Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65

HTML hints

In your edit of 14:50, 15 February 2018 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoycottAdvance (2nd nomination), you closed a <strike> tag with <strike/>. Note that a slash at the beginning of an HTML tag means "close the corresponding tag", while a slash at the end of an HTML tag means "open and close this tag in one operation". This is known as a self-closed tag. When Wikipedia finds a self-closed tag where a closing tag is expected, it usually converts it automatically to the corresponding closing tag, but this is treated as a lint error of type self-closed tag, and will cause problems when Wikipedia migrates from HTML4 to HTML5. Also note that <strike> is deprecated and officially unsupported in HTML5; the HTML5-compliant markup is <s>. I edited the article, changing <strike>...<strike/> to <s>...</s>. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's actually one I tend to mess up. I'll try to remember that. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yo

Sorry for cheesing you off yesterday. That wasn't my intention, and you're not someone I want to make an enemy of. Popcornduff (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'm sorry I got irritated too. And I appreciate your efforts too, you do good work, so I have no intentions of holding a grudge or anything like that. We're fine. Sergecross73 msg me 04:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I need a little help!

I keep providing this IP user reasons and a source, but the user will not listen and I'm at my third undo so I'm completely powerless now, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirby_(character)&action=history. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. -- ferret (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I provided one source that was from an Official Nintendo Website, but the user disregarded it. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Patricia CV lapsing into old habits

Hi Sergecross. About Patricia CV again: this time they're back adding unsourced genres again. They change genres or edit against established consensus on what something Is, then they get annoyed and throw accusations out. Now the accusations haven't happened in this case again (yet, at least), but they're continuing to genre war when they're quite well aware the sources on the articles state something different. Removing sourced genres for their own idea of what something is: [1], changing a genre when the source states something different right next to it: [2], changing a genre stated in the second sentence of the lead as dance-pop: [3]. Changing albums to mixtapes (mixtapes by a pop singer...) on Meghan Trainor discography and downgrading singles sourced as having full commercial releases to "promotional": [4], [5] (and then editing the related articles: [6], [7], [8]). They previously did this on Olivia Newton-John singles discography when they split it off from albums to a separate page, counting every song that didn't chart as a "promotional single" and sourcing it to Discogs when Discogs doesn't state what is "promotional" anyway (and is not reliable regardless). I warned them about this: [9] I and countless other users (including SNUGGUMS and most recently, Interlude65) have warned Patricia for these things they've done for years (2017, 2016: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] all the way back to 2014) and I don't think they will stop. This is a pattern going back four years and I'm honestly confused as to how after so many warnings they're still doing this or even still freely editing. Ss112 07:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't even to mention their sockpuppetry when they didn't get their way at L.A. State of Mind a while back. I reverted them for contradicting what sources state and I did a few follow-ups to clear the article of unsourced genre claims [15], then they used 2804:90:11:5C47:D40B:8DFA:3D02:EF00 to restore their opinion: [16]. It's no surprise that the articles that IP edited are all articles Patricia CV has edited extensively. Then they came back a year later: [17]. They also did this on another solo Spice Girls release, claiming Emma Bunton made bossa nova. I reverted several IPs for changing genres or removing the CN template after reverting Patricia CV for this originally, which was also very suspicious. I find it hard to believe other IPs would care as much: [18], [19] Ss112 07:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it, but this is a little different than the obvious, blatant personal attack stuff. This appears to be a lot of various issues over time - not things I've warned about in the past. Additionally, looking it over, it looks like she's been warned a few times recently, but hasn't gone past any final warnings on it? Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't subsequent edits (perhaps not immediate) apply to editing after a final warning? Patricia CV definitely did go back later on to edit the articles they were warned about adding unsourced information on. Perhaps they've been selective about the times they choose to do it (as in, biding their time) and, as I pointed out, the accounts they use to do so—the IP above who re-added a genre Patricia was reverted for editing five or six of the same articles Patricia contributed to extensively was something I warned them about but didn't tell an admin at the time. I'm just saying, they've been warned about adding unsourced material/contentious genre edits for four years now and I and a few other editors (namely SNUGGUMS, who asked me a while back if we should report the user to ANI) are sick of them doing it/getting away with it. It's just annoying to catch them on one article I've watchlisted, then to click on their contributions and see what else they've been adding unsourced stuff on for the past week or however long. Ss112 14:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's harder with some of this stuff though. Genre warring? Fundamentally not okay. But a lot of it is a bunch of this random stuff that could fall into "good faith mistakes" or "just irritating". People argue whether or not releases are "singles or promotional singles" or "mixtape or album" across the website. I can't always fault people with stuff like that - the music industry needs to sort some of their terminology out in this modern day and age, and while we need to go by reliable sources, unfortunately, even reliable sources aren't consistent about it - so disputes happen. I can give her a final warning that basically says "make sure you source all your content you add, including genre, album/single status, etc", but that's about it. (Talk page stalkers, feel free to weigh in differently.) Alternatively, you're free to roll the dice at ANI instead. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Reported it to ANI. Ss112 15:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
....Good luck... Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
So...looks like it basically ended with my solution - giving her a final warning. Now that she's been given that, let me know if she causes any more trouble related to the warning (which was basically for anything disruptive), and if she does, then I'll block her. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Carefully worded replies always help in a heated situation. Thank You! Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean

Ignore the revert notice. Just a case of delayed screen update causing a misclick. Sorry. Meters (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for saying something. For a brief moment, I was completely baffled as to why someone would do such a deep revert of my rewrite. That makes sense. Sergecross73 msg me

Sonic and Black Dawn reused Tallarico tracks

I really don't understand what sources you're looking for. Tommy Tallarico was part of Sonic music composers, and that's not enough. Sega Retro lists all works made by Tallarico in all games, and that's not enough, or maybe the site itself is forbidden, i don't know. TV Tropes lists several examples of recycled music, but it's not good. Gaming forums where people say "look, i already heard this track in another game" and YouTube videos are of course a no no. People reviewing the soundtracks and clearly saying that certain tracks were reused from another are not considered reliable enough because they're only "fans". AMAs on Reddit are not good because Reddit is forbidden. Sadly, that's the best i could find. Like i said, that thing was in those pages for years. Literally ALL other sites just point to the YouTube tracks or are other lesser Wikis with the info copy-pasted from the original Wikipedia edits. Do i have to contact Tallarico personally at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.74.209 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that directly states that Tallerico took a song he used for Black Dawn and re-used/remixed it for that Sonic games. Almost all of your sources failed to verify the whole idea. The only one that alludes to all the necessary points was the Sonic Stadium source, but that's an amateur fansite, not an actual professional publication, and even that reviewer didn't speak with any authority on it - he used uncertain wording like "apparently" when speaking of it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The reviewer didn't use the word "apparently". What do you mean by "almost all of your sources"? You guys literally rejected EVERYTHING. Tallarico is in the credits for both the Black Dawn and the Sonic game. On a side note, there's also another track from the Black Dawn in Sonic which (Great Megalith) is not a remix, it's the very same track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.74.209 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We've rejected everything because none of the sources completely verified the statement. You showed that he created music for both games. That's not enough to verify the specific statement that a particular song originated in one and was then put into another game. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Then what you need to "completely verify" the statement? A mention in a official review from some important site like IGN or whatever? That doesn't and will never exist, sadly. So we can also exclude Sonic Retro from the list? Since you still haven't said if it can be used as a source or not. But i think i never really saw it before. Why is it so hard to add info about soundtracks, even by simply listening to them? It's literally written anywhere that the Sonic track was rearranged from an older game, not just copy-pasted (by bots?) sites that used previous Wiki edits, even people who discussed about that curious thing. Heh, apparently that "anywhere" is not accepted here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.74.209 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct, Sonic Retro is also not usable here. Look, if reliable sources don't verify it, then it doesn't belong here. Not everything does - some things are better left covered at other venues, as fan speculation on fansites. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

But it's not "speculation" if the author is credited on both games where the music appears, and if it can be easily listened in non-usable sources. It's like you didn't even listen to what i wrote, or to the tracks themselves. Oh well, whatever at this point, i'm done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.74.209 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Tower of Latria

You sent me a thanks for putting a Prod on this as excessive GAMEGUIDE detail, but it was subsequently removed. This is not really my field--do you think it's appropriate to take it to AfD? If you do, let me know--I won't proceed further otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

DGG, Yes, I support it going to AFD. The same editor has split out a number of character and locations articles from the Souls (series) video games that I've felt are rather unnecessary. The WikiProject discussed it some casually and there was some pushback from the community on the article, but no one was bothered enough to bring it to AFD it seems. (I spend a lot of time at AFD personally, but I don't usually nominate articles myself.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This may be of interest to you

here. I'm fairly positive (as positive as I can be and am satisfied behaviorally even with a CU) this is one of his numerous socks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked this one on duck evidence, missed that Bbb23 was working on CU check. -- ferret (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Ferret I thought it was pretty ducky (even if CU comes back unrelated) but he kept talking about having multiple accounts on his talk page and a "brother" account, so I figured a CU was worth a sweep. :) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The overlap and the fact that they registered immediately after Serge's block was more than enough duck for me. ;) -- ferret (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for help on this. With him being indef blocked now, please continue to keep an eye out for him - if you report him to me, he'll be blocked on the spot. Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

List of songs...

Hi. Can you please revert the good faith deletion of List of songs recorded by Poppy page? This did have quite a few references (AH tried to adhere to some rules), and there are plenty of these lists just by American artists alone (see Category:Lists of songs by American recording artists). At least let's have a RfD on this if you would. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus at this AFD that all the unreleased songs did not belong on a "List of songs recorded", and that all those random Youtube songs didn't belong there either without third party sourcing. I gave Alex warnings about this, and weeks to rectify it, and he did have time in-between his BLP-violating blocks to work on it, but chose not to. Now that he's gotten himself indef blocked by another admin for block evading, I figured enough waiting had happened. But beyond that, the whole premise is flawed by design. Poppy only has released an album and an EP, and only has 1 notable song. The general consensus is that these "List of song by artist" should only exist with artists with a lot of notable songs. She has one. A list isn't necessary when there are artist, album, EP, and discographys already available. They never survive at AFD. Look at comparable AFDs here or here here or here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the long answer and links, I'll try again when her second studio album is released, it's already recorded although I haven't seen a release date. The earlier RfD was for her unreleased discography, a different concept which our dear deplatted Alex took into account when creating this list, which is quite in-depth and nice work (he was actually a good and improving editor, and, as seen from his sockpuppets when he was banned for a week or two, was anxious to keep contributing). Poppy has a few notable songs (see "Lowlife" and "Bleach Blonde Baby") but only one has an article. As for the other RfD's, piffle and sneeze - this is Poppy (whose fans are of a foaming-at-the-mouth nature). Poppy's newest video, reciting the lyrics to "Havana", seems to be going semi-viral, and is quite enjoyable. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know the other Poppy AFD was about her unreleased content, but the specific responses explicitly said don't merge all the unreleased stuff to other articles, and don't add the Youtube song stuff without third party sourcing, and the second half of the song list article shows him directly disregarding this. Yet another example of him 1) adding unsourced content/not sourcing appropriately 2) not following directions/consensus and 3) doing whatever he wants when he thinks no one is looking. All things that got him blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Theory of a Deadman page moved

Hi there! Need your advice: A user has moved the Theory of a Deadman page to Theory (band). I know that we have had this discussion before on my talk page, here, and I was thinking that this move wouldn't coincide with WP:COMMONNAME (as the band's former name is in over 15 years of sources and is still advertised/mentioned as such in current interviews and tour promotions) but I would like an expert's opinion. Should I revert the move? Or do you think we should leave it? Your words of wisdom are greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Miss Sarita 06:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Miss Sarita - Thanks for saying something. I've moved it back, and "Theory_of_a_Deadman"_or_"Theory" started a discussion on it on the talk page. Feel free to chime in too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for moving the page back and starting a discussion. I will definitely chime in. And I'm sorry to keep bugging you but while I have you here, I need another piece of advice: I am working on the "Tours" section of the article (because its lack of organization is driving me crazy) and I'm confused as to how I should lay everything out. The part that's befuddling me is that, for example, the band had two tours in 2015 to promote their album, Savages. One was labeled "Summer Savages Tour" that went from June–August 2015 and the other was called "Theory of a Deadman Blows Tour" that occurred from October–November 2015. Should these two be labeled separately, with their own bullet point? Or should they be collated into one bullet point that says something like "Savages Tour"? I am also adding subsections for co-headlined tours and "supporting act" tours (e.g., their tour with Bush) (unless you think this is unnecessary), and I noticed that the band has partaken in many music festivals. Should a "Music festival" subsection be created, or is that just overkill? Thank you so very much! — Miss Sarita 17:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem, I'm happy to help. Feel free to ask for help or advice as much as you want. It only bothers me when people giving me a real attitude when they disagree with me. As long as you can respectfully disagree, we're good.
Anyways, to answer your question, its up to you, but my two cents is - most GA/FA articles don't even have a touring section - see Smashing Pumpkins, A Perfect Circle, Nirvana (band), etc. It's usually more under-developed articles that have them, in my experience. If I were rewriting/cleaning up an article like that, I'd personally delete the whole section and just work on working it into the prose of correct respective sections of the band's history. (Or maybe cut and paste it to the talk page or somewhere to keep for future reference or something.) Its up to you though, I don't think there's any guidelines explicitly saying to delete tour sections or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah! You're amazing! Since I eventually intend to get the article to (at least) GA status, I appreciate the foresight in your response. I will refrain from stressing myself out and will remove the entire section and rework the information into the prose of the article (but will dump it onto the talk page first so that it's not lost). Thank you, thank you, thank you! Always a pleasure working with you. — Miss Sarita 17:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I saw your GA nom of "Rx (Medicate)", and your user page, so I figured that was what your ultimate goal was. Happy to help. Free free to ask about anything else that may come up. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Sergecross73. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your buddy is back...

Block evading on an IP. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Please keep reporting this to me every time you see it. Thank you, Chrissymad. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Sergecross73. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Here is his pitiful attempt today. It's adorable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked. Behavior and technical details match. -- ferret (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Yup, I was about to do it, but I was protecting the page first, since it's been hit by 4 separate Alex accounts/IPs now. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Material from User generated sources.

Hello, @Sergecross73

You have warned me that if I insert material which is corroborated by user generated sources, it becomes unacceptable. I have read through the wikipedia guidelines regarding the matter. But I have inserted that edit temporarily till I or someone find primary sources. I can assure you that the edits I made are not false statements. Would I be blocked from editing because I inserted material because it has an unreliable source? You can challenge the source and ask me to cite a primary source, not threaten to out-rightly block me, especially considering the fact that most of statements of most wikipedia articles are completely unsourced. Dajo767 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to "add a bad source until you can find a good one". Find a good source first, and then add the content. It can wait. And yes, continually adding unreliable/unusable source can eventually lead to a short block. I figured it was worth mentioning, since you had already ignored others telling you this.
Additionally, please familiarize yourself with WP:OSE as well - alluding to other shortcomings on Wikipedia does not absolve you of blame of making bad edits yourself. So please, stop arguing and just cease using WP:USERG type sources. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you need reliable sources for each and every sentence I insert in any wikipedia article then I guess I cannot really argue with you. Please take this issue with an admin. Dajo767 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please read WP:V. Everything needs to be verified with reliable sources on Wikipedia. Not sure what you mean by that last part. I am an Admin. And I'm going to take action if you don't stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Alright, admin, with all due respect I got a question for you: If I have a newspaper article with me on hardcopy, but I don't find the same story on the newspaper's website, is it possible for me to scan or photograph that article and use that as a source on a wikipedia article? Would it be a good source? (Particularly relevant in my country as internet penetration is low and most of the information is disseminated through newspapers). Dajo767 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible and acceptable to cite professional newspapers, through means like template:cite newspaper. If we're still talking about esports or pro gaming though, you may be met with some skepticism and scrutiny from others though, as newer, modern, tech-based subjects like esports/pro gamers are rarely covered in an offline-only capacity by reputable print sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Allmusic and genres

Hello Serge,

Is Allmusic considered a reliable source to support the inclusion of a music genre in the infobox for a band? An user writes that one of U2's music genres is 'alternative rock' and uses this unsigned allmusic article about alternative rock [20] as a source to support this whereas the group is not even mentioned in the text. The allmusic biography about the band [21] by Stephen Thomas Erlewine, doesn't also mention either that the band is alternative rock. It is often said that their 1990s albums included influences from alternative acts but it is not a reason to make an amalgam and advance that they de facto became an alternative-rock band.

Is there a discussion somewhere who treats this allmusic issue with genres at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music. I thought that allmusic was not a good source to include a genre in an infobox. I looked for a discussion treating of this subject but didn't find any. Woovee (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Woovee. In general, with Allmusic, it's only acceptable to use them for genre if it comes from the AllMusic prose/paragraph content. Their sidebar genre listed in boxes are not usable.
  • So, for example, let's look at the band A Perfect Circle and their AllMusic entry. Looking it over, art rock could be sourced by the entry, because the opening sentence mentions it directly. Conversely, post-grunge could not be used, because post-grunge is only listed on the sidebar on the right, not in the paragraphs. People did some investigating, and found that the sidebar genre lists are not contributed by the AllMusic writers, but by some third party source AllMusic imports it from, and basically, they tend to have a lot of questionable assertions. So we don't use those.
  • If you check out WP:RSMUSIC, you'll see the current consensus on Allmusic, which is the same as what I'm telling you, and from there it links you to some past discussions on this.
So basically, the only valid means of using AllMusic genre is by directly citing the Allmusic prose. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Is this aimed at me? Because you added it half an hour after I edited the page and it looks like you're doing that thing where you could appear to be speaking generally and giving the answer to your own concern but it's a sly dig. My subsequent summary is directed at you, but I thought I'd comment here to clarify. A few things: I don't really care about the Mainstream Rock chart or much of the music that charts on it, so I hardly ever touch it or bother to follow it week to week. This week I made an exception (the song moved from 21 to 9 in the latest issue). Also, I assumed it was aimed at me because you also said the bit about "if only there was a way...", and I'm quite sure it was either you or another editor who used to add charts sections to song articles commented out in preparation for it to chart and I recall removing it from several of your articles. I used to remove it because a song charting is never a guarantee (WP:CRYSTAL, even if commented out), I didn't find it particularly useful because the wikitable markup is very easily copy-pastable from just about every other song article, and single charts are widely preferred and in use now (sure, not required, but preferred), whereas you used to type it out with a manual ref next to the peak (which isn't helpful if enabled, because with references next to the number value the column does not properly sort—20s values appear directly after 2, 30~ values appear after 3 and so on. This is a WP:ACCESS concern). Your concern appears to be that it wasn't added last week...I know you didn't say so, but Wikipedia isn't going to go to ruin because editors forgot a musical act's peak on a chart. It's not really a big deal that this was forgotten, so if it is a sly dig it was entirely unnecessary. Ss112 11:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was alluding to you. The concern wasn't that it wasn't added last week - I'm usually on top of that - it was that you removed the hidden chart I already had set up. You didn't necessarily do anything wrong, you just created extra work for both of us. (You, deleting it, and me, having to re-add it.) It was in reference to that, not...whatever else all that above is about... Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I re-added the table myself, and it wasn't really extra work. The rest of what I spoke about above was why I remove things like that in the first place and why pre-prepared commented-out chart listings aren't really that helpful. I don't even remember making this edit, but looking back I do think do wonder why you added "1" as the placeholder peak for the Mainstream Rock chart anyway? As for it being a bother to you, it is really is much simpler to copypaste the single chart template already there and change the name to the chart you want to add (so you could have changed "Billboardbubbling100" to "Billboardmainstreamrock"), adjust the peak and the date (if applicable). Hardly any work at all. Ss112 12:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The "1" is just a placeholder until I have a number to add. And the point is that it takes zero effort to add the Mainstream Rock chart because its already baked in to the template I use to create every single song article I create, as 95% of the song articles I create chart there. Its there by default. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-Admin AfD Closure

Serge: First, thank you for thanking me for my non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Ryan. However, I fear that I messed something up, because at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs everything under that particular AfD now has the blue background giving the indication that they have been closed, which is not true. If I missed a step somewhere, please advise. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I think you just forgot to do the bottom half of the formatting for the close, which dictates where the blue formatting of the archiving is supposed to stop. I think I fixed it. And no worries about the nomination either. Some people get so worked up if you go to AFD first, and others get worked up if you try boldly redirecting, but the truth is, either are an acceptable approach. To me, its only irritating when someone goes and blasts 10-20 uncontested redirects at AFD and clogs up the whole system, which you of course did not do. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, it does indeed look like you fixed it. You are surely referring to a couple of recent episodes in which people nominated dozens of albums for deletion all at the same time and said nothing more than "non-notable." I was one of the people telling the nominator just to boldly redirect all of them to save everyone's time. So why not do that myself? It's a good strategy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that was fresh in my mind too, though honestly it's been an on-going debate in "editing philosophy" for years in the music and video game areas I largely contribute in. On that note, it seems like I once saw you around a lot here and there, and then didn't for a while, and now I am again. Whether you're back from a break, or we just haven't crossed paths in a bit, I'm glad to see you around again, as it seems like you generally have good input in discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing my contributions. I was an extremely active WP editor from 2010 to 2014, doing a lot with the Albums Project in particular. At some point I made some enemies who did not condone edits for articles on their band of choice. I got caught in several pointless back-and-forth edit wars, the enemies maliciously rolled back my edits even on unrelated articles, and someone even vandalized my talk page. I was not offended, just bored, and bowed out for about 3.5 years. During that time I still read WP a lot and made minor edits (typo fixes etc.) as an anonymous IP user. A few months ago I decided to jump back in when noticing some topics that needed serious help, and required a user to be truly signed in. So I'm back full-force and the old enemies are nowhere to be seen! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Well that's good. Let me know if you need assistance with issues or people, I don't mind trying to assist or mediate. And yeah, that makes sense, I'm pretty sure we had crossed paths through ALBUMS related stuff in the past, as I've always worked a lot in that area (though I've worked more with SONGS in the last year or so - I was shocked to realize how underdeveloped or nonexistent so many song articles were.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The page Book of Ryan was redirect to the artist page (Royce). The recent updates regarding the album suggest that the page must be updated and restored. https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.46295/title.royce-da-59-shares-tracklist-for-book-of-ryan-calls-it-his-greatest-piece-of-work http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2018/03/royce-59-book-of-ryan-cover-tracklist/

The above links are a good source of information. Abhinav0908 (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Abhinav0908 - I agree. Those are both usable, reliable sources, per WP:RSMUSIC, and cover crucial info missing from before, like a release date and a track list. I no longer object to an article existing. (cc Doomsdayer520) Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I will reverse the redirect shortly but told Abhinav0908 that he/she should improve the album article with those new sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Also true - while there is enough sourcing to meet the WP:GNG, its still going to be a target for others to redirect if it continues to be so short and incomplete. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_61&oldid=834140640"