Talk:Tinchy Stryder videography

Wikified tag

I would like to have a full explanation of why Dennis Brown has placed a "wikified" tag on a article that a have created once again out of all 1 million+ Wikipedia editors, so we can sort out what issue he now has with this article that I have contributed to Wikipedia. The article is well formatted according to Wikipedia, and why have you placed a "wikified" tag on the article without stating the reason of such an action on the articles discussion page like all Wikipedia administrators and established editors would have known to have done. Thanks. MarkMysoe (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• It was done using Twinkle, an approved tool for tagging articles. The overall style isn't "normal" for wikipedia and the color scheme doesn't pass the contrast test (the light blue backgrounds on some of them have plenty of contrast, but it is very hard to tell what is in each row). Technically, I should have put a "copy edit" tag, but both get the point across. I came across it because I'm one of many editors that patrol Special:newpages, where it was listed as not patrolled (ie: checked by an experienced editor). I didn't pay attention to it being an article you started, which shouldn't matter anyway. Please WP:AGF, it isn't personal. The issue with the colors is still an issue, and is for most articles whereby the creator strays from standard color schemes. Retagging properly. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  And please keep in mind, a tag is just a tag. Most articles have tags. Few articles are perfect. No one is trying to delete it, just clean it up so it looks like all the other articles, which IS the standard set in WP:MOS and the goal of Wikipedia: consistency. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, I have now darkened the shade of the schemes of the light blue to the color shade of celeste (colour), which sorts out the color row contrast issue. This article is a "videography", have you seen many layout of "videographies" on Wikipdeia?, well if not I can give you one example Monica videography, now that is how a few options of "videography" layout can look like on Wikipedia, now as for the color schemes on the (Music videos as lead artis), which is a vegas gold background with a black font, and for the (Music videos as featured artist), which is a ash grey background with a black font, and finally the (Music video cameo appearances), which is a asparagus background with a black font. All the three color schemes are there to separate and distinguish one title from another, so are you now telling me that none of those three color schemes do not pass the contrast test?, if they do not pass the contrast test I don't think these three colors that I have used in this article celeste (colour), vegas gold, ash grey and asparagus would all have a black font on their backgrounds in each of their respective Wikipedia articles. As "for a tag is just a tag" and "most articles have tags", well I can tell you that Wikipedia articles that have tags is not a good thing and can somewhat downgrade the article, I'am not being disrespective to you or your quality of editing but any Wikipedia administrator and established editor would know this fact. MarkMysoe (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• You certainly have the right to your opinion, but I've been here over 5 years with over 12,000 edits, so I think I might qualify as an "experienced editor" ;). But even experienced editors have differences of opinions, that isn't the issue. WP:MOS is and was. And as we have discussed before, pointing to other articles that use the same style doesn't show it is acceptable, it shows how much needs to be fixed. As always, I encourage getting a 2nd opinion from an admin, which I do frequently. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• BTW, now I know why it is harder to read. Regardless of how others are, this one doesn't have borders, like the discographies did. I don't think they are required, but they do seem to make it easier to read. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• That's fine Dennis Brown, I'am not going to get into any argument with you on being a Wikipdia editor for over 5 years and with over 12, 000 edits. The border is required when the list of music videos is included in a "discography" because their is also a list of studio albums, mixtapes, extended plays and singles, which are all bordered, so there for if the music videos were included in the discography then the list of music videos will also be required to be bordered. Because the list of music videos are in a separate article e.g. "videography" then this does not require for the list of music videos to be fully bordered. You can get another opinion if you wish, but now your complaining about the article not being fully bordered. You say that borders make it easier to read, your incorrect about that, yes a full border would make it easier to read a list of studio albums and singles because there is also a list of UK Albums Chart, RIAA certification and UK Singles Chart positions and etc, that would be also added into the border. Now for the music videos all that is required is the name of music video, year of release, music video director and reference, now these four things do not need a full border, especially when it has its own article e.g "videography". MarkMysoe (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The borders were an observation only, I clearly said I didn't think they were required. It was a conversational comment only. No need to read more into it than that. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)