User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. 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 5

←

Archive 8

→

Revert

Sorry! Tony (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Also, to turn your user page links that appear for every edit from blinding red to the normal blue, you might consider editing it (even one character would do the trick). Tony (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

hendrix and jagger

it was some disbelief that the categories existed - with no categories and no project tags - for what seemed a long time -

what I dont get - since when do categories about them end up with hidden categories and no visible? it doesnt make sense JarrahTree 10:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: It's because they are eponymous categories with no other appropriate parent. While, yes, Mick Jagger can be in Category:Rock musicians because he is a rock musician, categories should apply to the articles contained within it, so his albums and songs aren't rock musicians and neither is Anomphalus jaggerius. As far as I can tell, making the parent categories of eponymous categories such as these hidden occurred following this discussion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

thank you for the considered explanation - weird - I think I'll accept it... but hell that needs to be flagged somewhere for otherwise ignorant category players such as self... seems tagging categories and adding project tags on talk pages is fraught with such hidden dangers... diffusion and eponymous - sheesh enough to give one a sense of humour... JarrahTree 23:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The more I look at it - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AJimi_Hendrix&type=revision&diff=879759054&oldid=879144262 is wrong - there is nothing in categorisation that says that a category can be or should be free of a visible category - so I think in respect - you are wrong to clear the category of having a category without a parent category regardless. But hey the late Douglas Adams couldnt get a hang of thursdays, maybe I am in the same boat - but it needs a category. To have a category like that is the first time in over 10 years editing that I find such a case, and I have no clear proof apart from your reasoning that it is an allowable situation. JarrahTree 07:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on the discussion I linked you to, these categories are to be hidden. Just because they are hidden, doesn’t make these categories uncategorized. The other side of this is that any other categorization just doesn’t make sense. Placing Category:Jimi Hendrix in Category:Rock musicians implies the contents of that category are rock musicians (although even if done this way, it should go in the subcat Category:American rock guitarists). If you want to change how these eponymous musician categories are currently being categorized, I suggest starting a discussion at WT:WPMU or WT:CATP, or maybe even open an RfC. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I notice that Category:The Rolling Stones is a subcategory of Category:Mick Jagger, but not everything under Category:The Rolling Stones (in particular, the the other members of the Rolling Stones) is a Mick Jagger. Possibly Category:Mick Jagger should be a subcat of Category:The Rolling Stones or Category:The Rolling Stones members. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I notice that Category:Wikipedia categories named after rock musicians (which contains Category:Mick Jagger and Category:Jimi Hendrix) is a hidden category, which says in its infobox "Do not include this category in content categories." - but Category:Wikipedia categories named after rock musicians is included in the content category Category:Rock musicians. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Eponymous categories are general and apply to articles strongly related to the subject. Nothing in Category:Mick Jagger is a “Mick Jagger” except Jagger himself. Mick Jagger is appropriately included in Category:The Rolling Stones members. A member of a band is specific and other topics within the Mick Jagger category are not members of The Rolling Stones. I’m not sure if Category:The Rolling Stones belongs in Category:Mick Jagger or if Category:The Beatles belongs in Category:John Lennon either, but it’s done that way pretty consistently. Contents within eponymous categories are about the topic’s relationship to the person, while entries for specific defined categories such as Category:English rock guitarists are just that: articles on people who are English rock guitarists. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

When you say specific defined categories, I presume you mean set categories as defined in WP:SETCAT. But note that even the WP:SETCAT example Category:Cities in France includes eponymous categories which in turn contain sub-categories and articles about things that are not cities. I know that WP:SUBCAT says

When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also.

but in reality many categories fail this if you traverse more than one level of the tree. Ie this fails:

When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory and its children really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also.

Perhaps that sentence in SUBCAT needs to be expanded to explicitly say "... members of the subcategory but not necessarily its children ...".

As for Jagger and Stones, Lennon and Beatles, perhaps {{Category see also}} would be better than making one a subcat of the other.

In any case how do we resolve the inclusion of the hidden Category:Wikipedia categories named after rock musicians in the content Category:Rock musicians, contrary to the infobox on the former?

Mitch Ames (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You may want to take that question to WT:WPMU. It doesn't bother me that it's there. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Done: WT:WPMU#Hidden Category:Wikipedia categories named after rock musicians is a subcategory of content Category:Rock musicians. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC discussion on List of 2017 articles that is really about proper use of Wikipedia:Article size. Requesting your time because I think a guideline is being misused

Please, I need your input. There is a conversation about splitting an article because of its size, but I don’t care which way you would vote on if it should be split or not. My issue is that the other editor and a companion-in-arms are misusing, mistranslating Wikipedia:Article size. These two are reducing the size of the largest articles in Wikipedia, which sounds like a noble goal, but when I asked what limit there should be on an article size, the response was 100 kB characters. The Wiki-guideline does state that readable prose should be less than 100 kB, but readable prose is the article minus citations, lists, tables, footnotes, and images, so I find the interpretation dangerous. The other editor said to get articles down in size, a yearly list could be cut down in half, in quarters, or even monthly. I cannot picture the easy usage of lists that is divided by month for multiple years. The guideline mostly states lists and tables are excluded from the guideline, so my objection to the split is that there is no justification except a misused guideline.

Basically, I think these two editors are going beyond being useful in improving Wikipedia and are moving into damaging Wikipedia, so I would like you to come to Talk:List of 2017 albums#Request for comment, read the discussions in the two section above it, especially Talk:List of 2017 albums#Redux, and provide feedback. I do not care if you say split or oppose, but to me the discussion is not about the split but the misuse of the Article Size guideline, and I want your and others I respect feedback on the conversation and the proper use of the guideline. Mburrell (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre

Thank you for participating in this discussion. Just wanted to let you know I replied to your comment (forgot to ping). Hoping this discussion will get additional attention. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Examples has been nominated for discussion

Category:Examples, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2019

I'm getting an interesting edit at that article, where the editor is changing the location of the scope="row" part. They are placing it under the song column as a means of emphasis on the songs, rather than the issue dates. (I reverted that edit, but then they reverted me back, and I made one more revert to invite them to that article's talk page.) According to Help:Table#Pipe syntax tutorial, the scope parameter identifies the headers (for columns and rows) in the table, and if that's the parameter's function, then that editor's intent of changing where the parameter goes is in question. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Yes, it is clear that the editor does not understand what "scope" means in terms of table formatting. It is not used for emphasis. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Just file the Ben cases at SPI. Myself or another CU will see them. FWIW, he's an LTA who does goodhand/badhand stuff from what I can tell, and I've been told by stewards he will not be unlocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you, I will. The content he adds to articles in and of itself is not always bad, but he has always been a bad editor in terms of sourcing and notability. He never even communicated until I started redirecting some non-notable articles he created. Once he did, he showed he had no understanding of Wikipedia's core policies and it could not be explained to him. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't say much, but he is a long-term vandal who edits different ways at different locations. There are some technical differences, but there is enough similarities between the technical data and the behaviour that I am pretty sure he's a globally locked LTA. Don't try to reach out to him or be his friend. Just revert and report. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Cory Lee and Alexz Johnson category deletions

Re: this CfD proposal... you are absolutely right, redirecting the articles so the category is emptied and then tagging it for deletion does come across as though I have some agenda against these artists, which sincerely was not meant to be the case. What should I do – withdraw the CfD proposals and let someone else put them up for deletion, or leave them as they are? Richard3120 (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I'd leave things as is. If empty, you explained why they are empty, and if there was a still a redirect, you provided reason why it should still be deleted. I've cleared categories out as well, not because that was my goal, but simply because I boldly redirected an artist's albums that I deemed not notable. I leave it up to Liz and others who patrol empty categories to tag them for speedy deletion afterwards. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The Cory Lee category that you commented on was actually empty before I nominated it, although I don't know if that was as a result of my redirect actions or if it was already empty. I do feel I was justified in redirecting those song and album articles... they were all either sourced to the artist's social media or not sourced at all, and the articles for the artists show just how poor the sourcing is for the sections about their music careers – there really are zero reliable sources for them. Nevertheless, I hold my hands up and accept I made a mistake in putting the categories up for CfD – next time I'll just redirect the articles and let someone else do the CfDs. Richard3120 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to merge category

Please see my proposal to upmerge Category:2016 murders in Turkey. Hugo999 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

MFD

Is there a particular reason why you renominated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject HBO (2nd nomination) without coming to me for an explanation or going to DRV? I don't just count votes and close things. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for not following procedures. I misread DRV as only for reviewing deletion decisions so renominated the WikiProject. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I also think stopping by the closing admin's talkpage is generally good when you have issues with their action. Now this second nomination subverts the consensus established. Honestly I would prefer if you withdrew that nomination and filled a DRV. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Eric Records Page

Please remove the request for deletion for the newly created page for Eric Records (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Records). Saying there is no information for this record label is not true. Eric Records is an established music release company in business since 1969. They are a smaller, specialized release company that does most of their business via direct sales on their official website (http://www.ericrecords.com/index.html), but also has their product available for sale on Amazon. They have an official Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/ericrecords/. They can be reached there or on their site.

The original base of this page came from the converted German Wiki page (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Records), as there was no English equivalent. I've included multiple reference websites for them at the bottom of the page, and I've made all the citations I can think of. I am only a novice Wikipedia editor so I am asking for assistance with fixing things that need to get corrected. GodzFire (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@GodzFire: Sites like facebook, allmusic, discogs, 45cat, musicbrainz, rateyourmusic are not indications of significant third-party coverage. The topic needs to be discussed by independent and reliable sources. Unfortunately, those sources don't exist. By the way, I'm a big fan of Eric Records. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Please keep this new Eric page. Lots of releases by this company, but never a proper English page for Wiki readers to research more about their highly praised (DES) Digital Extraction Stereo creations or high quality mono-to-Stereo new mixes. With modern powerful audio software/hardware and careful sound mastering nowadays, it can finally take off and provide listeners newer stereo experiences with yesterdays mono oldies. Every new Eric releases have received lots of praising in different music forums. It's worth to have a page introducing this new trends and possibilities that many people once thought to be impossible in the past. This new page has just been created for 3 days only, it needs time to grow, more and more fans will certainly come in and improve the contents in future(we just don't have such page/chance to gather together and start it up before). Attached two newspaper source articles today here as a support. [1][2] Chiu.0606 (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Meatpuppet" here. Wikipedia discourages the use of the term. The issue is, apparently, "third party sources". Third party sources are difficult to obtain especially when much of the label's history existed prior to the internet and the existing sources (if a copy exists) have to be digitalized -- if someone desires to do so. The company is independent and always has been -- that means no major publicity from any of the "major players": Warner, Universal Music Group, Sony. The major players have connections, deep pockets, wide levels of distribution and piles of promotional items to garner attention -- even if their releases are of trivial interest. For example, the album "Mexican R&B" on then London (Distributed by then major Polygram) by The Stairs has had its own article for twelve+ years. Working in the music business at the time, I know for a fact that the LP didn't sell (original research) and never charted. Virtually any copies seen today are promotional cutouts. Where does this album fit the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia? Personally, I'm glad to see the article because I now know the UK version of the CD has more tracks. There's a Wikipedia article on Crown Records -- known mainly from the 30s-60s because of the cheap quality of its pressings. What trusted, third-party sources utilized met the Wikipedia standard for this article's inclusion? What trusted, third-party media will fulfill the standard for Wikipedia for Eric Records? If the problem is with the writing, style and the format of the presentation, writing that seems to be promotional -- those things can be corrected. Eric Records history is ongoing so additions to the listings should be forthcoming. PaulBigelow (talk) 20:14, 01 May 2019 (UTC)

Another thing Wikipedia discourages are meatpuppets. I don't look at what other stuff exists when determining whether a topic meets the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Improve the article with what you have found and I'm sure it can be saved. Good luck. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Meat Puppets have their own article. I certainly hope this one can be saved. What were the notability criteria sufficient for the Mexican R'n'B' and Crown Records noted previously? Obviously, some of the commenters are new to this process, including me. Do you make the decision to delete or is it a general request for deletion and someone else actually makes the decision? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, it's just that some things seem obvious to me that may not be obvious to others and vice versa. Thank you! PaulBigelow (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for the correction on my articles :)--Lirim | Talk 03:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

TfD for Red Rose Speedway

I know you've put this template up for deletion, but I can't seem to find any deletion discussion. Am I missing something, or did it not get transcluded properly? Richard3120 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Wow, I hadn’t even paid attention to this after I listed it. It looks like it disappeared with this edit, which itself is a malformed nomination. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that must be it - I thought something must have happened to it... I was just letting you know, because of course you weren't going to get any discussion about your nomination. Richard3120 (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Reviewers don't rate albums?

Can you explain the distinction here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Koavf: According to the AllMusic FAQ page, the reviews are independent from the star ratings. The ratings are assigned by the editors, who only compare the album with other albums in the artist's discography, and it's possible for ratings to change over time. That's why you might see a 4-star rating for an album even if the review itself is somewhat negative. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, Star--you teach me new things all the time. I've been using AllMusic for almost 20 years and never knew... ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange Megadeth categories

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars... what do you make of these recently created categories, Category:Wikipedia featured topics Megadeth studio albums good content and Category:Wikipedia featured topics Megadeth studio albums featured content? Apart from the horribly unwieldy titles, I'm puzzled by them, as they only seem to contain talk pages. Presumably the creator meant to create categories along the lines of GA-class Megadeth albums and FL-class Megadeth articles, but even so, is this something we would categorize on Wikipedia? Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Definitely something I've never seen before. I see there's Category:Wikipedia featured topics Beyoncé studio albums, among others. It seems to be managed by the Wikipedia:Featured topics group, so I don't see anything to be concerned about. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

cfd

I used twinkle as advised. I don't understand why it got the target so wildly wrong. I am working to repair. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

If you can spare a couple of minutes, could you just check that I have done everything I should? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 31 and the category page itself both look correct but I noticed that Twinkle fired off some other notifications etc (in the course of its misdirection) so there must be some other actions that need correcting. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: It appears you may have used twinkle from the Categories for Discussion page rather than from the category you wanted to nominate. You may want to revert the notification at User talk:Grendelkhan, but everything else looks fine. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Essential..." sockpuppetry

Hi. I see you reverted some edits at The Essential Roy Orbison on March 26, thanks. That's yet another sock of BenJ1994, Ben2719941, both of which are blocked and locked. If you see any future suspects, please let me know and I'll deal with them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and Boing! said Zebedee – i have my suspicions about this user: [3], particularly in light of the comment he left on Hughesdarren's talk page [4]. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's him for sure (see the previous sock at Commons:User_talk:Hughesdarren#Hi). But I'm not doing admin things at the moment, so someone else will have to block this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Now 49 us album cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Now 49 us album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Upmerge English operas singers by century categories

Please see my proposal to upmerge to the parent "British" category by century: Hugo999 (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:18th-century English opera singers & Category:19th-century English opera singers

Multiplying TV categories

Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars,

I've spent a lot of time over the past few days reverting edits by sockpuppets of a sockpuppeteer called Son of Zorn who loves to create lots of new TV categories (by decade, nationality and very narrow genres) and populating them with IP accounts. I saw that you've tagged some for CSD C1 deletion and I'd just like to thank you. I still haven't reverted all of their edits and I'm not sure I will uncover all of their work so it helps to have other editors keeping an eye out for these unnecessary categories. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Shake It Off (song) and Rather Be (song) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirects Shake It Off (song) and Rather Be (song). Since you had some involvement with these redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Newslinger talk 01:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to User:Subpage plagarism from Ty654

I just got your message about what exactly the User:page articles your talking about. Really, the charts on my user articles are not exact copies of the charts on the existing articles. Like the "references" part of the charts is left out on all of them. This is so it doesn't look like I'm copying from the original articles. I also worked super hard on them and would hate to see them deleted because of infringement of copyright. But anyway, thanks for writing to me though. Ty654 (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ty654: Hi, it’s not plagiarism or copyright, it’s using Wikipedia as your own personal webhost for all these chart lists that your are making for yourself and are not part of the encyclopedia nor planned to be. It’s not allowed. You can copy them offline or to your own webhost so you’re work isn’t wasted but they can’t be on Wikipedia. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 10:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I understand now. I'm now in the process of removing them all. Ty654 (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I have now removed a lot of the pages in question. For all the ones that are now blank, please start a deletion process on them. Thanks. Ty654 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and Ty654: I commend you both for your attention to this. As this deletion log shows, there were over seven hundred such pages. The remaining pages in Ty654's user space are all earthquakes lists, currently about 25 of them, and it's unclear whether or not further work on them is intended. Ty654: any time you are finished with a page, you can add a {{db-u1}} tag for its deletion. – Athaenara ✉ 10:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I deleted a few too. Only afterwards did I realise that I'd used the wrong rationale! Oops! --kingboyk (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think G7 was ok in this circumstance. – Athaenara ✉ 09:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

WHS categories

Hi, I've just come across Category:World Heritage Site Tentative list and its subcategories Category:World Heritage Tentative List by Bosnia and Herzegovina and Category:World Heritage Tentative List by Colombia. These have clearly been created by non-native speakers of English and need renaming, but I'm not sure of the correct name for each. For the parent category, I think the word "list" should be capitalized, as it each country's proposals for new additions to the WHS is officially called the Tentative List. But it's possible that it should be the plural "Lists".

For the two sub-categories I don't know if the naming convention would be "... of (country)" or "...in (country)", but it clearly isn't "...by (country)". Any help or guidance you can give here would be appreciated. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I don't know anything about the World Heritage Site or the Tentative Lists so wouldn't be able to help with this. Sorry, I can't be of more help. Perhaps there is an appropriate WikiProject you can ask. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Thanks anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Von Stade albums

Thank you for your very kind message. I'll try to learn from your advice and encouragement.Niggle1892 (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ty654/List of Adult R&B number-one singles in 2005

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. We generally do not delete user pages unless the user in question explicitly requests deletion. Please refer to WP:CSD#G7/WP:CSD#U1 for specifics. Thanks, FASTILY 02:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fastily: Would {{db-u5}} be more appropriate per my conversation with the user at User talk:Ty654#User subpages. He blanked a lot of these pages after I talked to him, but he still many more similar pages that he didn't blank as well. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ESCGorilla

Can you revert the new user's edit? Because s/he added an unofficial Taiwanese chart. 2402:1980:824D:93A:2E98:8AFC:FFF4:7D77 (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

When is an album with X not an X album?

Hi again! I noticed that you removed On the Town from the category of Frederica von Stade albums. I quite take your point that many other people - I'd guess more than a hundred! - contributed to that CD, and I agree that it is certainly not a von Stade album in the same sense that one of her song recital records is. But I feel that most readers of a musician's album category page would prefer it to be generous rather than strict. (In the same way, I imagine that people interested in, say, Denzel Washington movies would like to know about articles about those in which he played a small part as well as articles about those in which he starred.) I think it would be a shame if someone enjoyed my page about Arias and Barcarolles, clicked "Frederica von Stade albums" and didn't find a reference to an article about another Bernstein disc that might have interested them. What do you think? Or am I being foolish?Niggle1892 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Niggle1892: You’re not being foolish and I understand your point, but categories are for the most defining aspects of the album. The example of Denzel Washington is a good one because that is exactly why actor categories don’t exist. If one categorized every film that he was in as a Denzel Washington film, no matter how big or small a role, there would also have to be a category for every other actor who appeared in each of those movies as well, which has been deemed as overcategorization. In the same vein, categorizing On the Town just by von Stade would suggest it should also be categorized as an album by the 9 or so other performers on the album as well. If a rock band contributes one song to a film soundtrack, you wouldn’t call that or categorize it as an album by that band, either. I hope this helps. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi once more. Thank you for replying so promptly and patiently. I must admit that nothing that I've yet encountered on Wikipedia is quite so hard to understand as categorization, so I can easily believe that I haven't been using categories sensibly. Thinking over what I wrote before, what I've been doing is essentially to construct a category that was a duplicate of the discography in the Frederica von Stade article, which, apart from any other considerations, would obviously be redundant. Mea culpa (not for the first time, and probably not for the last!). Might a reasonable rule of thumb be that an album belongs in the FVS album category if, and only if, there's a photo of her on its front cover?Niggle1892 (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Niggle1892, I don't think you are alone regarding categorizing articles on Wikipedia. You are correct though that a discography page does a better job on what you are trying to do over strict categorization. I would say a good rule of thumb for categorizing an album in Category:Frederica von Stade albums is the primary act (the lead or co-lead) and performs on all, or nearly all, of the tracks on the album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi once more! That sounds an eminently sensible suggestion, and I shall make it my policy forthwith. Thanks again.Niggle1892 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Group nom of tracklistings

Hey could we do some grouping when nominating track listing templates to TfD? There are quite a lot of them and the arguments are the same for the most part. Maybe nomibate all track listings only used in infoboxes at the same time? --Trialpears (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I only nominated two. I found the second one after listing the first one. I'm sure there are more but I tend to nominate them as I come across them. I'll try to start a list and bulk nom every 3 or 4 months or so. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries, just thought you were looking at Category:Album track list templates since they were in quite short sucession. I may look through the category myself then. --Trialpears (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Doin' Time

I already left a message on PichPich's talk page, saying that I didn't think the article should be spun out... the combined article wouldn't be too long (under 25 kB) and WP:SONGCOVER states that cover versions shouldn't have their own article anyway. I don't think I'm going to get time to do it tonight, but unless someone beats me too it, I think I'm just going to merge the two articles back together tomorrow. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad someone will do it, thanks. Keep up the great work! Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification for CSD page creators

Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars,

I was just looking at Category:Categorys with short description and noticed that you didn't notify the category creator that the page was tagged for deletion. A few months, I was brought to ANI by a category creator who was upset that he didn't receive notification, I was basically admonished, so I always do so now and remind others to do the same. If you use Twinkle, it is easy to set up Twinkle preferences to do these notifications automatically but you have to check all of the CSD categories boxes, in this case, C1, so that all page creators are notified. In my case, I had most of the boxes checked but, as I discovered, not C1. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I don’t see this as being a problem. It wasn’t the reason you were brought to ANI and you weren’t asked to start the practice of notifying category creators of C1 speedy deletions. Unless I read the wrong one, it was the person who filed the complaint who got a little bit of a slap down for taking it to ANI without attempting to communicate with you first. I know if I created lots of categories, I wouldn’t want to be notified on my talk page every time one may be deleted for being empty. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Scream/Childhood

Can you please split the article of double-A side single Scream/Childhood into two articles: Scream (Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson song) or Scream (Michael Jackson song)

Childhood (Michael Jackson song)

There is a clear consensus here and here on article's talk page.Thank you... - Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I requested a split years ago. If there is clear consensus, feel free to be bold and split the article yourself. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spurs is an AFD that you might be interested regarding the article The Spurs. Please weigh in with your opinions to help form a consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really understand why the articles in my userspace have suddenly become such an issue to you, they are not harmful, the top 40 is notable but the consensus on wiki has always been that we only have articles for the top 10 on the UK singles chart, hence why I have not moved them into the mainspace. Surely you have far more pressing interests within the main site in terms of deleting articles. 03 md 00:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@03md: It's suddenly only because I didn't know you were maintaining top 40 lists on Wikipedia for your own personal information. As you said, consensus is not to list more than a top 10 so that means you are keeping these lists for yourself, which is not allowed per WP:NOTHOST. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:52, 27 October 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Change of Redirect

Hi S, why did you change this redirect [5], Emerging Artists. The chart was originally a BB-Twitter chart, Billboard" Twitter Real-time [6] and was revamped, [7] and has nothing to do with Artist 100, other than being "modeled after the same formula as the Artist 100 chart." So why redirect to it? I don't do many Redirects, but this one, a Redirect to the page Billboard Twitter Real-Time, which details the creation and history of the chart, seemed appropriate.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:20, 21 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)

Allmusic

Hi. What do you mean by this? The review page quite clearly states: Allmusic rating, and then there is a separate user rating. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 21:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Teemeah: Hi. I'm not disputing that it is an AllMusic rating, but it's not a rating by the critic who wrote the review. Ratings are done by the editors of the site and it is not a reflection or condition of a good or bad review by Mr. Buchanan.[8] Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of Template:Rfs

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Template:Rfs. I do not think that Template:Rfs fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because completely different target, so G4 does not apply. I request that you consider not re-tagging Template:Rfs for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Let It Grow

A while ago you deleted my page “Let It Grow (The Lorax song)”. To let you know, the song is actually notable, espicially on YouTube. Explain to me what’s not notable about. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@CheatCodes4ever: You're confusing popularity with notability. They are not the same. The song has had to receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Also, the article was not deleted, just redirected to the article on the film. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Well can you please try and create it with reliable sources? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty much on you. Try re-creating it in draft space at Draft:Let It Grow (The Lorax song) and let someone review it before it becomes a published article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I created it. Can you see if it’s acceptable? Let It Grow CheatCodes4ever (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@CheatCodes4ever: Spotify and iTunes are not valid sources for establishing notability. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I added another ref to Discogs, which says the genre. Is it acceptable now? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Discogs is not reliable as its content is user generated. Everything you are referencing so far only tell me that the song exists. You don't seem to have a grasp of what makes something notable. You need to find sources that actually discuss the song like in a review or an article that talks about the development of the song. Even then, if it's not that much, it would be better off as a redirect per WP:NSONGS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Rodeo stub

Just a short note to say thank you for fixing the rodeo stub files. It was obviously my first attempt to create a stub type. I know the actual type should not be plural when you see it in the article; but probably too far along now to correct. Thanks, again. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: No problem. In the future and FYI, you should propose new stub categories and templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals first. You can also probably ask an admin who is involved with the stub sorting project to help with renaming the template back to Template:Rodeo-stub. Happy editing. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice about proposing, didn't realize that. If there's a next time, sure will. And, thanks for the big change in fixing the rodeo stub to be plural. You definitely went above the call of duty. It wasn't my best-planned project obviously. Lesson learned. I do like the image you added, but seeing as it is a logo and is non-free content, it might get pulled. I have done logos for rodeo organizations many times. But maybe you have done this before and know of a different use case here. Regardless, thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: I'm happy to help where I can. You may be right about the logo. I looked for one on Commons but came up empty, then I came across this one already on Wikipedia and gave it a shot. I'll guess we'll find out. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we'll wait and see on the image. What I did was use examples of others' stub files to create mine, and I was able to make the stub work, but it was not optimal. And it's probably why I didn't see a notice of proposing the stub type first. And so I am glad you came along to fix it. But I will be more careful in the future. It's not as easy as creating a series template or an article template, etc. dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know a bot removed the image due to the reason I mentioned before. However, I used the image that another editor drew for the Professional Bull Riders series template for me and Atsme. I think it looks pretty good. dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

“Bing Bong Zoo” not notable

“Bing Bong Zoo” according to Genius, is a smash hit. I know I’m not allowed to cite Genius, but I want to know if that’s true or it’s just a thing for little kids as making it “a hit”. If it is true that it’s a hit, you should not have deleted the page. Also, if I put Genius refs there, I question if it would be okay if I re-created the page. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@CheatCodes4ever: Find some actual reliable sources then you can re-create the article (note that it wasn't deleted but redirected). I would suggest you create a draft at Draft:Bing Bong Zoo to ensure it is reviewed by an editor who understands the notability requirements before it is published. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

In This Place Deletion

It still was a Top 5 hit on what chart it was on. Shouldn’t that get it a page? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@CheatCodes4ever: No. It needs actual coverage in multiple reliable sources, that means where the topic is discussed - not simply a chart placement (especially on such a minor chart). I would recommend you not create any more new pages. Even the ones you create drafts for keep getting rejected. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Focus on existing articles and start sourcing your edits. Your additions are problematic. Rob van vee 06:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy King and Eric Tessmer

You have undid my edits and left no edit summary. I feel that the Templates will be deleted because they do not have enough links yet, and so I placed them in the articles, and you undid without summary? Why was this necessary? Lightburst (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

They are templates. You’ve added them to articles in their entirety, which defeats the purpose of them being templates. I’m not sure you understand how navigational boxes are supposed to work. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I do know how they work. It takes time to create templates, and populate them with articles and links. WP:NORUSH There always seems to be editors who are eager to propose deletion or revert without an edit summary. I will move on. Lightburst (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Lightburst (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Albums by century

I seem to recall a conversation that discouraged categorizing this way but I don't have a link. Do you know if there's consensus for this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Koavf, I came across the scheme developed for Category:Soundtracks by century and discovered it was nominated a little over a year ago (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 2#Category:Soundtracks by century) resulting in no consensus. With that being allowed to stay, I figured it needed a proper parent. If you find the link that does discourage it, I'm happy to revert what I've done and do something about the soundtrack categories, too. Thanks and have a Happy New Year! On to the next decade of editing! Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Totally sensible to me. Here's looking forward to another decade of working with you, Star. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)