User talk:HumanxAnthro/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:HumanxAnthro. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi. In regards to your adding positions lower than 200 from Portugal's "top 3000" year-end PDF, there is a consensus to not include any positions on Wikipedia lower than 200 that was explicitly prompted by users adding these, at Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 17#Portuguese Year-End Top 3000 charts (and too much detail in general), which is now in the record charts guideline at WP:Record charts#Charts with more than 200 positions, so please avoid adding these. I spent several days weeks ago getting rid of all of them. Thanks. Ss112 18:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Sidewalks (album)
On 13 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sidewalks (album), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during a promotional tour of Matt & Kim's third album Sidewalks, it was played on the public speaker system of the venue before each show began but none of its tracks were on the setlist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sidewalks (album). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sidewalks (album)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
DYK for New Glow
On 17 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article New Glow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the music video for Matt and Kim's New Glow song "Can You Blame Me" involves fans filming themselves with iPads near their heads playing headshots of the duo lip-syncing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New Glow. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, New Glow), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Video game GA nomination
Hello, I would like to kindly ask if I could pass this GA nomination that I did a week ago to you. I have seen your great work in reviewing articles on WP:FAC and I feel like you can properly check the article for points 4 (Fair representation without bias) and 6a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales). If you cannot do this nomination, that is okay. Thank you. ShiriEditsTalk 03:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, User:ShiriEdits. I will definitely get to that! 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New Glow you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sebbirrrr -- Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The article New Glow you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:New Glow for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sebbirrrr -- Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance tags unless you fix the issue
Hello. Please do not remove maintenance tags unless you fix the issue. The templates' documentation make explicit mention not to do this. Your claim of it applying to "nations" rather than columns is beside the point (and also, the proposed WP:DISCOGSTYLE guideline actually says "A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested", so it's not countries), as the tag also makes mention of WP:ACCESS, with the amount of columns causing width issues on devices. Discographies are not intended to be exhaustive lists of every chart the artist has ever appeared on—not even most of the charts they've appeared on. It's just an overview. I have previously raised this with you and instead, you have exacerbated a pre-existing issue of more than 10 columns. 11 columns already being on an article doesn't mean another or more should be added just because it's already over 10, so no, it's not a "bogus" tag. Thank you. Ss112 03:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrea Bocelli discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Musica e Dischi
Hello!
Are you sure this chart is reliable? It is not mentioned anywhere on the Wikipedia:Record charts page.
Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is this really up for debate? 100% yes. No question, and it's literally the freaking official website of the chart. There's a Wikipedia page about its significance and reputation in the Italian music industry, being called by Billboard the "Italian record bible". Previously, without knowing the current reliable source for M&D positions, we cited them with a one-man website named Hit Parade Italia.it, which we now don't use as it wasn't reliable for how not true to M&D its positions were. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 14:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is up for debate because it was the first time seeing it. Thanks for the clarification MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sidewalks (album)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sidewalks (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please propose changes on the article talk page first instead of reverting
Hello. Please propose your changes on the article talk page instead of reverting and trying to tell me you know more. I'm pretty sure I acknowledged and am very well aware Musica e dischi and Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana are not the same chart and I never said they were. I know you never said you were but to act like the expert on Italy's charts now and think everybody else knows nothing about them because you've been on an editing spree adding Musica e dischi charts to hundreds of articles now is a bit rich. I'm also aware of us generally sourcing Canada's charts from RPM then to the Billboard-published charts when RPM ceased. I'm very well versed in Australia's history of charts. In my summary reverting your splitting of what is respectively four, five, then six albums, I made this quite clear. I said we use different sources for charts all the time on discographies for different periods, but we split for size reasons (per WP:SPLIT—please read it) not because we're citing different charts in one period then another later on.
This is why editors like @Nqr9: have taken care to explain in the citation that we use different chart sources. That's not being "uninformed"—it's what has gone on on hundreds of discographies, and will continue to as long as people make discography articles. Propose your changes on Talk:Duran Duran discography, and hell, even inform Talk:Duran Duran so more editors come and give their opinions. But splitting four–five–six albums up for "a couple of chart switches" is not justified as the sections are too short and is not regularly done. You can think that's "dumb" all you like, but you also claimed splitting one live album in its own section was a "WP:COMMONSENSE edit", which I thought was dumb and absolutely not appropriate nor a justified split. I'm not having a debate about discography precedent with you here, so take it to the article talk page and write it as a neutrally worded proposal. That's how we handle disagreements about article content. Also, wholesale rolling back all my changes when not all of them had to do with your split that has been reverted is not appropriate. Thank you. Ss112 07:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ss112 OK, fair enough. Splitting is out of the question. The thing is, should the "AUS" abbreviation being linked to ARIA Charts, for example, when Kent positions are listed under it? Should we just not link AUS at all and use something like notes to indicate which position is from which chart, because I'm for that if that's another option. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but that's also covered in the citations (explaining pre-1988 peaks are from and wikilinking the Kent Music Report in the citation). Even before I started editing discographies, editors seemed to justify the link being for the current chart due to it presently existing and all new/foreseeable future peaks being on that chart, and that pointing them to the current iteration would benefit readers more, unless a musical act only existed in a certain period (like pre-1988), in which case it's fine to link to the Kent Music Report, for example. There used to be some support from certain editors for linking to generic terms like Australian Albums Chart, even though it's a moot point as these are usually always updated to point to the current chart article. I think it's fine to link to ARIA Charts as the current chart, Canadian Albums Chart for Canada and FIMI now that Musica e dischi is defunct as most chart pages generally have links in the prose, see also sections, or navigational templates directing readers to each of the successor charts/different publishers and explaining their time periods. Ss112 16:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ss112 As a correction, only Musica e Dischi's print and digital mag editions are defunct. There still publishing opinion pieces as late as April 2022 on their website, and their chart is still going if HitparadeItalia is any indication (although we shouldn't necessarily be citing that site for chart positions). 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but that's also covered in the citations (explaining pre-1988 peaks are from and wikilinking the Kent Music Report in the citation). Even before I started editing discographies, editors seemed to justify the link being for the current chart due to it presently existing and all new/foreseeable future peaks being on that chart, and that pointing them to the current iteration would benefit readers more, unless a musical act only existed in a certain period (like pre-1988), in which case it's fine to link to the Kent Music Report, for example. There used to be some support from certain editors for linking to generic terms like Australian Albums Chart, even though it's a moot point as these are usually always updated to point to the current chart article. I think it's fine to link to ARIA Charts as the current chart, Canadian Albums Chart for Canada and FIMI now that Musica e dischi is defunct as most chart pages generally have links in the prose, see also sections, or navigational templates directing readers to each of the successor charts/different publishers and explaining their time periods. Ss112 16:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)