User talk:Richard3120/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why I edited the tracklistings

because most of them were messy, unorganized, and just ugly. i don't do rap albums because as much as i like rap, i have no clue what the hell i'm talking about when i edit rap albums, but i do about rock albums. also, i thought it was obvious why i changed it; i wanted it to look appealing to others looking at the wikipedia page, not make them think it was lazily edited. i edit tracklists to make them look professional and well done, not cheaply made in five minutes. midcey (talk)

@Midcey: I understand why you are doing it, but your reasons for doing so are incorrect and against Wikipedia policy, as I explained on your talk page. You have accused Koavf of changing track listing styles on Swans' albums "for no reason", but in fact you are the one changing things for no reason, other than you like the way it looks. You cannot go around imposing your personal beliefs on Wikipedia articles, against policy guidelines. Your idea that the track listing template "looks more professional" is simply subjective – there are other editors who believe the numbered list looks cleaner, and in fact the template has limitations... for example, at Giants of All Sizes it would be impossible to note the different track lengths for the opening song if the template was used. Please stop changing track listings to the way you want them to look, otherwise it is likely that someone will bring you up at WP:ANI before too long. Richard3120 (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

kinda weird since I edited a bunch of other tracklists and albums and for some reason this one Swans' album is a problem? what's so different about this than the other many tracklists and albums I edited before? also, i'm not doing it because it looks "good", i'm doing it to make the project more appealing and not look lazily done because everyone knows what a good tracklisting looks like but then you see this tracklist that looks like a list you have written down for when you go to the grocery store, like come on. plus, it just looks lazily done and the other albums looked like it was well done so why can't this album be? please answer me that because i would GLADLY want to know why every other album by swans can have a actual tracklisting except this one for some mythical reason. oh also, i edited a bunch of john frusciante albums and give them more depth and no one had a problem with me doing that (which actually benefits it) so why are you having a problem with me doing that to one swan's album EVEN THOUGH every other Swan's project has a organized and good tracklist? that makes no fucking sense, please explain your logic to me, help me understand. midcey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Midcey: I haven't looked at all your edits, but on the ones I have seen, you didn't change the track listing style that was already in use, the other articles already used the track listing template. If you're changing it from a numbered list on other articles, then yes, that's also a problem, but it's because nobody has noticed it yet. You say that you're not doing it to make it look good, and then immediately say that it's to make it look "more appealing", i.e. look good, so you are contradicting yourself. As I said above, it's "your" idea of what a good track listing looks like, it's not an accepted fact... there is no "mythical reason", I've told you before, there is a policy in place, and if you don't understand the concept of regulations, then I can't help you. Again, it's not your decision as to what is or isn't more appealing or the correct way to write a track listing, and it's not the decision of anybody who works on album articles – it's a Wikipedia policy, and to get it changed you'll have to get consensus from a higher level to have the policy changed across all of Wikipedia, not just album articles. I'll also add that you're likely to run into opposition for changing the numbering on side two of an album so that it doesn't start at "track 1" again – this has been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 58#Inaccurate consecutive numbering of tracks across multiple LP sides or discs in track listings. Richard3120 (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

well if you put it like that it makes sense, also i meant appealing to others, i also think it looks good but that isn't the point midcey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

GTA Do They Know It's Christmas Parody

It has been mentioned outside GTA, but not in published sources like the New York Times. If you do a search you can find blogs and video game walk throughs that talk about it. IGN.com for example. So to answer your concern, yes and no. YouarelovedSOmuch (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Do_They_Know_It%27s_Christmas%3F&action=history

@YouarelovedSOmuch: well, yes, exactly... blogs and game walk-throughs are not considered reliable sources for use on Wikipedia – see WP:RSSELF and WP:USERG. So it hasn't gained any widespread notice outside the gaming community. Richard3120 (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I just meant to correct you that it had been mentioned outside GTA itself, just not, as you now state correctly, outside the gaming community. Perhaps that is what you meant, and you were just saying it in a simplified manner, in which case, I agree, and am not trying to nitpick. I agree with the reasons for the revision. YouarelovedSOmuch (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Viih Conk

the article is under construction, i will put more information! Rangel Carregosa (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rangel Carregosa: please not that OneRPM, Portal Pop Online and Central dos Artistas are not reliable sources, so none of these websites count as references – the sources should not be blogs or YouTube. Richard3120 (talk) 18:17, 5 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)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Invincible Concert Tour

<Link> Is this a reliable source to reinstate The Invincible Concert Tour? — Regards from Frontier95 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Frontier95: No, because it's just a promotional press release from the DVD company. Please read WP:NTOUR – for a tour to be notable there should be more than one independent source discussing the tour in detail. Richard3120 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Why did you add class=Category? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Simply because I am usually copying and pasting for various categories on various pages, and sometimes the previous one gets overwritten. Yes, I know it automatically defaults to "category" if no parameter is added – feel free to revert it if you like. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Richard3120, Reverting seems silly--I was just wondering if there's something I was missing and if I should start adding this parameter. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Ah, no, I'm sorry, you're not missing anything – I just find it easier to copy and paste sometimes than write "WikiProject Albums" over and over again every time I come across a category without any WikiProject tags attached, and sometimes they have the "class=category" parameter attached. That reminds me, about a year ago, you ran a bot to automatically tag pages without WikiProject tags... do you have any plans to run it again? Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Richard3120, Just to be clear, I didn't have a bot--it was all manual. At the moment, I'm in some hot water for mass edits, so I don't think there is much prospect of me doing that soon until I show good judgement about that sort of thing to give more confidence to others. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: that's a shame, it would be useful. The Disambiguation WikiProject asked me not to tag disambiguation pages, so I've refrained from doing that, but I pointed out to them that if an article doesn't have a talk page (no WikiProject tags, no messages, etc.) it doesn't show up in the search bar when you type it in, which seems to make the point of a disambiguation page redundant to me, if you can't find it. So yeah, I try and tag any empty talk page I can with some relevant WikiProject, just so someone can then find it when they search for it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Richard3120, " if an article doesn't have a talk page (no WikiProject tags, no messages, etc.) it doesn't show up in the search bar when you type it in" !!! Are you sure about that? That's wild. Where did you get this information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: it looks like they fixed that now. When I mentioned it to WikiProject Disambiguation, they couldn't believe it either, but after trying it out they said they were going to put in a technical request, and it looks like it's been done. Richard3120 (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Richard3120, Score. Thanks for your insite and your work on this encyclopedia. Have a good one, Richard. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A quick request

Hey there Richard! I have a rather odd request. Could you take a look at the Latin music project's scope and see if it makes sense from an outsider's point of view? Thanks! Erick (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Richard. Have you had the chance to look at the project scope yet? Erick (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: many apologies, I'd completely forgotten about this. Yes, it seems okay to me... the only bit that might be puzzling is a recording being 51% or greater in a Latin language... I know what you mean, but I'm not sure how easy that would be to measure in practice, especially if it's close to 50/50... Richard3120 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, Billboard and the RIAA have the same definition as the Latin Recording Academy, so any song that ranks on the Hot Latin Songs chart (as of October 2012) or receives a Latin certification from the RIAA usually helps out. I guess I could change "51% in Spanish or Portuguese" to "mostly sung in Spanish or Portuguese". What do you think? Erick (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I didn't realise Billboard and RIAA used the same wording... in that case, I would stick with their wording. I was just wondering how you would "measure" the percentage of Spanish or Portuguese wording in an album, that's all. One question: where would many of Shakira's more recent albums fall under this scope? They are recorded almost entirely in English, but obviously they would still be classified as Latin music albums. I know she as an artist falls under the project's scope of "Musicians", but her "Recordings" would not. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really worried if a song is 50/50 Spanish or Portuguese, I personally would include them in the project scope. I "measure" a song's lyrics by using the aforementioned Billboard Latin charts, RIAA Latin certification, or receiving a Grammy nomination in the Latin field/Latin Grammy nomination. On the subject of Shakira's English-language albums though, since they're not classified as "Latin" by any of those organizations, they're not in the project scope. Plus, those albums were made to target Anglo market, not the Latin community. To me, it's like saying 1989 is a country album because Taylor Swift is also a country singer. On a personal note, I prefer the Latin Grammy's definition over Billboard/RIAA's since they also include the native languages and instrumental music as well. Anyhow, I didn't mean to go into a little mini-rant, but I do enjoy these discussions with you. Erick (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: No, that's fine, that all sounds very sensible to me... I had no idea that Shakira's English-language albums didn't qualify for the scope, I learn something new every day. Richard3120 (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

With All respect about 1980/81/82, etc in British music Year-end charts Best-selling singles, the information that I'm trying fix is wrong, The charts do not match with the original countdown. I've been comparing the tapes of the shows from Radio 1 and editions of Record Mirror, Music Week and charts purchased directly to OCC. You cannot keep fake information. Thanks

Stereo195FM: it's not fake, they are the official full year-end charts, which is what I keep explaining to you but you do not seem to be able to understand. The BMRB compiled the official UK charts between 1969 and 1982. In order to have a year-end chart ready for Music Week and Radio 1 by the end of the year, they had to have a cut-off point in mid-December in order to have time to count up the sales. This means that all the year-end charts that were produced by BMRB are missing sales from the last two or three weeks of December... which is pretty important, considering it's the biggest sales period of the year. When Gallup took over the chart in 1983, they automated the system, meaning that sales were logged immediately and there was no delay in compiling the charts, which meant the year-end charts could be produced immediately.

However, from 1977 to 1982 (with the exception of 1979), BRMB would later publish updated charts that included the whole of December. These charts are not "fake" - they were published in the annual BPI Yearbook, the official publication of the British Phonographic Industry, and often in Music Week and Record Mirror as well, usually around February or March the following year. They are therefore more complete because they don't miss out the sales from the busiest time of the year. If you look at the difference between the chart on Wikipedia and the chart counted down on Radio 1, you'll see the biggest changes in positions are for records that were in the chart in late December. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I took some time chatting with Alan Jones, people from OCC and BPI through emails back and forth and the final answer of them it's official shows in BBC with Tony Blackburn, Mark Goodier among others were the official charts. Also if you have the physical evidence to upload the pdf of annual BPI Yearbook where appears those charts. Obviously I gave you the reason.Stereo195FM (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Stereo195FM: Sigh... I never said the ones played on Radio 1 weren't the official charts... I said they were the INCOMPLETE official charts. If all you did was ask OCC/Alan Jones if they were the official charts, then of course they would have said yes, because they were, so your questions were incomplete. And no, I don't have the BPI Yearbook because I've never been involved in the radio industry so I would never have been able to get hold of a copy (also, I was about ten years old at the time) – the Yearbooks are in the British Library, which is currently 5500 miles away from where I'm sitting, so there's no chance of me scanning them. Alan Jones was in fact one of the authors of the Chart File books which included the full year-end charts of 1981 and 1982... so if you have contact with him, why don't you ask him which one he considers the definitive year-end chart: the Radio 1 charts with the last three weeks missing, or the ones he himself published updated with the missing weeks? Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: if we are going to say that the charts played on Radio 1 and published in Music Week at the time are the final word, then we would still be using the 1970s decade-end chart published by BMRB at the end of 1979. But this chart has since been thoroughly discredited and disowned, including by the OCC and Alan Jones. If new information comes to light which updates the chart, then we should use it – this is what happened with the 1970s chart, and it should happen with the individual year-end charts, too. Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

FAN for Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

Hi Richard. I recently opened a featured-article nomination for Aftermath (Rolling Stones album). I found your name at a past FA review and wanted to let you know, in case you would be interested in offering a review, which would be much appreciated if you have the time and interest. Thanks. isento (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for leaving a message on the talk page to my userpage on moving my comment at Wikipedia: Proposed article mergers. That is fine, I do not mind you moving my comment. Vorbee (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Richard3120! You created a thread called Persistent removal of speedy deletion notice at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Just asking

When these articles will get merged :-

• Li Xuerui career statistics into Li Xuerui
• Wang Shixian career statistics into Wang Shixian &
• Wang Yihan career statistics into Wang Yihan. Thanks.

Zoglophie (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zoglophie: Merger proposals usually remain open for about a month, to give editors time to see the proposal and support it or object to it. Richard3120 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Richard, It's been a month or so, I can't find any opposition for the Merging issue, In your conscience, what needs to be done now? Thankyou. Zoglophie (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zoglophie: if there's no opposition, we would usually tell the proposer to go ahead and carry out the merger. Richard3120 (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes,that would help. Thanks. Zoglophie (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Juanma Rios

The artist has worked with Disney for two albums where he released unreleased songs from the company, if the artist had not worked with the company he would not have the original English lyrics of the songs. In addition, it can be seen from the song records at ASCAP and BMI that he is one of the official performers of the songs in the series since he was added by Disney to the record. As it says in Wikipedia one of the requirements to be part of Wikipedia is to have worked with a big record company like Walt Disney Records and Disney would not have sent the lyrics to anyone and would not have added him as an artist in the record of the songs. After showing this (which are verifiable data) I think I have demonstrated that the information that appears in Wikipedia is true, so I added the artist, because I based on information that comes from official websites about the songs. SoyOdd (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@SoyOdd: even if the albums are officially licensed by Disney, that doesn't mean the albums are automatically notable. Please see WP:NALBUM... the album has to have been discussed by multiple, reliable independent sources. Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Then the artists who sing the songs on the album must meet Wikipedia's notoriety requirements since Disney gave them the lyrics to record them (since the original lyrics had not been published until the time the album was released). It was confirmed by Paula Dalli and Lucia Gil, the stars of the series The Tour. Gil was singing the songs in English last week on an Instagram live show with the same lyrics as Rios' versions, which would also show that the artists Rios, Pedrozo and Alfaro have the official English lyrics because Disney sent them. SoyOdd (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@SoyOdd: Only if there are reliable and independent sources that talk about the artists in detail. Richard3120 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If the artists had the original English lyrics of the songs to record it already shows that they work with Disney since the original English versions had never been released and currently the official actresses of the series have been singing through their Instagram accounts the English songs with the same lyrics as the Rios versions. On top of that Paula Dalli (Star of the series The Tour) confirmed to me through Instagram that those lyrics were the official lyrics with which they had recorded their versions in 2011. If we also look at the registration of the songs in ASCAP and BMi the Disney company added them as Artists of the nine songs shows us that they must have worked with Disney because the company does not add in the records to the artists who make cover of their songs. SoyOdd (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@SoyOdd: it doesn't matter, that's irrelevant – as I said before, working with Disney does not automatically make the artists notable, you have to show that the artist are notable individually, through articles about them. See WP:INHERITED: being associated with someone famous or singing famous songs doesn't automatically make you famous. Richard3120 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's relevance requirement it is said that an artist is automatically relevant if they have made more than one album with a major record company, in this case the company is Disney, which would make the artists encyclopedically relevant. SoyOdd (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@SoyOdd: No, it doesn't say that, read it again... it says they may be notable... it's not automatic. And it depends if there is anything that can be said about the artist which can be confirmed in depth by reliable, independent sources. Which in this case, there isn't. Richard3120 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The main sources are the copyright companies where the compositions are registered by Disney in which they appear as official artists of those songs, even if they were not relevant enough to have a page as artists that makes them relevant to appear in the page of the series because if they have recorded the songs in English with Disney (which is demonstrated by the copyright companies where the songs are registered by Disney) if they are related to the series. What would it take to demonstrate the encyclopedic relevance of the artists? SoyOdd (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@SoyOdd: quite simple... they need to have received significant coverage in sources that are reliable and independent of the subject(s). See WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Guess What (song)

Hi this is just a recommendation, instead of removing sources the whole time can you at least try to find more information and help improve this article. Thank you for removing the fake charts that were added to the article by that anonymous user because that would have caused serious editing conflicts. Tease Pillar (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:48 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tease Pillar: Are you actually reading anything that I am telling you in the edit summaries? You are completely wrong when you say that the Adult R&B Chart and the R&B/Hip Hop Airplay Charts are separate from the R&B/Hip Hop Songs Chart – as I have told you twice, they are component charts of the R&B/Hip Hop Songs Chart, and per the Wikipedia guidelines at WP:USCHARTS we do not add component charts if they have charted on the main chart. I'm not arguing that R. Kelly wrote the song, but if you have a look at other song articles, we don't need verification of the writer, that's why I removed the citation. But if it's really important to you to keep it, it can stay. I would happily find information and improve the article if I could, but it's obvious why this article has been redirected before... the song simply isn't very notable. Richard3120 (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Richard, sorry to butt in, especially on a conversation you had over 2 weeks ago, but the airplay charts you mention are not component charts to the main R&B/Hip Hop chart. The Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart measures performance of R&B/hip hop songs across media platforms and all monitored radio stations in the US. So when "Old Town Road" gets played on country radio stations that has an impact on where it places on the R&B/Hip-Hop chart, but that doesn't make Country Airplay a component chart to it. Any song can chart on the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart as long as it is being played on R&B and hip hop radio stations. Only songs that are judged to be R&B or hip hop are eligible for the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Thanks for letting me know, I have no problem in being corrected when I am wrong. However, I read WP:USCHARTS as Adult R&B Songs should only be added if the song did not chart on the Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. If that's not the case, then the table should be reworded to avoid confusion. Richard3120 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The wording seems to be fine because it allows for both the main genre chart and the genre's airplay chart. I wouldn't call charts like Adult R&B or Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop components of R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay, I would simply call them subsets. Similarly, Alternative Songs is a subset of Rock Airplay not a component. Regardless, that still means for this song, Adult R&B Songs should not be included in the chart list. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

¡Consolidated! EP

Okay, so - first of all, if you look in the history, you'll notice I did not create the page. I was just moving it to a more accurate title. The page was created in 2006!! It's their debut release. That's notable by itself. Last I checked, there don't have to be reviews - nor does something have to be broadly "important" in order to be notable? - It just has to be important to the subject in question - and it is, in fact, an important piece of their discography. This is an encyclopedia. People are interested in the full arc of a band. If the band is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so too is their discography.

Also, this release contains several tracks that are not found elsewhere - if that were not the case, then you might have a valid point. As it stands, please reinstate the page! Cheers, --Wikkitywack (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikkitywack: umm... almost nothing you say above is correct. I never said you started the page – I just suggested that as you are obviously the person most interested in the article at present, it would be a good idea to work on it in your own space and in your own time. Being a debut release doesn't make a record notable, and neither does the fact that the band is notable necessarily make everything they release automatically notable – that's a WP:INHERITED fallacy. If it's important to the band's history (and that's your opinion, not a fact), then that's relevant to the band and can be mentioned on their article, providing it's backed up by reliable sources. Yes, this is an encyclopedia.. and encyclopedias do not automatically assume everything requires its own article. Look at The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, for example – the artists in it have their own article, but the albums do not have separate sections, they are just mentioned within the band's biography. And yes, something DOES have to pass Wikipedia's criteria for notability to be included – more generally, this is having in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources as stated in WP:GNG and specifically for albums (and EPs) this is WP:NALBUM. If all we can say about a record is its release date and track listing, then it's no better than a directory listing like Discogs – and a directory listing is one thing that Wikipedia emphatically shouldn't be. Richard3120 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your contributions on improving on the article Trends of Culture. Ceedub88 18:00, 24 April 2020

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your edit summary on your revision to The Stone Roses (album) was a reminder of what's fun about editing Wikipedia. Thank you! Cloud atlas (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cloud atlas: thank you... I just thought it was a ludicrous thing for Rolling Stone to claim, as if there were no other British bands popular in the UK at the time... and to be honest, you can't hear much of the album's influence on the likes of Blur, Pulp, etc. during the 90s anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: -- but I think I can hear them in Oasis and Radiohead. Anyway, The Stone Roses rule(d). -- Cloud atlas (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the My Life Is Going On question

I'm sorry. Since nobody else you and another person on the project was interested in the notability issue, I, as you told me to do, I expanded the article and looked at the criteria for a standalone article. The song is the theme song for one of the most successful Netflix TV series. # 1 Charts: has been on the charts in at least six different nations of the world; # 2 Version: two different versions of the original song by Cecilia Krull (artist also ranked with at least two other songs) have been made; # 3 Awards: the version of Burak Yeter in Italy has obtained two platinum records. Would you agree to remove the advise, if you want also in consideration of the fact (I gave a slight check), that at least 40% of the standalone articles of 2010s songs have less notable characteristics of this song? --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I object. The article is still extremely short, and much of its expansion is unnecessary dragged out with word sentences and lots of section breaks. And the sourcing issues have not been addressed. The tag is still definitely warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks for your adjustments to the article. In your opinion, can I ask you how many bytes the article must be in order not to be considered short? Then, if you can give me your personal opinion on the three encyclopedicity criteria that should be met? More simply, one thing is that a song is not notable, one thing is that the article is short. It seems to me, in fact, that the stubs of notable articles are allowed for the Wikipedia rules. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read the WP:GNG for understanding notability and WP:NSONGS for understanding when songs should have their own article or be merged into some other article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kasper2006: the biggest problem with the article is that although various versions have charted in various countries, there is no other information about the song at all. It basically says, "there are three version of the song, they all have videos, and they have lots of views on YouTube". None of that makes a song notable, it just means videos exist. Isn't there any information about how the song was written, why Cecilia Krull was chosen to sing it, etc.? That would be encyclopedic information. Richard3120 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Blues & Soul Charts

The Blues & Soul British R&B Albums chart is a national chart of England and Britain by extension. This was the only major chart which focused on Soul Albums and Singles in the United Kingdom from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. As such these charts are very essential to conceptualizing and understanding the British Soul Music scene from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. Given the importance and the necessity of these charts they should be kept as is.Wioaw talk 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wiaow: that completely fails to address my question to you on your user page... it's simply your opinion that it's a national chart, not a fact. Richard3120 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Spice Girls

Where are you getting your sources from. Stop swapping my edit back. I am part of a community group and this information is wrong. So I corrected it. BarryCoke (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@BarryCoke: your community group is not a more authoritative source than the Washington Post and the Official Charts Company. Richard3120 (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You’re an idiot. If you are calling thousands of fans wrong then you are stupid. We are getting our info from the official charts company and Billboard in America. Not a newspaper. Bore off! BarryCoke (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Except the Official Chart Company's own figures say you're wrong, if you bothered to check them. Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Beauty Marks Tour

Don’t worry I’m still working on getting everything together! I’m having trouble posting the tour poster image and trouble with adding a reference. If you would like to help with adding those please feel free too! Pillowdelight (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pillowdelight: Yeah, i saw you'd just started it today, so I didn't want to jump on it and delete or redirect it straight away, it was just to let you know that it needed some sources pronto, otherwise other editors might not be as benevolent as me. It probably would have been a good idea to get a draft ready in your sandbox first before publishing the article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any way you could try to add the promo poster and a source? I’m still having a bit of some trouble. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That may be due to copyright issues regarding non-free image use. But to be honest that's the least important thing right now, the priority is the text and some reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I found a good article but I’m having trouble making it as a reference. The website is from abcnewsradio.com if there is any way you could try to add it please do. The headline is Ciara announces Beauty Marks Tour Pillowdelight (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added it and done a bit of work tidying up the article. Please note that per WP:NTOUR an announcement of a tour isn't particularly notable... every tour has to be announced, in order to get people to buy tickets, so there's nothing special in that. What makes a tour more notable is if it's been noted after the advance publicity – if there are reviews of it, descriptions of the staging, box office receipts. etc. Richard3120 (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay gotcha, thank you so much for helping out! I really do appreciate it! Pillowdelight (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Zobbel.de

Hi Richard. I noticed in a recent edit summary, you've taken issue with a UK chart position below 100. The chart was actually previously 200 places, as UK Singles Chart states, but has since been reduced (presumably after/around the end of 2015, as Zobbel appears to stopped archiving the peaks then). You said zobbel.de is "a blog that should not be used on Wikipedia", except it is stated on zobbel.de that the chart positions below 200 are explicitly taken from the subscribers-only full charts extending beyond 100 that were previously put out (it states Music Week and UKChartsPlus as its sources on the Chart Log UK sub-page, and the UKChartsPlus website actually states the album chart is still a top 200). While I get that the peak you removed was for a single and not properly sourced, more substantially, there's obviously been some previous consensus that it's fine to use, considering there is a Template:Album chart entry for it (UKZobbel). My point is blanking the source from certain articles acts like a local consensus when there's evidently a larger one at play. If you don't think it should be used, then perhaps a consensus at WP:RSN or record chart talk page needs to be established. If you ping me, I won't get it as I've turned pings off. Ss112 23:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point, it probably should be discussed further. I don't want to get into an argument at this point with anyone, so I've put it back with a citation (the chart position was wrong anyway). I do have a problem with the use of Zobbel though: it clearly is the personal blog of a German chart enthusiast... what worries me more is that as far as I know, UK Charts Plus is still going and publishing the Top 200, so it's more likely the website owner either got bored or stopped paying the subscription, so we're never going to know the placings for more recent years unless someone subscribes to UK Charts Plus, and there's every chance this website will go offline in future, like many personal websites. I'm really not sure that Music Week *does* print chart positions 101 to 200... I don't recall ever seeing it in there, but I'll have a good look next time I have the opportunity, it would at least mean there's a print source available. I'll probably bring up the use of Zobbel at some point, but after a couple of discussions last week with a certain editor over their insistence on implementing a couple of things against consensus which felt like banging my head against a wall, I'm going to step back from that for now. Richard3120 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sorry to see you'll be away for a while... hopefully not permanently, but I do understand that it's incredibly frustrating when you feel you're doing the right thing and you don't get anywhere. Someone will have to take care of the Friday chart positions, but I'm afraid I won't have the time to do it myself... Best wishes and hope to see you back soon. Richard3120 (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Assessment request for Black Swan (song)

Hi. I would really appreciate if you could assess this song article that I have expanded considerably since the last time it was assessed as stub. Thank you for your time. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: yeah, you've done a really good job on that, well done. It's nice to see someone take the trouble to expand a song article beyond announcements of its release and some chart positions, it really gives you some proper information about the song. Richard3120 (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Thank you so much. I can finally look towards a GAN. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the IP vandals that added false certifications/charts for The Offspring and E-Type. Your help has saved me a lot of time and headache! Hope to work with you in the future to clear out future vanadlism! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: that's very kind of you. And thank you for discovering the vandalism in the first place. Richard3120 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Ahaha. I stumbled across these ones when doing other stuff (looking for mistagged unreferenced articles, adding citations for charts that were tagged, fixing certification sales etc.) I wasn't specifically hunting for vandalism XD --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

About the recent talk regarding a band

Hello, I Just wanted to clarify a thing as I’m a new editor and I hope I would receive some answers from you? Because all I wanted to do was improve each bit and nothing else, I saw that you had replied in a conversation

I work with a band and is it so wrong to post the recent picture of the band as the lineup had changed?

Is it so wrong that I shouldn’t create a page on someone who is quite a notable person?

Each time I ask an admin about the issue, I never receive a reply back, I’m sorry bro if the person is not that notable enough but I can try more and dig out things

But I have no idea how this talk about Direct and indirect benefits came in, because I have none. If that is the case I must say each editor who has written an article in Wikipedia has taken directly or indirectly benefited by doing it. Kjsarat (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Praxidicae#Review_about_the_topic_Vishnu_Sarma_(Cinematographer_)_which_was_recently_sent_to_draft_by_you

Here is the conversation in which you replied to and which i’m referring to Kjsarat (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kjsarat, the point is that if you work with the subject about whom you are writing, you have a conflict of interest, even if you aren't being paid for your writing on Wikipedia, because you are promoting the subject. You should read WP:COI, and in particular the section WP:DISCLOSE, because that would then explain to other editors how you managed to have close access to the artists, which is what they were asking you – it's good practice to disclose that you have a working relationship with the artists you are writing about. In general it's not recommended that you write about people you work with, because it's likely to bias your writing and add a promotional element to the article. Also, just as a friendly warning, this conflict of interest is likely to be a problem for you if you ever apply to be an administrator, as you state on your user page... other editors will be suspicious of how impartial you are going to be. Richard3120 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for letting me know about this, I’m much grateful to have a talk atleast with someone who was able to make me understand, I had checked up with this section but I might have not read it closely, Thank you so much again, but is it okay if I could just upload the recent pictures of the band ? Because I hope that won’t create much of a bias? Just a suggestion I would like to ask? And Yes I totally understand COI and which you were referring to, My apologies also for the same. I’ll make sure next time regarding this. I would have definitely disclose about it if the way of the conversation was good as I was trying to be nice to other and the replies were definitely not proper and I felt more like I was been not answered for my question and more like I was been questioned in a personal manner, I hope people could be a little more good like you and just make us understand, what our fault was and how I could improve? Because I had read somewhere in wiki that all the people who are Admins were someday a first editor like me. Kjsarat (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding the pictures is probably okay, providing they comply with the image use policy on Wikipedia – see Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images. Be aware that if you upload your own images to Wikipedia, you lose all rights to them, and anyone else in the world can use your pictures... you need to think about this, if it's important to you or the band to retain control over their images. You can't just use images you find on Google or anywhere on the internet – these are probably professional publicity photos taken by a photographer, and they will own the rights to those photos. This is why on Wikipedia many pictures of people of groups are not the best... they are photos taken by fans at public events, but it's the only thing that Wikipedia will allow. Richard3120 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll follow your lead, also could you let me know if I can delete an image which has already been uploaded to wiki commans? Is it possible? If yes please could you provide me how to do it? Kjsarat (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kjsarat: I'm not really sure about the status on Commons, and I don't know how to do that, sorry. It's probably best if you ask this question at the Teahouse (WP:TEA) where I'm sure there will be someone who can point you in the right direction. Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I’ll keep that in mind. Also, Can you please lend me a hand in my future articles by having a look at it and making me understand more about the policies so that I’ll learn further?

I would be really really grateful Kjsarat (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Newcleus

Hi! I think you may be right about the "On" in Jam On Revenge. I guess I read the title so many ways while writing the article I wasn't sure! Feel free to move the article to a more apt capitalization. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Superband

Hi! There is another TV program, SuperBand, so your renaming is now misleading. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 08:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Teemeah – per WP:SMALLDETAILS I think we can get round this by adding a hatnote at the top of the article which says "This article is about the South Korean TV program. For the Chinese TV program, see SuperBand". Do you think that would be okay? "Superband (South Korea)" wasn't the correct disambiguation anyway – if there are still problems the articles will have to be renamed to "Superband (South Korean TV program)" and "SuperBand (Chinese TV program)", but I think the hatnote will be enough. Richard3120 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's do that. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada tags on albums and songs

Hi Richard - I see you've been busy adding WikiProject Canada banners to music articles - which is great, thank you! When you do, can you please include 'importance=low' in the banners? It's pretty much an automatic assessment for albums or songs, especially new(-ish) ones. Thanks again, PKT(alk) 16:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@PKT: No problem – I'm hesitant to assess the importance of articles relating to WikiProjects that I'm not involved in, because I don't know what the WikiProject considers important or not. But I'm happy to do this going forward. Richard3120 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Confused by Talk:5 Needs categorisation

Hey! I was wondering why you categorised Talk:5 Needs as a COVID-19 article even though the page 5 Needs redirects to does not seem to have anything to do with the disease and pandemic. Thanks! Doanri (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doanri... you're right, that tag may as well be removed now. It's because an editor originally created the page because although the song is eight years old, it was released as a digital single for the first time ever in May, to acknowledge the coronavirus and the quarantine... kind of like "something for the fans". So its release was because of the coronavirus, but then there wasn't anything else that could be said about the song, so afterwards I redirected it. Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply! I'll remove the tag and add some info on the Rize of the Fenix page, then. Doanri (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem – yep, what you've added from Revolver magazine is about the entire worth of the song's 2020 performance and release... as you can see, it really didn't merit a whole separate article, which is why I redirected it. Richard3120 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A little confused and need help on You and I (Black Ivory song) removed samples

Hi Richard, You stated on the removal of the samples of the, "You and I" song by Q-Tip and Wiz Khalifa as, "we don't list songs that have sampled this one unless there is in-depth coverage talking about the song and the sample". Are you saying that I or an editor should elaborate on the sample or I or an editor should include articles about the sample being talked about from reliable sources? I am new to editing and all the feedback is welcomed to help me in the future. And, that statement doesn't apply to other song samples only this song in question? I have found some articles talking about the singles and need to know if I can use them. Please explain.

Thanking you in advance.

--Vannessajg (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanessa... yes, the issue is the lack of sources that explicitly state "this song samples 'You and I' by Black Ivory". For example, the source you added for Q-Tip's "Getting Up" doesn't even mention that song at all, even less that it uses a Black Ivory sample. The place where explicit mention of the sample is probably stated would likely be in the liner notes of Q-Tip's album, so if you find it mentioned there (you can probably find photos of the liner notes at its entry at Discogs in order to check, but don't use Discogs itself as a citation), you could use Template:Cite AV media notes to cite the album's liner notes as a source. The Whosampledwho website won't be an eligible source, because it can be edited and added to by anyone so it fails WP:USERG. Even then, another editor may well consider that a single mention of a sample is trivia and may remove it. Richard3120 (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Richard, Gotcha', and thank for the info. I have been using discogs as a citation, so this is good info for me. I was told not to use Whosampledwho, so I stopped that. I did find a few articles that mention the sample including one with Q-Tip.

Thanks again, --Vannessajg (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Chicken

I know but it has quite incorrect name. Eurohunter (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I don't understand – that's the Wallonia Ultratip chart, exactly as it says. Richard3120 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The name is "Ultratip Bubbling Under". Eurohunter (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: OK, but the chart is correct... the Ultratip chart is the "bubbling under" chart for the Ultratop chart. The chart is not wrong, but you think the name of the chart is wrong... that's a different matter, and you can make a request to change the chart name at Template talk:Single chart. Richard3120 (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Polish and Russian airplay is there too also under wrong name. There is also the other problem. Reference is automatic and it's different than editor would do (no access date and strange title. Eurohunter (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

10cc

Yeah. Her maiden name was Redfern, Kathy Warren (nee Redfern). Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: thanks for the confirmation. Seeing as multiple sources call her Kathy Redfern [1], [2], [3], [4], as well Eric Stewart during a BBC documentary on the song [5] (at 33:18), I think it's better to keep it as "Redfern" in the article... perhaps "(now Warren)" with a source could be added as a compromise. Richard3120 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Amon Tobin's Nomark Club

Thanks for the contribution, but it would be prettier if you proposed the move before slashing it all at once. My take on the service is the same as with Underworld's project Drift. In fact, both ideas are similar, artists release their work gradually and consistently. Whether the thing is worth an article, see NPG Music Club, at least. — Kochas 12:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kochas: well, Wikipedia encourages editors to be WP:BOLD and make edits like this... if we had to discuss every change on Wikipedia nothing would get done. Of course, you are also entitled to revert the change, and then we would discuss it like this and it may go to AfD, where I strongly suspect the consensus would be to merge into Amon Tobin's article anyway, seeing as the two lines in Billboard appear to be the only independent coverage of it.

With respect, I'm not sure either of your comparisons are valid – the notability of the NPG Music Club article is debatable as well, but at least there are articles describing it as "pioneering", it had 400,000 subscribers at its peak, and it won a Webby award... all we have about the Nomark club is a couple of lines in Billboard about it being set up. And I don't think the Drift project is the same thing either – that was a fixed-time project of one year, with the cumulative EP releases forming one complete album, which then received numerous reviews and chart placings. The Nomark Club is an record label/club releasing exclusive content, there is no end date, and each album released is a separate entity. Either there is going to be coverage of the club itself, which Billboard does mention, but only in passing, or the albums will be reviewed individually... there isn't going to be any coverage or reviews of the albums at the end of the club as a "complete project", that could be in ten years time for all we know, and what would be the point of reviewing the releases then? Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What you gonna do?

Hi, I put up an article name change suggestion on the article below from "What you gonna do?" to "WHAT YOU GONNA DO???" where you said to rename the article to "What You Gonna Do???"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_you_gonna_do%3F

How do I rename it to "What You Gonna Do???" as it is still under discussion, or do I have to wait for the week to expire to act? Liverpoolmad (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Liverpoolmad: don't worry, you don't have to do anything. The request runs for a few days to allow time for other editors to have their say, then an admistrator will close it and and make the change according to the majority consensus. Just so you know for the future, names of artists and songs/albums follow a standard format on Wikipedia, even if the artist writes the name in all capital letters or all lower case themselves. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Liverpoolmad (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: Rex Orange County edits

Hey, just wanted to apologise for messing up the Rex Orange County pages. I'm still very new to Wikipedia and still working my way around it so I am having trouble sometimes. I'm extremely sorry for any harm that may have been caused.

realoliver9912 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Now United song articles

Hey Richard. I've just discovered an editor by the name of Gabriel.dukdod has spent the last two weeks making song articles for every one of "global pop group" Now United's singles. They've reused a lot of the same sources on the articles, and piled tonnes of Portuguese-language blogs and unreliable news sites on the recreated Now United discography and all these articles (with as many as six sources citing one sentence), despite the fact none of their songs have seemingly received any substantial coverage in mainstream media elsewhere in the world, and none of the songs appear to have charted (including in Brazil). A lot of these articles appear ported over rather poorly from the Portuguese wiki. They've also started making articles on a lot of the members, some of whom appear to have done little else besides be part of the group. Would you be able to go through and clean up/potentially redirect some of these articles if you determine them to be non-notable? Ping @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: to check this user's articles out too. Thanks! Ss112 14:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: Yep, I've noticed this too, and was thinking exactly the same thing: I think most, if not all, of the singles are non-notable – I'm going to try and redirect a couple of the most obviously non-notable ones to the band article and see if they try and revert... if so, I'll start taking them to AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5