User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars/Archive 9

Billboard dates

I was well aware of this, however, up until evidently what was a few hours ago, the pages were archived at /2018-01-06. Some, like the Canadian Hot 100, are currently archived at both [1] and [2]. Ss112 02:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• I apologize. I was just leaving an edit summary to explain my change. It wasn't meant to be directed solely to you. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion regarding Billboard's change in their chart dating, and I'm seeing a number of edits, particularly at the Hot 100 chart articles changing January 3 to January 6. (Examples: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) Each of those examples resulted in my reverting them, which may be seen as edit-warring at this rate. They are not even bothering to read hidden notes or look at the article from Billboard pertaining to the change (which I placed here); they just assume things are still status quo with the dating. I just don't know how to better get the message across. And with this policy change, a number of articles about Billboard and its charts will need to be updated soon, like where the text reads "Tuesday January 12 – new chart published, with issue date of Saturday January 23" (which would now become Saturday January 16). I've also been scratching my head about whether to put further explanation of the dating change in the prose, like in the "History, methods and description" section of Billboard charts. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless you want to request IP page protection, I think you're just going to have to wait this out. I'm afraid people are going to be just as confused when the next issue is dated January 6. Once it actually gets back to weekly issue dates with the January 13th issue, they'll finally figure it out even if they still don't understand it. We shouldn't have to do too much updating to prose. If there's an explanation for how it works, sure, but the note on some chart lists where it says "Billboard publishes charts 7-11 days in advance" should just go away on any 2018 list because 4 days is not a big deal because it's makes more sense than the week and half date difference. Be patient and happy new year! --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Following up on this: I have requested semiprotection on a couple of the Hot 100 articles (see WP:RPP), though it's been a long wait for an admin to decide on locking the article or declining. The List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2018 is now taking more hits from another IP who keeps changing the date of the first 2018 chart from January 3 to 6, and is even lacing their summaries with personal attacks, which I have now warned them twice about. At this point, I'm gonna leave the article alone for now to prevent any perception of edit-warring, but you or other editors are free to deal with the issue there. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,477 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please help me fix singles for In Concert. Freedom was released from In Concert 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben2719941 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

(mixtape) ?

Your advice please. In what way is a "commercial mixtape" of original songs by an artist selling on iTunes or Amazon not an (album)? I thought (mixtape) was meant to be a digital giveaway of DJ mixes of others material? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know the actual definition of a mixtape, but if it's being called a mixtape in reliable sources, then sure it's a mixtape. But the category is Category:Mixtape albums which makes me believe all mixtapes are albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: List of Ultratop 40 number-one singles of 2004

Hello Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of List of Ultratop 40 number-one singles of 2004, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: 'Not satisified' that this is the default naming convention.Launch a RM. Thank you. Winged Blades^Godric 14:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Can I get this post removed?. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Mendaliv presumably intended to refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and to the thread Can I get this post removed?. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Venezuela number-one songs

Template:Venezuela number-one songs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Omni Series) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Omni Series, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG, but is a useful redirect.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boleyn: Thanks. I only created it to merge the three individual pages that were created years ago for each of the discs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Lists of Grammy Award winners

I'm not sure if you read my comments below:

• @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I fully agree that lists like these serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. As you can see be the lists creator above, rather than even restricting them to one country he has been running the arguments that based on their parentage then the number of countries they represent should be exponentially increased, even when they aren’t even a citizen of that country (ie Bruno Mars & List of Filipino Grammy Award winners and nominees). On top of that we have examples of bands/orchestras which are American but have a member who is from overseas now being included as Grammy Award winners from that country (ie Hussain Jiffry & List of Sri Lankan Grammy Award winners and nominees). Am fast getting frustrated with trying to sort this all out, so concur that they probably all should be deleted. Dan arndt (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC input

Hey there. I don't know if you have WT:WPMU watchlisted or not (wouldn't blame you if you didn't, its pretty dead usually) but I wanted to make sure you were aware of an new RFC related to chart information in articles. I know you work in that area a lot, so I thought I'd notify you. Feel free to chime in if you have thoughts on it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Wow, I can't believe he's going to set himself up to this for the community to weigh in. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised too, it seems 3 editors explaining and asking him to stop wasn't enough. It's hard to tell how much participation he'll get in the RFC though - personally, I'm not sure I'd understand what he's was asking if I hadn't been already discussing it with him... Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

UK Top 10 singles

Hi, I have a query that you may be able to input, in 1952 and 1953 there was only a top 12 I the Uk charts (with a few songs tied some weeks) so we have an article for top 12 for these years. A top 20 came into place in October 1954, so how would I handle that year. I skipped over it and started on 1955 for now but do I do the top 12 until October 1954 and then change to a top 10 with sufficient notes explaining the situation? Or do top 12 until the end of the year then do top 10 only from 1955 onwards with notes on the 1954 and 1955 pages. 03md 00:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Discogs as cite

Oftimes, Discogs, as you wrote, "...provides general info only..." HOWEVER, sometimes, as with Billy Childs' ‎"Rebirth", Discogs contains complete information on personnel and album tracks... If I cite it as a source, it is a true reference... Otherwise, I will try to find the info on AllMusic or on the record company's website or on the artist's website or at some other source... The same points hold true for All About Jazz... GWFrog (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

From my understanding, Discogs is user generated and not considered a reliable source. However, instead of removing it all together, I move it to external links section. Typically, track and personnel information is not going to be disputed and the primary source of the album sleeve or liner notes is completely acceptable. WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents on that topics, of course Discogs is the last resource one should go to for citations, however if a mistake is made on major album (I am unaware of the status or who the artist is so it may not be valid) like here overzealous editors will run after you and correct you, especially in the cases of major artists. I wanted to use the 2 Live Crew ALLMusic bio for some edits here, however their ALLmusic bio made a big mistake on their last paragraph, which in my opinion makes that article totally invalid. Discogs also accepts scan a lot more leniently compared to Wikipedia, so sometime someone will scan the personnel page which you can use.Filmman3000 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. But by using the scan, you're not using Discogs, you're using the primary source of the album cover or liner notes or whatever it is, which is acceptable by Wikipedia for general information such as track listings and personnel credits (see {{Cite AV media notes}}). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Now! 51 & 52 (UK)

What happened to the articles for Now 51 & 52? What do you mean by going against consensus? Why does the Now! 51 & 52 (UK) articles have to be a redirect page?

Please reply ASAP. Thank you! Dat!45 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: King of the Kounty

Hello Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of King of the Kounty, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: while artist has no article, the album itself has notable producers and musicians, so A9 does not apply. Thank you. SoWhy 08:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering

Just wondering why you moved page The Chinaman (rap album) to The Chinaman (album)? It really doesn't matter really but I am curious. Also your two other edits were very good and constructive, but I don't see the value of moving pages. I don't get why have two pages for the same thing just one is album the other rap album?Filmman3000 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Filmman3000: Is there another album called The Chinaman? If not, then we don't have to distinguish that it's a rap album because there is not another album to confuse it with. This is what is called disambiguation. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I was under the impression there was a comedy record by the same name made by Mark Britten. Thanks again.Filmman3000 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Now 99

Ok, so the times of the songs are from the other Wikipedia articles of the songs. (Most of the time, Now! compilations will use the radio edit, not the album. Sometimes, they will use the album version.) For the songs that have no Wikipedia article, I would find a video of the song on YouTube. If I have time, I will get the CD when it releases and edit the times (if they're needed), or a source with the times of the songs.

Thanks! Dat!45 Dat!45 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, removing the times of the songs on the Now! 99 article makes the tracklist box look weird and incomplete. Dat!45 Dat!45 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Jumanji & Wavey (Now 99)

I decided to use iTunes as a source for those two songs. For "Wavey" I was off by a lot from the real song duration, and for "Jumanji", I was just one second off. Dat!45 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Now! 23 (Israel)

So I found the Helicon Records/Music website and I found Now! 23 Israel as an article. It has the tracklist, but it is on the iTunes website with the song times. I was wondering if I'm allowed to make some Now! Israel articles with the sources without you redirecting them. Dat!45 (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dat!45: Finding a site with the track listing is not enough. Being on iTunes is not enough. You need to prove notability of the album by finding significant coverage in reliable sources (meaning where someone actually discusses the album). There are a number of us that want to see all the Now album articles redirected because, while they sell well, there is little coverage of the individual volumes. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Well actually, when translating, the articles actually discuss the songs in it, the album, and how it is based off the UK and US series. I'm not mad at you, I just feel like we need to do some articles on the Now! Israel series. (With the reliable sources) Here, this is the Now! 23 article I found:

https://www.helicon.co.il/now-23-אוסף-הלהיטים-המוביל-בעולם/ (Btw, you have to have google translate on to read the article.) (And one more thing, the language is Hebrew.)Dat!45 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dat!45: It reads like a press release to promote the album. If you create an article, it will just be redirected or deleted. Even the US and UK ones should be redirected like how Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) was. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting Now! Music Articles

So you say a number of people want to redirect the Now! albums. But why are they still existing? Wouldn't the articles by now have been redirected already. Or that by high request to not redirect the articles. Dat!45 (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dat!45: Because there are so many of them and it will take a lot of work, plus there is some sourceable info that we may want to retain and merge. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Now! Album articles

I'm sorry if I'm annoying you with lots of discussions. But can you alteast tell me a short story about how the articles popped up, and what started the argument to whether not redirect or not redirect since you were a user for a long time. One more thing, so since you want to redirect the Now! articles, then why you do you let it slide when we make new articles. I already pre-made the pages of Now! 66 (U.S.) and Now! 100 (UK) before info of the album comes out to public (and yes, I admitted it). I just have too many questions, but I don't want to bother you with all of them. (Its just that I just started Wikipedia)

Thanks..... Dat!45 (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dat!45: Some of these articles have existed for a long time, some since 2004, long before I started editing them. Many others had been created for the Now! series released in France, Hungary, and many other countries you see on Now That's What I Call Music! discography and I redirected most of those ones. The UK and US ones have a lot of fans who want to create pages for them and don't want them redirected. Because most have done well on album charts, which can be sourced, there is some grounds to keep them. But as you now see from Now 51 and Now 52 (UK editions) being redirected, consensus is building that charting alone isn't enough for a standalone article. They won't get deleted but redirected is a viable option. So to answer your question, I'm not going to be able to redirect new volumes if articles exist for the others. I have to have a plan on the best way to do it and then propose it to others who would have to agree. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Not just the Now albums...

Following on from our discussion about what to do with the individual articles for the Now albums (and your conversations above with Dat!45), I hadn't realised that many of the albums from the rival Hits series also have individual entries – see all the blue links at Hits (compilation series)#Complete chronology. I suggest that whatever happens with the Now albums is also applied to these albums – just something to keep in mind for now, but if an RfC is made, we could probably bundle the two series together. Richard3120 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

So Fresh, too. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

And The Annual... jeez... Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call NOW!

The reason why I made the article "Now That's What I Call NOW!" is because the that compilation album is set for release this year. Another reason is that it is a milestone album for the release for "Now! 100", so I consider doing this album's article once the major info and tracklisting comes out. Another thing is that in the other discussions of the Now! albums you said that fans of the US and UK compilations wanted the articles to be created and not deleted. So might as well to do this 100 song compilation for the UK Now! fans.

Here is the source when I made the page (and this should be used as a source for the "Now! That's What I Call NOW!" article): http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/now-thats-what-i-call-music-100-compilation-series-reveals-celebration-plans-to-mark-its-100th-release__21350/

Thanks!

-Dat!45

@Dat!45: Use four tildes (~~~~) to sign and timestamp your posts. I understand your reasoning, but articles should be created because the topic is notable not because fans want them to exist. Eventual sources for a Now 100 may suggest some notability, but it won't be the album itself that is notable but the achievement for the entire series reaching this milestone. This could simply be mentioned at Now That's What I Call Music!. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Now! 100

Also, I have one more question: Are you excited for "Now That's What I Call Music! 100"? Yes, I know looking at this question seems very off topic and unecsessary to ask, but looking at your replies about Now! 100, you seem not excited at all for Now! 100. Dat!45 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dat!45: Living in the US, I have all 65 volumes released here, but you have to remember that Wikipedia is not a fan site so I don't look to promote things that I like. I do look to ensure information is accurate and reasonable based on Wikipedia policy. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable sources for Now! 66 (US)

What type of sources do I use to make the album's article to be "notable"? Do I use a press release?, because I saw and it looks reliable. If not, just tell me a type of source is "notable" for the article. Dat!45 (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dat!45: Just because something exists does not make it notable. Please read WP:Notability. Sources must be independent, therefore press releases or Tweets from NOW do not establish notability. iTunes and Amazon only indicate the item is available for sale so that does not establish notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What if I need the song durations? The Facebook citation has the full tracklist, but not the song durations. Dat!45 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Dat!45: Song duration has nothing to do with notability. If the album passes notability, any reliable source (including the official website or iTunes) can be used for the track listing or song durations. But if it's not notable, it doesn't matter. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Now! spin-off series sections in another page (except US series)

I don't know if this is a good idea, am I able to make a page just for the Now! spin-offs and just stating them like in the Now That's What I Call Music! discography page? (If you don't know what I mean, I mean something like this Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Israel) You are making the pages just for the US and UK series. I just feel like doing a page solely for the spin-offs. Dat!45 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dat!45: Yes, I expect there would be a third page for the Rest of the World volumes, basically what it is now with the US and UK parts taken out. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So does that mean I can make a draft of it now? Should the title of the article should be called "Now That's What I Call Music! (spinoff series)" or something like that? Dat!45 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dat!45: Just create it in your user space...say at User:Dat!45/Now! and have at it. It doesn't matter what it's called for the time being. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Does this work? Or does it need a huge edit? User:Dat!45/Now! (spinoffs) Dat!45 (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Don't Know Why (album)

Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Don't Know Why (album), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Hzh (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

Hi Starcheers, you edit song and album articles quite a bit. If you get time, could you maybe add your opinion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#"Production" should be restored? It's about the use of "production" over "producer" in personnel sections. Thanks if you can. Ss112 02:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Few more

Hey star, could you also add the other non-notable articles to your nomination? Thanks. The editor whose username is Z0 18:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

NOW albums... again

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, just thought you might like to see this post at WP:ALBUMS, and also read the permalink within the post regarding the original request... seems like we had a paid COI creating the articles in the first place. Richard3120 (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Richard3120:. Thank you for letting me know about that. I'm pretty sure the IP is that of User:Slatercj01, who only started editing this year and has been blocked. Who knows if there is a longer history of sockpuppetry by this user? The claim seems somewhat unfounded but it wouldn't surprise me if true. For example, Allan64 almost exclusively created and edited Now album pages starting 11 years ago. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just noticed they put in their "formal complaint" after they tried reverting and restoring the articles for Now 51 and Now 52 which were AfD'd (I think we both contributed to that discussion), and not surprisingly they were themselves reverted. Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Love Always

Hello, Love Always were re-released on May 2018 as Love Always - Deluxe Edition and those were the chart positions. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myxxd (talk • contribs) 05:02, 07 July 2018 (UTC)

Godflesh song list

Hi, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (what a mouthful!), thanks for fixing those little things on List of songs recorded by Godflesh. I don't know if you're the right person to ask, but you seem experienced. Do you have any tips for bringing a list article up to featured quality? Thanks regardless, CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 00:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@CelestialWeevil: I don't think I can help too much with that, but it does look like you're off to good start though. You'll need to ensure it meets the featured list criteria, but perhaps you can list it for peer review or bring it up at the songs project talk page. You should take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Music under "Songs recorded by artists" to see how those ones reached FL status. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Now! album pages

I've had to restore all the redirects you've made on these. I am aware there are apparently sockpuppet/paid editor issues here but, many of the pages have been here almost a decade, if not longer. It isn't appropriate to just remove them without going through the proper channels. Either there needs to be some sort of discussion on the discography page, or they should all be taken individually to AfD. Many of them reached number one, and so are notable as much as any other album that does that. Aiken D 12:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Good Friends (album)

I noticed that there are a number of titles that are Good Friends (something), and not all of them albums, so I have created a disambiguation page at Good Friends and redirected Good Friends (album) to it as an incomplete disambiguation. I realize that I have over-ridden your recent edit at Good Friends (album). If you would like to discuss/disagree/etc, please let me know. Leschnei (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Faces (Earth, Wind & Fire album)

Why did you seek to vandalise the article Faces (Earth, Wind & Fire album)? Samples and covers are an essential section of any album's article on wikipedia. Please express a greater sense caution, regard and discretion in your future editing altogether. Woojy88 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Woojy88: Please learn what vandalism is. I put an edit summary explaining exactly why I removed the irrelevant info. If a song is covered that happened to originally appear on some album, that information has ZERO relevance to the album itself. Even in articles about the song itself, it is discouraged per WP:SONGCOVER. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well then please make the necessary adjustments to all Wikipedia articles with albums or singles that have samples/covers. Won't you? I do eagerly await your necessary edits on all as of now.Woojy88 (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Woojy88: Interesting that I don't see any mention of "Beat It" being covered by Fall Out Boy in the article for Thriller or that "Ventura Highway" was sampled by Janet Jackson in the song "Someone to Call Me Lover" in in the article for Homecoming by America. Know why? Because it is completely irrelevant. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Well then please make the necessary adjustments to all Wikipedia articles with albums or singles that have samples/covers. Won't you? I do eagerly await your necessary edits on all as of now. As that's so I'll restore the said article from your acts of vandalism and bias altogether.Woojy88 (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Woojy88: Please look up the definition of vandalism and get back to me. You don't seem to know the meaning of the word. When you can prove it is vandalism, you can restore. I suggest you take it to the article talk page or I may have to report you for not working in good faith. You have provided no valid reason why later covers and samples belong in the article of the album that just happen to contain those songs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Earth, Wind & Fire Horns

Just had to cleanup some poor editing made by you on the article Earth, Wind & Fire Horns. As I said before please express a greater sense caution, regard and discretion in your future editing altogether. Woojy88 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Woojy88: Please assume good faith. I removed this sentence which had 2 citations attributed to it: "The album rose to No. 2 on the Billboard Top Jazz Albums chart", and I know that AllMusic DOES NOT provide Billboard chart information any longer. If the citation was attributed to the incorrect sentence in the first place, then thank you for returning it for a proper citation and fixing the error by the editor who put it in the wrong place originally. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Cleaned up some poor editing again made by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars on the article Earth, Wind & Fire Horns. You should always place the year of an album's release next to the album itself. This would avoid one becoming confounded about the recording date and the issue date of an album.Khloa44 (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your passive-aggressive advice. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (2001 TV series)

Before we get into a WP:3RR issue figured I'd talk. Unless the policy has changed you're not supposed to link/redirect to Draft space. If the page needs deleted then no issue, I'll back you on a speedy delete. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

When I've seen articles moved to draft space before, I've seen the resulting redirect automatically deleted, although I don't know if those are done by a bot or someone who patrols those types of moves. Since someone was trying to circumvent the original move to draftspace, I thought a redirect to the draft would simply result in the same type of deletion to the redirected title that I've seen before. I appreciate the education. Do you know which speedy deletion tag is the appropriate one to use? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

R2 is the correct rationalization. I tagged it as I have Twinkle. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:The King of Queens characters has been nominated for discussion

Category:The King of Queens characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:The King of Queens episodes has been nominated for discussion

Category:The King of Queens episodes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. AussieLegend (✉) 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD

I'd just like to remind you that WP:BRD says "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." BRD applies to all edits, including category changes. That you believe the creation of tiny categories is appropriate does not negate the fact that your edits to several articles were opposed and in such cases it is up to you to gain consensus for the changes, not for the person opposing your edits to do so. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Key words in WP:BRD: "optional method", "not mandated"

• You are also not allowed to tag categories as empty when you emptied them out of process. The discussion was going to be taken to CfD regardless and that is where this discussion should take place, so everything is copacetic. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD is widely followed and if you edit-war without following BRD you have a much greater likelihood of being blocked. There's really no excuse not to follow BRD. It's quite appropriate to tag any empty category as empty. I suggest you review WP:C1. You don't get to bulldoze your preferred versions into Wikipedia and expect others to gain consensus to revert your edits. It's completely the other way around. If your edits are reverted it's up to you to gain consensus to include them. After 8 years you should know that. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Of Individual Now That's What I Call Music Pages

Hello.

The reason I am messaging you is that I have recently become aware that the individual pages for Now That's What I Call music albums were recently deleted on the rather spurious grounds that they were not considered notable enough to warrant being kept, and your name seems to appear as one of the chief people in deciding this. If I am wrong in this, I apologise, but I have to say that this decision is, in my opinion, totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. By what measure do you decide if an article is worthy of being kept or not? Surely if just one person uses the page to obtain information, that is enough? Sorry, but this decision is totally against the best interests of music fans. Minors2018 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Minors2018: Thank you for your message. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Notability. Existence alone isn't enough to have an article. The decision to redirect wasn't made by just me, but through consensus and discussion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to provide people with information, seems that sadly a few people have taken the decision to deprive the rest of us of that information. And please don't come back with the old "the information you require is freely available elsewhere" most of what is found on Wikipedia is if you look hard enough. I bet no music fans were involved in the decision to delete these articles. What is the point in people taking time to produce these pages if they are simply going to be deleted as they are not considered "notable" enough to warrant their place in Wikipedia? Is there some sort of space limitation that requires pages to be regularly culled? Minors2018 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

First, the point of Wikipedia is not to provide information, it is to provide information on notable topics. Popularity ≠ notability. Notability is achieved when the topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I can't speak for others, but I'm a music fan and chart enthusiast and in fact own all the US NOWs., but I also realize Wikipedia isn't a fan site either. This is not a place to come only to find out what songs are on an album. It's supposed to offer more than that, and there's just not much more to offer for any of these. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I could not disagree with you any more about this if I tried Star. What is defined as Notability? Surely if just ONE person refers to these articles for reference purposes, notability is established? I own all the UK releases, slightly anal possibly as they do contain lots of, shall we say, less than stellar tracks, lol, And as there is not a "must cull to save space" issue here, or so I believe, why remove them? I do apologise if I seem to be slightly ranting here, but I am passionate about this, these articles had useful information deleted for what I firmly believe to be spurious reasons.

Minors2018 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I also consider myself a huge music fan (you'll see most of my edits on Wikipedia have been related to music articles) and I own most of the first 20 UK Now albums, as well as the first six Hits albums, bought back in the 1980s and early 90s when I was a teenager. But the individual albums still don't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability as stated in WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk)

And precisely what I disagree with. Who has the say on what is notable or not? Somebody took the time and effort to create the pages affected, only to find their efforts deleted for the lamest possible reasons. As said earlier before, I believe this action goes against what I believe Wiki was set up to do. And for the record, I do not appreciate being labelled a talk page stalker!

Minors2018 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Minors, Richard was identifying himself as a talk page stalker. Notability requirements are specifically stated at Wikipedia:Notability. When there are concerns about the notability of a subject, it's brought up for discussion or debate until a consensus is reached, and has been pointed out there have been numerous discussions over the years about this. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

My apologies to you Minors2018 if you thought the stalking comment was aimed at you, I was indeed talking about myself. I just wanted to reply to your assertion that "no music fans" were involved in the decision - as you can see, at least two of us own a collection of some of the Now albums, so we certainly aren't prejudiced against them. Richard3120 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to accept I was wrong with the stalking comment, and also that fellow music fans were involved. However, I shall not be swayed in my opinion that the removal of these articles was and is wrong, I'm sorry if you feel I'm being awkward here, but I am incensed at this, as you may have gathered, and I am far from happy with this decision, and shall continue to vent my annoyance.

Minors2018 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

And there are venues to do that. The albums project talk page (WT:ALBUM) an option to reach out to other knowledgeable editors on music topics. You can also ask for an WP:RFC where you can reach out to the community at large for comments. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

List of number-one hip hop albums of 2018 (Germany)

Hello, you put a notability and primary notice on the top of my page. I'm not quite sure what the problem with the notability is. I understand that two sources direct from gfk are not enough, so I added two independent ones. Best regards, Lirim | Talk 03:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Savage Arms Company firearms

Thanks, you beat me to the punch.--RAF910 (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Brosmania

Dear Sir just quick email to say I will contesting your request for deletion of the page the album deserve published and is part of Bros music history the page is not orphan page and will link to the following, bros, the time, bros singles, pages as relates to the same group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryConroy5 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@HarryConroy5: I certainly encourage you to do so. That's what discussion is for. But be sure to discuss it at its Articles for deletion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brosmania Album, not in the article itself. Thanks and good luck. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Album redirect

Please keep the categories if you redirect an album article. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Koavf: I've nominated the category for deletion. There's useful categorization of redirects and then there is not. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

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 a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

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 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.