Dylx

Ungodly Hour GA

Hey there, I've seen you've nominated Ungodly Hour for GA status. I don't know how to ask this without sounding annoying lol but could I possibly work on it with you and earn a co-nominator credit? In December of last year I significantly improved it from this to this, and so I am both very familiar with the content and am a major contributor as per WP:GAI. I'd love to help you out bc this album is so good and deserves justice HeyitsBen ^talk 15:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, that'd be great! I'm looking forward to working with you on this! :) -- dylx ^{(t | c)} 15:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Ctrl - GA

Hi. I've noticed that you've nominated the SZA album Ctrl for GA. Great! The more quality articles Wikipedia has the better. However, an aspect that I found interesting, and slightly troubling was in the R&P section. Put simply, I don't think extensive detail about the tour should be include. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice: "Concert tours are not always notable enough to warrant stand-alone articles (see WP:NMG#Concert tours). Instead, information about notable tours and festivals should be incorporated into either the artist's page, or the album article for which the tour is supporting. Do not list all dates here, instead mention the range of dates (ex. June–September 1992)."

Such a large table in a relatively small article can be quite obstructing to readability. Another issue is that it lacks citations, which it requires.

For what it's worth, this is not an instruction. You can talk it over with other interested editors or wait for the GA review to see if it's mentioned. Either way, have fun. DMT biscuit (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: Hi, thanks for the advice! I appreciate that you went out of your way to inform me about this issue. Do you think the page could be split into the existing Ctrl (SZA album) and Ctrl the Tour using {{split portions}}, or would you say that Ctrl the Tour doesn't meet the notability guidelines for concert tours? From a quick Google search, I noticed that the tour has been covered in multiple reliable sources, including Billboard, Rated R&B, and Fader. Thanks again for your help! -- dylx 12:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say it's notable. If the Breeders' 2014 tour is notable than the debut tour of a major R&B artist should be - P.S. that 2014 tour is featured level so may be a good reference point. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I've started the draft over at Draft:Ctrl the Tour, so feel free to check it out if you want. Thanks again! -- dylx 13:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Into You (Ariana Grande song)

The article Into You (Ariana Grande song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Into You (Ariana Grande song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for this! I didn't see this until now, but I just wanted to say you're welcome and also thank you so much! Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No, thank you! You didn't have to take over that nomination for me, especially with all the work that still had to be done on it. You went above and beyond to improve that article into what it has become, and I'm so grateful for that. Thanks again. -- dylx 03:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That Kid

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Deletion of That Kid (transcluded from User talk:Jimfbleak § Deletion of That Kid)

Good morning, I saw you deleted my article almost immediately after creating it, citing "self written vanity page" as one of the reasons? I am not the subject of the article, and I think it's strange to assume that. I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject either. I also believe the subject meets the notability guideline for an independent musical artist and the BroadwayWorld, LVL3, and Paper magazine sources I used fall under the RS guideline. I understand your concern with the Twitter sourcing, and I can change that, but I don't think the article should have been speedily deleted, especially without a warning on my talk page or anything. Thanks, -- dylx 06:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page, promo for non-notable musician with junk refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That Kid

Thanks for message. If your article wasn't ready, you should have written it as a draft, not in article space.

I assumed you had a COI because I've deleted hundreds of these promos, and nearly all are self-written or occasionally written by their managers or agents, so it's a reasonable assumption. My apologies if you don't have a COI.

The point of speedy deletion is that an article is so non-compliant it's beyond salvation, so no logic in notification.

• When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, Spotify, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.

• Your refs are nearly all unsuitable as independent third-party sources. We have Twitter, YouTube, Insta, Spotify, interviews with him, reviews and outright promos. What makes sites like Poptized and Sparky high quality factual sources?
• I can't see how he meets the notability for music guidelines, no award, chart placings, no mention of a significant deal with a major label, just a list of what he's self-released and where he's appeared, a standard musician's CV

• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

• Your text is full of promotional phrases and opinions, including him talking about himself, the opposite of an independent source. Examples include a devoted fanbase and gained traction within the hyperpop subculture... pursued his passion for music... The single's success... driven primarily by fantasy and just fun story telling... sparkly, angsty, and angelic... and so on

• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

• I didn't check

In summary, we have almost no proper independent factual sources, no evidence that he meets our notability criteria, just another self-releasing wannabe.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Hello, I wouldn't say the article was "so non-compliant it's beyond salvation", but I won't argue with you about that. In hindsight, you're right and I should have drafted it first.

I believe the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria 7, Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style, in this case being hyperpop. 1 2 3 4 5 (I can provide quotes from these supporting the criteria if needed.)

I am also allowed to quote what someone said in an interview per Wikipedia:Interviews and Wikipedia:Primary, Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. I never claimed that the subject's projects were "driven primarily by fantasy and just fun story telling" or that they were "sparkly, angsty, and angelic"; I was simply stating that he said those things about his work in interviews.

There were no urls or copyrighted text anywhere in the article.

I'm sure you can also see how your characterization of the subject as "just another self-releasing wannabe" is unhelpful, and as an administrator, I would expect you to be civil. Thanks, -- dylx 17:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Although "wannabee" might be mildly disparaging to him, since you have denied any connection to him, it's hardly uncivil to you, and he's unlikely to be reading your talk page.

If you are convinced that he is notable, there is nothing stopping you trying again, but without all the poorly sourced "he did this..." stuff

You can use interviews, but you need to be careful. Factual stuff like "I was born in London" is fine, but allowing him to review his own music is not. You made it clear they were his views, not yours, but why do we care how wonderful he thinks his music is? It's just self-promotion.

and some of the comments a devoted fanbase'... pursued his passion for music... The single's success... , whether they are your views or his, are opinions, not verifiable facts

I know there weren't any urls links and I didn't claim there were copyright violations, just included for completeness Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of B-side and A-side parameters

Hello. Regarding your addition of the A-side parameter to "Exes" and B-side parameter to "Greedy", this is a misuse of these parameters as per Template:Infobox song#A-side, "If the article is about a song that was released as a B-side of a single...", but "Exes" is not primarily nor only issued as the B-side of "Greedy" when it's a single in its own right released later on. I believe you added these because the songs were issued on some digital platforms as a single together (I'm not aware of any CD single issue). They weren't released like this together everywhere (Qobuz lists both separately, for one example), and even if they were, this is a common tactic to increase streams for all the songs that have been released from an album before the album has been released—it doesn't make one the A-side and the other the B-side. These parameters are primarily for singles that were released in the physical-dominant era prior to the digital age we're in. Some songs gained popularity as B-sides even though they were never A-sides, or, CD singles or vinyls that were A-sides contained non-album B-sides. Using these parameters on singles released separately and at different times is not what these parameters were intended for, and I have actively removed them from pop music articles previously. (Even if the songs were issued on a physical format together, I don't think that justifies the use of these parameters as in 2023 physical editions of singles are extremely limited editions, not a widely distributed format as was usually the case prior to the digital era.) Ss112 17:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: That Kid has been accepted

That Kid, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mach61 (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfair removal of material on Ayesha's page

Hi,

I received your message on my user page and would like some clarification.

Why are Ayesha and her associates' social media accounts and posts considered unreliable? Ayesha is an online artist, primarily known as an independent SoundCloud artist with very few "official" releases on streaming services. Therefore, most citations about her work will naturally be online. I can provide numerous Wikipedia articles that use similar citations. Additionally, if Ayesha's own social media posts and releases are deemed unreliable, why is her Musicbrainz profile, a fan-made site editable by anyone, considered acceptable? Her page is currently filled with tons of false and misleading information; a Wikipedia page is supposed to cover someone's history and that's what I'm trying to do. Beminemylove (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Beminemylove: Hello! Social media posts are generally considered unreliable according to Wikipedia's policy on using primary sources. The information you included in the article violated this policy: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. You are correct that MusicBrainz is also unacceptable as it violates Wikipedia's policy on using user-generated content, and I've gone ahead and removed it. I agree that a lot of information about her is available online, but we must follow Wikipedia's guidelines of what sources are acceptable to use in articles so we can ensure we are providing accurate, verifiable information. I encourage you to review Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, particularly when they refer to living people. Happy editing! Dylx 18:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response!

I don't really understand the logic behind trusting secondary sources rather than the primary source themself, but I wasn't aware that was a Wikipedia rule. Would I need to write my own blog post about the history of her career or create a Wiki page for it or something for it to be considered a reliable citation?

May I also ask if you plan to remove the other 'unverified' releases mentioned on her page, as they aren't backed up by secondary sources? This would essentially mean removing the entire Discography section, as her releases have received very little media coverage.

If Ayesha, a largely online artist's online releases aren't allowed to be cited and "there aren't many" reliable sources, then I question if she should really have a Wikipedia page at all. Beminemylove (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)