them and reworked his project into Yoshi's Island. It's just that this was... a development I did not expect.

Also the leakers found some pretty disturbing early Super Mario World sprites, including some terrifying designs of Yoshi and Luigi giving you the finger. Also there is a Mario World file named "sex.cgx" JOEBRO64 12:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, it's interesting that the DK sprite from the Super Donkey prototype (which is very much in the style of the monkeys from Yoshi's Island) has DK with a red tie. Because, as you know, the Wiki article for DKC says "The red tie was suggested by Miyamoto in a faxed illustration, as he wanted the character to have a distinctive article of clothing like Mario's hat." So I guess that was already the idea he had by the time Rare were doing DKC. Popcornfud (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's very interesting. People poking around in it have discovered other cool things too, like that the clouds of dust the pilot character (who may be Mario, based on unused sprites that were found) makes when he ground pounds were reused in Mario Maker. I love discoveries like this and hope there are more really cool ones. Like, people found the old Super Mario World map from 1989 in this batch, so anything's possible.

Those designs of Yoshi are still giving me the creeps though. JOEBRO64 20:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Careful with ref names

Hi! Your edit here introduced a duplicate ref name error. (Search for 'error:' in the revisions before and after your edit.) I have since fixed this error. --Palosirkka (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pulp Fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Ringer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hold off on moving articles

Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music/Archive_8#RfC:_using_"The"_in_song/album_article_titles. The consensus was to keep capitalized "The" in disambiguation. You might want to hold off on moving articles around. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, thanks for the heads up, good to know. Popcornfud (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Misspelling

I think you misspelled the word "the" for the Weeknd song "Wasted Times". TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, ha ha, jesus christ, that might be my worst ever Wikipedia fuckup. Thanks for telling me. Popcornfud (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, but aren't you supposed to use the lowercase "the" instead? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, possibly not - see Binksternet's comment above. Popcornfud (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Should you revert those titles back as before? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, I don't know and don't feel strongly on the issue, plus reverting them is tedious work. In my view it's better for them to be lowercase, but if someone else wants to come along and change them, citing an earlier discussion I had no part of, then I won't oppose it. Popcornfud (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, just wandering. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sample for Music Sounds Better With You

I can verify it's a sample with this Discogs entry. Don't know if that helps with the other sources added. – The Grid (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Welp. I realized you removed the Madonna bit. I thought you reverted what I added based on the diff and context. D'oh! – The Grid (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Grid, no problem. However we could do with a better source for the other thing too. I did give it a quick google but found nothing. Popcornfud (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: The statements about Madonna and Stardust have always been iffy. I remember reading from the French Connections book (that is sourced in the article) that Bangalter supposedly turned down producing Madonna's next album at that time. This could be plausible with her 1999 album produced by Mirwais. However, I remember not finding any additional sources to support the claim. – The Grid (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Appolo 13" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Appolo 13. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Appolo 13 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Failed ping

Your ping here and before failed. To work, a ping must come in a new paragraph with a new signature. Otherwise it looks like you pinged but you didn't. Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I didn't know that. I've attempted to fix it. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't just that one that failed; also the others in that unsigned paragraph. See Help:Fixing failed pings. Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon, lame. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sonic 2

The source says, "But here, it gives the Oil Ocean Zone a distinctly (and perhaps stereotypically) Middle Eastern flair". How do I write according to the source if my previous wording was wrong? Or did you remove because it may not be RS? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, hey there. Yes, the source only gives the opinion of the writer about the music feeling Middle Eastern, so we can't explicitly say it was inspired by middle eastern music. Someone once told me that a story I'd written reminded them of David Sedaris, who at the time I'd never never heard of, so it wouldn't be correct to say my book was inspired by Sedaris.

What's more... this is the Development section, so we should keep the information focused on just that: how the game was developed - insight into the process and choices made by the developers. Even before we get into whether the source meets RS requirements, the writer's opinion or analysis of the music isn't relevant to development. I just don't think we really need to use this source at all. Popcornfud (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terry Pratchett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

RE4

It is not my analysis, it is from survival horror page. You insisted on removing a genre that was already on the page long before you started editing it, that's why you should be the one who goes to talk page and start a discussion about why it should not be there (no, WP:BRD is not valid here). Your "Per WP:VG consensus, we should stick to the main genre identified by sources for the lead sentence" claim is also incorrect. Even the official website states "Experience a new era of survival horror". Will you stop edit warring and listen to other editors' suggestions now? nyxærös 17:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Nyxaros, there is a consensus to use only one genre in video game articles. See WP:VG/GENRE.

"Survival horror" was removed from the lead months ago, or maybe years ago, I don't remember. You are the one violating WP:BRD by reverting my undo and asking me to start a discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What is it with these lies? One can clearly see that the page used "survival horror" as its only main genre for years until this edit (before this it was added a couple of times but was removed). So, as a supporter of this "bold edit", you have to start a discussion, because you have been reverted. nyxærös 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

If you believe survival horror is the genre we should name instead of third-person shooter, great. Go and find the sources that support you and put them on the talk page.

But if all you're going to do on my talk page is accuse me of lying, you can stop posting on it now. Popcornfud (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, what did you want me to call? Untruthful? False? Misleading? Untrue? Exaggerating? What? You don't know what you are doing? THERE ARE ALREADY MULTIPLE SOURCES ON THE ARTICLE THAT DESCRIBE THE GAME AS A SURVIVAL HORROR FOR YEARS. Do you understand now? Just because someone, maybe you, added "third person shooter" a couple of months ago doesn't mean survival horror is wrong/unnecessary. You've reached no consensus on a page that reached a consensus years ago and went to become a good article. Will you ever realize that? I guess it is really hard being in the wrong and starting a discussion especially when you don't even know what WP:BOLD from WP:BRD is. nyxærös 08:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I seem to be repeating myself

Sorry for causing a hassle again on the Phantasy Star Online article -- I had completely forgotten that I had already made this mistake several times before and walked right into them again, and my additional reasoning about legality was off as well. Eik Corell (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Eik Corell, no problem. I had no memory of that and had to check the edit history to see I've been repeating history there too. The fact that you've repeatedly got the wrong impression about what the article is saying here makes me wonder if we're not phrasing it clearly enough. Popcornfud (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Coinage

Hi, I don't object to your wording on Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation, but I do wonder why you think that "coin" as a verb is intelligible, but that our readers (actually, our fellow-editors, since this page is in Wikipedia: space) are so illiterate that they don't know the word "coinage". After all, we even have a category Category:Word coinage. I was trying to find a quantitative characterization of their relative commonness (using, e.g., Google ngrams), but I couldn't think of a way of separating out the numismatic and the etymological meanings.

I'm a big fan of writing simply (and of Fowler and Strunk in particular), but I don't feel that "coinage" is an any way obscure or difficult. --Macrakis (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Macrakis, it's not so much a question of literacy, or that I think people won't know what "coinage" means. People know what "utilise" means but that doesn't mean it's a better word than "use". I think "ironical coinage" is a fairly ornate construction - it could be a nice flourish in a novel, but generally I think a more direct approach is better. It also has a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hello, been loving your recent edits on the Tenet article, I would certainly not mind if you took a quick look at the Christopher Nolan or Cinematic style of Christopher Nolan articles (the latter, in particular, needs some c/e) and see if there is anything you would change/edit.

Feel free to discard this shameless recruitment, but please take it as a compliment.

All the best, Sammyjankis88 (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sammyjankis88, well, I'm glad someone likes those edits, ha. I'll have a look at those articles - if you don't see me making any edits then please do remind me here as I've simply forgotten about it. Popcornfud (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Popcornfud. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look

I have submitted for GAN John Johnson (inventor) and his photography business partner Alexander S. Wolcott. If you have time, can you take a look at them for possible improvements, as I hope to get these to Good Article status. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell, hi, I have taken an initial look at these and made some edits. First impressions are that these are thorough and well researched articles, but I found a few sentences a little tough to understand. Popcornfud (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud - Thanks for looking them over. I will be glad to answer any questions you have. I will be on my PCs all day today, so I will answer anything you have a question on. I have expanded the Photography section some on Alexander S. Wolcott to clarify things. Is it clear to you - you may have to tweak some of my wording if it isn't grammatically correct. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Very nice

Hey, I just wanted to let you know, given your (outstanding) work on Alan Partridge, I have a future project planned that I thought you might be interested in collaborating on. JOEBRO64 01:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, ah, neat! Never been a huge fan of Mr Baron Cohen but Borat is definitely deserving of a good article. I might do a few copyediting sweeps... Popcornfud (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I’ve just received a notification from the Kazakh Wikipedia. Oh dear... JOEBRO64 21:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, ha ha, oh no. What sort of notification? Popcornfud (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It ended up just being a "Welcome to Wikipedia!" message. The timing, though... JOEBRO64 21:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So this was on the Kazakh Wikipedia? Are you doing work there?

I don't actually know how that works. I guess someone can just find any logged-in editor in any language version of Wikipedia and they get notified in all languages? Popcornfud (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, OK, I just got one too. And also one from the Punjab Wikipedia. I was experimenting viewing Wikipedia in different languages. My guess is that these are automatically generated when you open those Wikipedias while logged in for the first time. Not all Wikipedias do this (I've never had one from the Japanese Wikipedia) but I guess some of them do. Popcornfud (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Here’s the thing - I’d never gone onto the Kazakh Wikipedia. The notification just came completely out of the blue. JOEBRO64 22:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, hmm, spooky! You could ask what triggered it over at the help desk on the Kazakh Wikipedia I guess. Popcornfud (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Album of the Year

A discussion has begun at WP:RSN regarding the website should be count as an unreliable source and should be remove off the ratings template. Please add your comments there if interested. – TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Earl Grey Tea Pop Culture Section

Hello Popcornfud!

Recently I added a pop culture section to the Earl Grey Tea article and you removed it because it had no citations. I am new to Wikipedia so I was hoping you could advise me. If I cited the original source material I discussed do you think this would be okay?

Hi there. Sorry, but pop culture sections are generally not advised on Wikipedia. For more information, see WP:POPCULTURE. (You might have seen them in other Wikipedia articles, but they probably shouldn't be in those other articles either.) Popcornfud (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sourced does not equal truth

Just because a lazily-written article on a website says that Dom Beken was a member of the Orb, it doesn't make it true. Beken was a member of a spin-off band from the Orb, called Transit Kings (with Saucerful of Secrets bandmate Guy Pratt). Whoever wrote the Rolling Stone article clearly didn't do their research. – Dyolf87 (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Dyolf87, Beken's website: "During this time I joined seminal dance pioneers, The Orb". Also, this interview: "My first “professional” band project as an artist was called “Transit Kings” - that was me, Jimmy Cauty (KLF), Alex Paterson (The Orb) and Guy Pratt (touring bassist with Pink Floyd) ... Later, Alex and I started High Frequency Bandwidth and I also joined The Orb for a while." Popcornfud (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Shenmue 3

the text you keep reverting has no source, so when i replace it it is just as valid as before it. otherwise, you can say that the page linked is the source, but if you check the link then you'll see that the information on the shenmue 3 page is erroneous. So please, stop reverting it, unless you have a proper "source" as you tell me. and the last note, this isn't true if you put "at the time" as the highest funded video game on kickstarter is Star Citizen, and that was 2013, 2 years before the campaign for shenmue 3. i will make as many edits as needed, if you keep reverting it, i'll change it again to what currently is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriDeadMort (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

HenriDeadMort, all claims on Wikipedia require a citation. We can't link to other Wikipedia articles and use that as a source. Popcornfud (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Disco

Hi, I just wanted to ask you why you consider the previous edit as a "verbose" explanation of the revival? I think the current published version doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Maybe we can discuss as the talk page for disco. Thanks. (2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC))

Hi. Well, for example, the previous heading was "2020s: Resurgence in mainstream popularity of disco and related cultural phenomena". That's verbose. It's in the disco article so we know it's about disco. It's about a mainstream popular movement so we know if disco sees a resurgence then it must be in mainstream popularity unless otherwise specified. We know disco is not just about music but also fashion, clubs, subculture etc so we can presume that "related cultural phenomena" are involved in this resurgence.

That's just one example. Frankly I think most of the content of this entire section is questionable but that's another conversation. Popcornfud (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You caused another dupe ref names error

Here. Please don't do that. I've noticed you about this earlier. --Palosirkka (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Palosirkka, forgive me but this is too technically boring for me to understand, care about or avoid doing in the future. I think my edit was a net good so I don't feel too bad about it. Thanks a bunch for fixing whatever the problem was. Popcornfud (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the edit, it seems to be caused by my using the visual editor and its handling of references. For whatever reason, inserting references in the VE causes it to sometimes autogenerate reference names that are already used in the article, which seems to be what happened here.

I use VE for 95% of my editing, and it's particularly useful for inserting references. I also make hundreds of edits a week, many of them adding sources. Seemingly it only causes reference errors a tiny percentage of the time, which seems to me to be an acceptable trade-off. If I see I create an error of any kind when editing I fix it, but I suspect the VE is always going to create problems like these that I'm not going to catch, and I'm not going to change my behaviour to accommodate that. Sorry. Popcornfud (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

In case you do care a little bit, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Visual_Editor_should_create_unique_ref_names. --Palosirkka (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Palosirkka, I am taking myself off the hook. Popcornfud (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Take care amigo! --Palosirkka (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Radiohead stage collapse, Downsview Park, June 2012.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Radiohead stage collapse, Downsview Park, June 2012.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

True Love Waits

I made some editing to "True Love Waits" a while ago with correct details and reliable sources you can find it in the (Composition and lyrics) and (Reception) content, then I deleted the (Art rock) genre because it has no source, then you deleted everything .. So what is your problem with what I did? 197.37.57.190 (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, only meant to remove the song cover. Partially restored. Popcornfud (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks.197.37.57.190 (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

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

A Moon Shaped Pool

added a link pointing to New Republic

Thom Yorke

added a link pointing to New Republic

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

PDS

You could've at least left the Shelcoof detail in there. That's not just some random ancient vessel Edge is exploring. --71.166.72.37 (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. Plot summaries on Wikipedia are just supposed to be brief summaries for people unfamiliar the plots of fictional works. We don't need to delve into extensive fictional-universe stuff - that just makes it harder to follow. Popcornfud (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bends

Well, it seems that you and I differ on some points, so let me explain. And before that, yes, you're right about the unreliability of Ed's interview despite his confirmation on recording another demo, I'm not going to talk about that. I'll break down this section with you to make it kind of good:

• There are some inconsistencies about the story of the song's recording, especially the number of takes. You have Philip Selway claiming it was recorded in a single take, and this book confirms this. In contrast, this magazine says it was in several takes. And this book mentioned that they recorded another version at the Manor. According to John Leckie in a 2009 Q&A, stating it was recorded first at RAK as a possible single, then re-recorded at the Manor. For the Q magazine, I noticed some mistakes in the overall storytelling of The Bends. For example, it said "Fake Plastic Trees" was recorded at RAK in April only, and this is not true. Only vocals and acoustic guitar were recorded there, the rest of instruments were recorded later at Abbey Road, which it's sessions took between September to November 1994. Another example, the Manor sessions were not in August as the magazine mentioned, they were in July and took two weeks. According to Jonathan Hale's book, the Manor sessions began shortly after Radiohead's performance at Glastonbury Festival, which happened on 26 June 1994. In August, Leckie went to Abbey Road just to mix some tracks. Another one, The Bends was recorded between February to November, not March to September. So, I have some doubts about taking this magazine as a source except for the "bombastic" issue. So, it is better to take one of the two books mentioned that it was recorded in one take at the Manor that instead of the magazine's one, with Philip's quote in the article.

• For the EMI issue, here is the book, check it and re-write the sentence. Sorry for my grammatical mistakes because English is not my mother language and I am not fluent in it. Cheers. Tamer Gunner (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Tamer Gunner, thanks for doing the digging on the sources and laying them out clearly here.

  Writing Wikipedia articles is really a kind of storytelling - you want to lay out each piece of information in a way that makes sense and flows sensibly to the next. It's great that you've expanded this article so much but I think we still need to do some work to get it to flow effectively.

  As a general rule, where reliable sources disagree about what happened, there are two strategies to take. The simplest solution is usually to just leave the disputed information out in the first place, which can be a good option when the information isn't really critical (eg was this song recorded in three takes or one?). Alternatively, we can just spell it out in the article, like "According to X source, blah blah; however, Y source says blah blah."

  Regarding the thing about finding "Jonny's signature guitar sound", I think we should cut it from this article. Based on my understanding from other sources (see the coverage in the Wikipedia article on The Bends), this is something Jonny did in preparation for the entire album, not specifically for this song. The source here just says "at the time" and offers nothing to make me think this pursuit of guitar tone was anything specific to the song "The Bends". Popcornfud (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Dusty Hill

On 29 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dusty Hill, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 16:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Could use your insight on the talk page regarding The Last of Us Part II

Hey man so we're having a discussion on the talk page for The Last of Us Part II regarding whether or not the narrative/transgender character was polarizing among critics and if we should remove it. I saw you chime in on the "Universal acclaim" descriptor thing for The Last of Us Part II's reception, maybe you could chime in here as well. TheMassEffector (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Pink Floyd discography

I don't suppose you could have a quick look at this? I've been meaning to take this to WP:FLC for ages, the problem is it's already had several failed trips there (none to do with me) so I want to make sure it is in absolutely top notch condition before I send it there. There are still some maintenance tags that I haven't been able to solve, but ought not to be that difficult, surely? Once that's done, we'll be much closer to making it a good topic as well, as most of the album articles are at least GA, and a few prominent singles should be able to be improved to that without too much effort. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey. The article looks pretty good to me. I gave the lead a bit of a trim, happy to discuss the changes if required. I'll take another look later on. Popcornfud (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the Artwork section. It feels like a weird/arbitrary place to have this sort of coverage. Popcornfud (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the Artwork section because it doesn't really fit in with the lead, and Pink Floyd have been described as being better known for the album cover images than the band members. (eg: [9], [10]) The principal issue I've got with the article is a couple of references that don't pass muster - there appears to be a problem with ARIA sources as "generally unreliable", and a couple of Amazon sales links for more recent reissues that for some reason I had difficulty finding alternatives. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

RAM10 information/tracklist

Some questions about this. You say we can't make posts or put information about the 10th anniversary tracks for RAM until secondary sources are talking about it/reporting on it. When it releases and articles review it (similar to every other significant re-issue with extra tracks from a popular band), will it then become worth including? There are already sources addressing the new single and the reissue. Not to "crystal ball" here, either, but there's also a potential that more singles drop (especially since "Infinity Repeating" may be the other Julian Casablancas collaboration). Those will bring media attention/further sources also. Daft Punk aren't a band that do things every year and aren't a band that regularly release content, so I feel like the addition of 35 minutes of additional content for one of the biggest albums of the 2010's by one of the biggest musical duos of all time is a pretty significant thing that's worth more than just a paragraph not mentioning any of the content. If you're saying we wait, that's fine (even if I feel there's plenty of already notable discussions, interviews, and sources happening solely about the 10th anniversary additions), but omitting it entirely from the page just seems unnecessarily strict. Radiohead's 20th anniversary reissue for OK Computer has its own page (OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997-2017) and the standard CD and LP release of that has less previously unreleased content than RAM10. Jzahck (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yo. I understand the desire to rush in and cover this stuff, and the urge to be comprehensive is noble. But there are a few things to keep in my mind here.

I'm sorry that the advice below is pretty long. But here goes:

1) WP:ALTTRACKLIST. As a rule we don't include extra track lists in album articles unless those extra tracks are actually covered in the article. And as a general rule we only cover things in Wikipedia articles when they are first covered by reliable secondary sources. ("Horizon" is a good example of this: covered in Rolling Stone, therefore summarised (with citation) in the Wikipedia article, therefore worthy of inclusion in the track list.) As these tracks aren't out yet, they don't have the coverage required to meet this condition. Which brings me to...

2) RAM was a huge album and the reissue is already receiving a lot of hype — but as it isn't out yet, there isn't much else for the sources to report on yet, except to recycle press releases. This means there isn't much for us to report yet either. I think it's very likely that once the reissue is out it will be covered extensively. In fact, I suspect it will not only satisfy the WP:ALTTRACKLIST requirement, it will actually likely generate enough material to deserve its own article, as with OKNOTOK 1997 2017. But we are not at that point yet. There is no rush on Wikipedia — wait for events to unfold, then follow the sources, then do the Wikipedia work.

3) In regards to this statement:

Daft Punk aren't a band that do things every year and aren't a band that regularly release content, so I feel like the addition of 35 minutes of additional content for one of the biggest albums of the 2010's by one of the biggest musical duos of all time is a pretty significant thing that's worth more than just a paragraph not mentioning any of the content.

I understand your logic here, and it's perfectly coherent. However, it doesn't count for much on Wikipedia! Wikipedia has its own criteria for notability (WP:GNG and WP:DUE), which is based on coverage in sources, not our own opinions about what's important.

TLDR: Be patient. The reissue will probably get lots of coverage once it's out and then we can use that coverage to build our articles.

I hope this makes sense. Popcornfud (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the lengthy explanation actually because it clarified a lot of what I was confused by. Your rationale/descriptions for edits made it seem/appear as if the existence of RAM10 was not or would not be enough to warrant information even in the future - especially when you initially removed "Horizon" from the tracklist. But I see now that was just me accidentally misinterpreting your explanation and intentions. Glad to know that it's more of a waiting game rather than a dismissal. I don't assume that RAM10 will be anything revolutionary or world-changing, but I feel like (if the first single is anything to go off) there may be more exciting stuff around the corner. I don't mind being patient; I'd just find it significantly weird to not have RAM10 information on the page if we're getting multiple interviews, music videos, etc. in the near future. But it seems that probably won't be the case! Jzahck (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong to remove Horizon because I failed to notice that it was covered in the article body. WP:ALTTRACKLIST says: "Include track listings for alternative editions only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response." Horizon qualifies for that. Popcornfud (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Elegant Variation

Hiya. I came here to ask you about tweaking a passage in the Red Hot Chili Peppers article and then decided to be bold and tweak it myself. In the process I came across your essay on elegant variation, which I didn't even know was a thing. Thank you for the edification! JSFarman (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The Smiths: False Titles

Hello, you should go ahead and "fix" The Rolling Stones, too, then Billsmith60 (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Resident Evil 4 (2023 video game)

I created the "Audience response" subsection (a customary practice to distinguish notable coverage of non-professional online responses) to show that it came from random people so readers wouldn't assume it came from critics as it's placed right below the critic reviews. ภץאคгöร 05:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi, is a way that I can at least keep a copy of the article I wrote for my personal records? It seems all traces of it has been removed - including the history? Much appreciated. Nightboat (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately I don't know of any way to do this, but maybe admins can see deleted pages. (In case you're wondering, I didn't delete the article myself and I have no special admin powers or whatever.) Try asking at WP:HELPDESK. Popcornfud (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Whitney Houston

Hi,

Thanks for pointing out about the definitive article, however, your approach to it and to me comes off as very crass and attacks me by you saying “if those don’t do it for you”. I’m here like everyone else trying to improve articles. She was known simply as “The Voice.” Two words starting with 'The'. It is also in quotation marks in which definitive articles do receive exceptions. Also if you look at the linked article, then you will see a lot of nicknames given to people that start with “The” (an, a, etc. are rarely seen). Feel free to go correct those if you like. What I did do is edited the wikidata portion to match the current short description. I’m staying away from it to avoid 3RR. However, you need to be nice to people regardless as that is one of the pillars and what drew me into editing Wikipedia. I’ve read through the policies and fine print for months and made edits as an ip editor although small ones, but that doesn’t negate the fact of being nice and not biting.

Thanks ThatFungi (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's the policy I should have linked in the first place, which hopefully will settle the matter for you: MOS:NICKNAMETHE. A leading "the" is not capitalized in a nickname, pseudonym, or other alias. Popcornfud (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

All references to her nickname is “The Voice”. Her nickname is not “Voice” so by you taking “The” out of it, you are completely changing her nickname to something that did not exist. ThatFungi (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Homework (Remixes) release

Homework (Remixes) is a Billboard charting release (which was cited and has information included on the page) with promotional events and secondary sources reporting on the album's release. The infobox, tracklist, and information was all relevant, brief, and focused on the stand-alone release of the remix album rather than the expanded special edition reissue. This is virtually no different than Human After All: Remixes which had an identical page layout, infobox, etc, prior to you entirely removing the information on Homework (Remixes). Either they're both wrong or they both should stay up. If anything, Homework (Remixes), having a global physical release and media attention as well as promotional events surrounding the release, makes it more significant.

Unlike the RAM10 information, which is on-going and waiting to have more sources/information release, this is a situation where a release has matched all of your previous criteria, so I do not understand why you are still choosing to unnecessarily remove important information pertaining to releases related to this band. The section had already received a good bit of shortening to match your requests, so reducing it down to one paragraph after it's already received a global launch, secondary sources, and media attention just makes it seem like there's an effort to simply shorten the page rather than to make an encyclopedic entry about one of the most significant albums of the 1990s.

Lastly the removal of so much information, usually all at once, often leads to other pages having their connections/links being broken. If it is so necessary to remove this information, I feel like there should be more care in making sure inaccurate information is not posted, information referred later on the page is not removed, and page links are maintained. These issues have all occurred in the past as a result of your edits. I do mean to show aggression or insult, I just do not understand the inconsistencies of scrutiny I'm seeing in edits here. And your perceived tone during edits disregarding said information or work by prior editors does not help the process.

Jzahck (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on your comments here and in edit summaries etc, I am a little concerned that you don't have a full grasp of what makes things important for Wikipedia.

You say the Homework remix album had a global physical release and media attention as well as promotional events surrounding the release.

That's absolutely true! But look again at what you say there. None of that necessarily makes the album important to Wikipedia.

What is important for Wikipedia is coverage in reliable secondary sources. That's it. Not whether something for a physical release. Not whether something had a promotional event. Not even if something got media attention (they must be reliable secondary sources, and it must be non-trivial coverage).

Now, there's no doubting that the Homework remix album got coverage in reliable secondary sources. The question is: how much?

If the answer is that it got enough to generate a lot of high-quality sourced content, then it can have its own, separate page — similar to, for example, TKOL RMX, the Radiohead remix album.

If the answer is that it didn't get quite so much attention, and everything can be neatly accounted for without a full page, then it can simply be summarized in the main Homework article. In that situation, it doesn't need an entire infobox and it doesn't need a tracklist as these things really weigh articles down and take us well into WP:ALTTRACKLIST / WP:FANCRUFT territory.

Most visitors to these articles don't need extensive tracklists about expanded editions and the exact dates of when certain things were announced etc. There are plenty of websites like Discogs for all that data — it shouldn't be in scope for Wikipedia.

I haven't even looked at the HAA situation yet, or at least not lately. I'm putting it aside for now because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, rest assured that all the stuff I think is true of Homework, and every other Wikipedia page, will likely be true of HAA as well. Popcornfud (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

_{"Based on your comments here and in edit summaries etc, I am a little concerned that you don't have a full grasp of what makes things important for Wikipedia."}

This is a clear example of the perceived tone I was referring to earlier. This sentence is unnecessary to your point, could be removed entirely, and just makes your explanation feel like it has a condescending angle.

My issue isn't that Homework (Remixes) doesn't have its own page. It's that even if it doesn't have enough secondary sources to justify a separate page, it has enough to justify the existence of an infobox and tracklist as an addendum in the original Homework page. A single tracklist of which remixes are included is not weighing the article down, and it's not an alternate tracklist of the original album.

Pages for albums or songs often have additional infoboxes and tracklists for singles/covers/remix albums depending on the release and how significantly the release was reported by secondary sources. Cannonball (Damien Rice song)#Little Mix version is a random example of this I found. Jzahck (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

it has enough to justify the existence of an infobox and tracklist as an addendum in the original Homework page

I know you think that. But you seem to be ignoring policies such as WP:ALTTRACKLISTING. I've linked this and explained it to you a few times now.

Pages for albums or songs often have additional infoboxes and tracklists

Yes, and most of them probably shouldn't. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Popcornfud (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Having looked again, I think the real disagreement here is about whether we (for Wikipedia) should interpret this as a true alternative tracklist or not, right?

In the previous version of the article (before I edited it today I mean), the remix and its tracklist was presented under the heading "25th Anniversary Edition", presenting the remix tracklist as an expanded edition (with a paragraph of prose explaining it like that on top).

If we are going to take the fact that this remix album was also released separately as a reason to treat the remix album on its own terms, then maybe we can give it different treatment and it wouldn't fall as squarely under the WP:ALTTRACKLIST guidance as I reckoned.

In that scenario — bad news— my vote would still be to summarise it without the tracklist and infobox, because I am really not persuaded that this reissue album is of such fantastic importance that it merely being released separately to the expanded reissue makes it deserving of this exhaustive Discogs-like treatment. But if you were to take that to further discussion, other editors might well disagree with me. So what the hell? Shrug. Popcornfud (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

_{Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". However, such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point.}

From: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

This talks on consistency as a valid point, so my point about HAA: Remixes having its own section/infobox remains valid according to this rule. With a discography as limited as Daft Punk's, having both of these remain consistent with infoboxes/subsections including charting history, secondary source reports, and more remains the most sensible move to me.

_{Include track listings for alternative editions only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response.}

_{When they are appropriate, additional track listings can be listed under subheadings. Otherwise, notable differences can be summarised in the prose in lieu of additional track lists.}

From:WP:ALTTRACKLIST

The Homework (Remixes) tracklist, along with HAA: Remixes, have significantly different tracklists with different commentary and promotion (including secondary source coverage) than the main album, not to mention different additional recording artists/personnel for the tracks. Including a single tracklist for these charting separate albums is not an "exhaustive Discog-like treatment". Jzahck (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You're missing a critical part of the tracklist guidance: and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article. (The guidance also says nothing about promotion or different personnel — these don't matter for this.) Popcornfud (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Creep/Use in films

Hello,

Thank you for your concern on the page. However, I will reinsert the section, with another name and not at the bottom not that it matters much, and my choice was not random, mind you). It is more developed and can be expanded. Hopefully you will see it follows guidelines. And brings smth to the page. There was no need, I thought, to revert it as you did, though. Best, — MY, OH, MY! 15:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There may be a way to include this in the article but let's discuss it and find sources first. Please create a discussion on the talk page before you re-add it, per WP:BRD. Popcornfud (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, sources you asked for.... you then removed .... and the phrasing that guidelines (to which you directed me but seem to ignore) invite to develop, you plainly deleted. Your editiing and what you say are really really not consistent. Please oblige me by restoring the version that was on before your "merging'. Thank you, — MY, OH, MY! 16:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There wasn't much notable coverage in the sources you provided, and so not much to write about. I added the detail about the actor performing it. If there are more sources that say meaningful stuff about how the song is used etc then the coverage can be expanded. Popcornfud (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I can only disagree with this assessment. There was meaningful ’stuff’ and notable coverage in the sources and associated phrasing you deleted and such a section can be expanded. I’ve opened a section in the Talk Page of the article, for obvious reasons. Please restore the version before your ’merging’, I insist. — MY, OH, MY! 18:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed bonus tracklist on Cracker Island

Hello!

I see you removed the list of bonus tracks from the article Cracker Island, citing that bonus track listings should not be included in articles. I'm sure you're aware that many pages do include such tracklists; in addition, I've never heard of this rule.

Why did you remove the bonus tracks? Where did you hear of this principle?

Respectfully, SaltieChips SaltieChips (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. It's over at WP:ALTTRACKLIST. When album articles include alternative tracklists in most cases they should be removed. Popcornfud (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

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

Creep (Radiohead song)

added a link pointing to Prog

Pablo Honey

added a link pointing to Prog

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

On false titles

I was pretty surprised to see your reversion today on Sega Technical Institute, if only because I usually associate your copyediting changes with a pair of scissors instead of a bottle of glue. Personally I don't feel strongly enough about it to dispute it, but usually when I read sentences with the article added, I feel like I'm reading a Google Translate of a foreign document; it seems that off-kilter. I won't revert it back as I understand that may just be me. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: Yes, copyediting in general should make things shorter, not longer. You should treat any edit marked "copyedit" that adds, rather than removes, characters with suspicion...

The false title thing is sort of an experiment. I predict it’s a losing battle I’ve set for myself, and that many or most editors will react with the same feeling you have. I think the case for false titles is quite strong, in that most people don't notice them and they do make the prose shorter. (Unlike, for example, my bigger pet peeve, elegant variation, which is unjustifiable in almost any circumstance, and no one misses it when it's not there...)

It's interesting that to you the sentence feels off-kilter or unnatural without the false title. I'll say one thing about that: I could be wrong, but I'd wager that you don't use false titles in speech. To pick a random example, I bet you'd say "Do you know the singer Alanis Morissette?" not "Do you know singer Alanis Morissette?" I think the urge towards — or expectation of — false titles comes from being attuned to a certain kind of journalistic writing that we've all spent our lives internalizing, and that's the kind of thing I tend to push against. Popcornfud (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on the Alanis Morissette example, but I think the thing that makes it seem off-kilter to me is that adding the article seems most awkward when there’s a company or organization name first. To use the example from the STI article, verbally I would say something like “Do you know the programmer from Sonic Team, Yuji Naka?”, but the other way around I absolutely would verbalize “Do you know Sonic Team programmer Yuji Naka?” I wonder if the naturalness around false titles has to do with the length of said title or the number of descriptors. (Again, no objections and no arguments from me; I’m willing to try anything that makes the writing better). Red Phoenix ^talk 18:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:ALTTRACKLISTING

Ayo, I hate this. I had no idea it existed. Any idea where can I go to make a case against it? I wish I was there when it was established so I could throw my thoughts in. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, love this guideline. Tee hee. Feel free to start a new discussion at WP:ALBUMS though. Popcornfud (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

OK Computer

Hello, I see that we have been involved in reverting each others' edits on this page. I appreciate your good intentions, and I am not trying to edit war with you, but you also state in your essay that you linked me to that, "If I removed a false title from an article, and then you read this note and still think false titles improve prose, then go for it. I won't oppose your revert." If you really won't oppose reverts, then why have you done that with me over and over? I am not trying to attack you, I merely don't understand why you would write that and then continue to revert -- it seems like you're contradicting your own essay. I just wanted to ask about this. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. The WP:FALSETITLE essay says: "I can't make the same promise if you add a false title that wasn't there before. In that situation, I'm usually going to defend the status quo. Sorry." Popcornfud (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the section I quoted seems to directly joust with the one you quoted. I took the time to read your essay thoroughly and, even though I took your words into account, still felt that nixing the definite article from the sentence would be better phrasing. You claim that you won't oppose someone reverting if they still think it improves prose, and I believe I have explained myself well enough, yet your essay also states that you will "defend the status quo" if someone adds a false title that wasn't there before. Once again, these two sentiments seem to be at odds with each other. Especially since, even if it wasn't there before, I have stated why I think it would improve prose. You have me and a fellow editor reverting your edits, and yet you continue to dig in your heels about this. Personally, I think that you should definitively choose a side in the essay when it comes to how you will address this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the note isn't clear. I'm trying to explain two different situations:

Situation one: there is a false title in an article. I remove it. You put it back. In this situation, I won't oppose.

Situation two: There is no false title in the article. You add one. In this situation, I will oppose and put it back.

In other words, in either case I will default to the status quo unless some new consensus forms. Popcornfud (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about this at Talk:OK Computer. Feel free to contribute with your own thoughts. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Awards and Linehan

Hi.

I raise here rather than in Talk:Graham Linehan because this is a more general query. Hope that's ok with you.

Before I reverted your reversion edit on Linehan I read Puffery and took "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". to mean that those words shouldn't be used unless they could be substantiated. I agreed with the editor who added them that inclusion in the lead was justified.

Having reread puffery, various comparable articles and looked at your contributions I think I owe you some deference on this subject.

If I were editing again I think I would say Bafta award winning or for which he was nominated for and won several Bafta's

How would that sit with you? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly worthy of mention (especially as the article is missing coverage of the thing Linehan was first notable for — comedy writing). It just needs to be concisely summarised in a sentence rather than jammed into the lead sentence, which what gives it the puffy feel. I'll probably take a look at doing it myself later today once I've examined the awards and sources. Popcornfud (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll be guided by your efforts and note for future use. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Creep live B-sides revision

I'm not super experienced with adding or formatting sources, so I figured I'd just let you know I was able to source that info from Discogs. By filtering the Creep master release to only include, for example, CDs from France, I could find the single in question, and the info comes from the pictures uploaded there of the back cover. All of the specific issues I edited have back cover images uploaded to Discogs, with the source for the live songs usually in rather small print at the top or bottom; but... I have absolutely no clue how I would reference that as a source! The date of the shows are also not always listed on the physical release itself, but can be found easily from various other sources online. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! Cheers Noahgaze (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. We can't use Discogs as a source on Wikipedia (see WP:RSDISCOGS). If the info is printed on the physical singles, we could individually cite each single as the source instead.

However, I'm of the feeling that this information is really out of scope for Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be an exhaustive list of every possible scrap of information on a given subject (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). In fact, I'm not even sure the article should even list all the different single releases and different tracklists, as we don't do that for albums (see WP:ALTTRACKLIST). Popcornfud (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info re: Discogs. I figured my inability to find an example of it being sourced somewhere meant it wasn't acceptable as the source itself, but it was the best I got lol. If you could point me towards where I can learn how to cite the physical singles properly, that'd be much appreciated!

As far as the alt track listings go, while I admit that the ones on the Creep page are formatted a mess, they are (for the most part) "significantly different" from each other, and the later reissues from 1993 do get mentioned in the text of the article. I argue they should stay, at least the ones that aren't redundant.

Thanks for the response and the help! Noahgaze (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs

Thanks for trimming that. I was just thinking that it could really use a paring-down but the amount of work needed really put me off it. You did a good job on it. Wes sideman (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, it was no trouble at all. Just restored a version from last year before all the chaff was added. Popcornfud (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't notice that! That's a good idea. Thanks. Wes sideman (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

'Legal Issues' is a Euphemism?

I saw your recent change to Kevin Spacey with regards to 'Legal issues' being a euphemism and instead using legal problems. I do not see how it is more neutral in my mind and, in fact, I think the reverse is true.

There seems little for either side of the argument on Wikipedia but I cannot find another example on wikipedia where this language is used in such a context. "Legal Issues" is lanugage used in WP:LAWMOS and there is also a List of legal issues.

I've chosen to undo your edit. If you disagree, of course, I'd be happy for to learn from you if theres something somewhere I've missed or to take it to the talk page.

Happy editing! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 23:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep. "Issue" used this way is a common euphemism for "problem". It spins a problem as a topic of discussion or debate, in the same way "challenge" spins it as an opportunity. (This is why List of legal issues is correct — these are topics of discussion, not problems.)

You'll notice "issue" used to soften language, for example, when corporations have to make apologies they don't want to make (such as in "we're encountering technical issues"). By contrast, Wikipedia should avoid euphemisms, use plain English and use precise, neutral language.

Note this entry in the Guardian style guide, which reminds its writers that "issue" is not a synonym for "problem".

Spacey's legal "issues" were problems for Spacey, plain and simple. Popcornfud (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hi there, I’m just wondering what your view is on the Brighton page, I think the description needs to be changed from seaside resort to city? The information on the Brighton page needs updating, it should state city in all descriptions and when describing Brighton I feel the correct way would be Brighton officially known as the city of Brighton and Hove with this citation https://www.kingseducation.com/kings-life/10-fun-facts-about-brighton#:~:text=An%20important%20first%20fact%20is,two%20to%20be%20separate%20towns. What do you think? It would good to hear your view. Thank you 78.86.1.141 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to really know the formal distinctions between Brighton, Hove and Brighton and Hove. My instinct is that describing Brighton as a "city" is a more basic, fundamental, WP:PLAINENGLISH solution than "seaside resort" but it depends if there are technical definitions involved or something. Popcornfud (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and you are right. I have links and emails from the mayor and comms department to prove this, when I was trying to change it, unfortunately a member kept changing it back prior to me getting the links. I’m currently banned till April so guess I’ll have to wait till then to try again, what do you think. Thanks 78.86.165.218 (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

One track is not an "alternate tracklist"

Popcornfud, I'm well aware you pushed for WP:ALTTRACKLIST to become a thing because you were sick of Radiohead's articles being bogged down with alternate editions, but you know it's not a guideline nor a policy. If somebody reverts you for removing track lists, it's not something you have the right to revert them again over, and you should follow WP:BRD. One track that isn't even marked as a "bonus track" is not an WP:ALTTRACKLIST: [11]. I explained this in my edit summary upon restoring it. I'm only not restoring it because there's an explanatory note below the track list already, but in future, if somebody reverts you for removing extra tracks, please don't revert them again as it's not a guideline or a policy, so no user is obligated to follow it. (And even if it was a guideline or policy, that's not an excuse to violate BRD.) Ss112 08:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't see your edits to that article or your edit summary. Nor do I have any memory of editing that track list before. I just saw what looked like bonus track fluff and trimmed it. The edits were days/weeks/months apart and my memory is short.

IMO that entire WP:ALBUMSTYLE page should become a formal part of the Wikipedia MoS, just as the MOS:VG is for video games, and I'm not sure why it isn't already. Popcornfud (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you probably don't remember, but you appear to keep removing the track that is part of non-US editions every time an editor edits the page and it pops back up on your watchlist. I reiterate that it's one track and there's really no need to keep citing ALTTRACKLIST. Honestly, having read your initial proposal that led to ALTTRACKLIST two months ago, I didn't get the impression from what you wrote that one or a few bonus tracks is what you ever intended for its existence to justify removing. I got the impression that the editors who agreed with you did so in regards to listing whole bonus discs and later re-releases of albums with 10 discs of outtakes and live versions out the wazoo that you and they felt were bogging down track listing sections. (For the record, I'm not opposed to MOS:ALBUM, I cite it myself. I just think ALTTRACKLIST should have had a lot more vetting before it was included.) Ss112 10:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have absolutely no memory of the previous conversation about this album and no memory of removing it before, sorry.

As for the scope for ALTTRACKLIST, imo it should be all or nothing, because otherwise we have to start defining criteria for what an acceptable number of bonus tracks is, or whatever. I just think — and sorry to be blunt here — "FFS, just keep it simple: put the main tracklist and leave it like that". Wikipedia is not discogs, it is not an extensive catalog of every piece of information about every permutation of every version of an album ever. Popcornfud (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I should also add that my apology above was sincere, though on rereading it looks a bit flippant. It was a genuine mistake, my memory is short, and I appreciate it must be very annoying to see the same dummy make the same change repeatedly in a zombie-like automated haze. Apologies. Popcornfud (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert capitalization

Thanks for citing the guideline in you revert of my edit on Nothing Compares 2 U. Most of the time reverts to edits I've made were done in spite of guidelines rather than because of them. A couple of the very active editors of articles on boats and airplanes are trigger happy with reverts and seem to think that the general wikipedia guidelines don't apply in those domains. Paulgush (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Shiny Happy People

Thank you for the great additions/expansions to my edits (re: the Chinese propaganda thing)! 76.202.64.12 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for taking the time to explain the problem on the talk page. Popcornfud (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Shaggs

Template:The Shaggs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey on Saturday Night Live

Thank you for your work on Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live! I just created a draft for Lana Del Rey on Saturday Night Live. I think there is enough press out there to justify an article- her performances on SNL are still written about ten years after they happened. Thriley (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Indiom" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Indiom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 1 § Indiom until a consensus is reached. 123957a (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live

On 12 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sinéad O'Connor said that tearing up her mother's picture of the Pope on Saturday Night Live put her "back on the right track"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hello, I was wondering if you can take a look at my Michael Jackson edit request. The user who responded to the original post month ago hasn't responded in a few weeks. Squaredtrig (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: Hello, since no one has fulfilled the Michael Jackson edit request, would you consider doing it? You seem to agree to some changes. The original request has been up for over a month and the other editor stopped responding. I don’t have access and believe his page should be updated because it’s inaccurate and missing important details. Thank you, I would appreciate it. Squaredtrig (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)