User talk:Mburrell

Welcome!

Hello, Mburrell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

‎Little Robbers

Thanks for contributing new article Little Robbers. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources. Please help by adding more sources to the article you created, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the material (see here for how to do inline referencing). Many thanks! PS If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. LongLiveMusic (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. You can click here to see templates on citing sources in Wikipedia. If you are going to use a CD liner, make sure you provide the writer of the liner if they are mentioned. LongLiveMusic (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you were adding WikiProjects as categories to albums you have created. To add albums to the appropriate WikiProject, just add the template, {{WikiProject Albums}} to the article's talk page. In regards to your question you posed to LongLiveMusic, to cite liner notes, you can use {{cite album-notes}}, filling in as much info as you can. I hope that helps. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bearfoot

I was just looking at the Bearfoot (American band) article and noticed all of the work you did to fix up the references. Thanks! I am a bluegrass enthusiast, and I'm trying to work on these band pages, but there are so many without references. It's great so see one that's already done! —Anne Delong (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JJ page

I edited Joan Jett's wikipedia page per the request of management.

Please do not edit the page again. You can feel free to look me up online and see my relation to the label.

Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, I am more than happy to discuss here or offline. Gabegodin (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Mburrel-

I apologize if you took my words out of context - I did not mean to be abrasive but rather hoping to ensure that the content is accurate. I do indeed work for Blackheart Records and am writing on behalf of Kenny Laguna, Joan Jett's manager for over 30 years.

Below is a note from Kenny Laguna - please keep this on our talk page conversations. Thank you in advance. You may find my email on the blackheart.com contact page if you would like to discuss this matter off of the wikipedia site.

---

To Whom it may concern:

There is a good reason that Joan Jett requested an adjustment to her wikipedia bio.

It was over-emphasizing Suzi's relevance to Joan's biography, and, after an occurrence where Governor Howard Dean was confused by the references, Joan herself specifically requested it be removed. There has been nothing about her real and personal relationship and inspiration by Robert Plant, Pete Townsend and Steven Tyler, and so, it is inaccurate to give that weight to Suzi Quatro, just for example.

We would appreciate your support.

Very truly yours,

Kenny Laguna (joan jett's partner since 1979) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabegodin (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NERVO

Ok, I get it I will not use blogs as a reference --Felipeedit (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mburrell!

A couple months ago, I didn't know how to add or create an album; something like that, so I asked you to do it; I think it had something to do with list of 2016 albums. Well, since that time, I've learned a lot! In fact, I have created a lot of pages now, such as "Wasted Love" (Steve Angello song), "Children Of The Wild", "Remember" (Steve Angello song), "Tiger" (Steve Angello song), and "The Ocean" (Steve Angello song) just tonight. I did some other wiki things, but that's basically all of the pages that I have created. If you want, you can check those pages out. But yeah, I just came here to thank you. Because if you hadn't said what you said about me having to create the work myself, I would just keep postponing these projects or begging others to do them for me. Now I can hold my own as a wikipedia user. Thanks. :)

                                  Sincerely, Infopage100 00:57, June 19, 2016‎

"Here is a nice smiley for a nice guy."

Thanks Mburrell, for being such a nice guy! And thanks for taking a look at the articles I created! It means a lot to me. I wish you a good day. Bye. - Infopage100 11:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This (The Motels album)

I see that you reverted my change to the hatnote at This (The Motels album). When intentionally linking to a disambiguation page, the link should go through the (disambiguation) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. This allows those of us who fix ambiguous links at WP:DPL (and the bots that help us) know that the link is intentional. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 22:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple thank you.

I just wanted to pay a visit, and say thank you, as I really owe you one for teaching me most of what I know.So... Thank you. Your contributions here on Wikipedia are always appreciated, and your advice is simply stellar and amazing.

Simcerely, Infopage100 (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Mburrell, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede 66 08:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection (Adina Howard album)

I get why you removed the Twitter sources on Resurrection (Adina Howard album). Personally, I don't like citing Twitter if I can avoid it, but in this case it appears to be one of the only sources of information on the album (and allowable per WP:TWITTER, as Howard is talking about herself and what she's doing). If better sources could be found, those would be preferable, but the album didn't chart and I think most music outlets wouldn't cover Howard anymore anyway. (Also, if you respond, please reply on your talk page. Thanks!) Ss 112 01:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is Twitter, it is not a reliable source. You are correct that WP:Twitter does say that it can be used, but look at the paragraph header, which is Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Right in the header it says the source is questionable, and that it must satisfy strict guidelines to be used. I may have been wrong about deleting the sources, but I think it is up to you to prove I was wrong in this case, because the source is defined as questionable by Wikipedia to begin with. The preferred sources to be used for citations should be secondary sources (WP:SECONDARY), which are news articles by reputable magazines and journals, with at least a regional or larger size. Primary sources, such as record companies or commercial sites like Amazon or iTunes can be used for very specific details, such as who a producer is, or when the release date is, but cannot be used to prove notability of a subject. In addition, an article with 30+ citations for two paragraphs is likely over-cited (WP:OVERKILL). After paring down the citations, the article had about 11 citations, which is about right for two paragraphs. If social media is the only source, then a general rule is don't list it. Remember that Wikipedia is not a blog cite, but an on-line encyclopedia which everyone can edit. Encyclopedias need to be neutral and definitive. When you joined Wikipedia, you were probably linked to Wikipedia:Five pillars. When editing or creating an article for Wikipedia, think if the details are what you would expect to see in a published encyclopedia such as Encyclopædia Britannica. YouTube videos are not absolutely forbidden, but what the videos must be is a news source, like a video clip of a Loudwire news session or interview. Citing a video, which may or not be legally posted is not a good idea. Finally, articles in Wikipedia need to be notable. If the album did not chart, and news sources did not cover the album, it is questionable whether there should be an article for the album at all (WP:NALBUM). I have created articles for albums that I thought might not be notable, but I did a hell of a lot of research and found some news articles somewhere. Alternatively, if the album is not notable, I listed the album and details on the artist or discography page, using guidelines suggested by Wikipedia administrators a few years ago (see Mel Parsons or Ana Popović discography for my approach to this). Not every album requires an article. Mburrell (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mburrell, thanks for the paragraph, but I feel like you're speaking down to me as if I don't know what Wikipedia is or what sources are preferred. I've been here for over ten years, am very well aware and don't need to be educated on the subject. I didn't create the article, I didn't add the sources, and I don't really care in the long run if it is determined to be non-notable (in fact, last year I left the summary: "How has this survived for six months with no reliable sources? Is this Wikipedia or a fansite about irrelevant R&B singers trying to stage a comeback album?"). I simply objected to you removing the sources for the stated reason, and because it left quite a bit of unverified information otherwise. If you think that's just me using an excuse to refuse to do a "hell of a lot of research" like you, that's great—that's not my experience. "Questionable" or not, the sources are allowed as a source is speaking about themselves. I didn't message you here to start a debate, only to let you know why I reverted you. Ss 112 02:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for how you perceived my tone. Talking by paragraph does not allow feedback on tone, so that I can't read you until you respond, but it was not my intention to give the impression of talking down to you. I was just trying to provide a complete answer that can be used by you or anyone else who might follow the conversation. Again, not reading the subtext, I took your messaging me as a start of a discussion because of your final sentence in italics. I am a blunt person, so a blunt sentence like (This is just a message to inform you of my actions and not a start of a discussion.) would have worked for me. Mburrell (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your work on keeping List of 2017 albums (and the upcoming 2018 albums list) in good shape! Ss 112 02:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2018 albums

Hey Mburrell, I reverted an IP editor just before for adding around 4kB of information (mostly unsourced/unsupported genres), but they also cited a Rock Sound article revealing several bands are "releasing new music in 2018". The editor listed all the bands present, however, I reverted because the article did not explicitly say albums were coming from the named bands, just "new music" and then another sentence that said "new stuff" from several other bands. I thought "new stuff" could mean anything, not necessarily EPs or albums. Not sure if the editor will be back, just informing you in case you see this and hoped you'd agree with the reversion. (Just a note, if you reply here, no need to ping me, I watchlist talk pages I write on) Ss112 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ss112, thanks for the heads up. Since we overloaded the 2017 list, I have been thinking more about what shows an album to be notable. One editor who was razing an album article to the ground stated that an article about a song that then mentions the album in the article was not sufficient to prove the notability of an album, just about the song. In the same vein, I am not sure that an article that lists several albums as upcoming proves the notability of any one of the albums. After a bit it just becomes a list. In general, I would like to see several articles about an album available, then I will select one that I think covers the details the best, or one with a familiar author. If there is only one article, the notability may be questionable. I am a lot more flexible about foreign albums. Australia does not have the same amount of press, so I will take any article or review. For a limited size genre like Christian rock, I will look for one or two reviews. For US or English mainstream genre albums, I have been going to a higher standard of notability. I am not absolute on this, as I don't want to discourage new editors, but I would like a middle road between the Wiki-Notability rule-lawyers and those who list an album if there is proof it exists. Mburrell (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2018 albums

Thanks for your help, patience and all the explanations on the 2018 albums list page, I totally get it's important to prevent changes that doesn't reach a certain level of quality, and kudos to you for being part of it! All the best, ToopeeFr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Is this reversion based on any standard? In the process of getting a draft accepted people complain "it's an orphan, no incoming links". If we can't add the link beforehand, then every draft will be an orphan. This seems like a double bind. - Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quote a standard, but if you look up Ss112, he might be able to. I am reverting based on behavior of other editors, especially Ss112. I can't speak of the difficulty of getting a draft accepted, as when I have created articles, I just created an article, and I linked to other article during creation. After creation, I then go to the other articles and link to the created article. I don't know if you created an article and someone moved it into draft, but it isn't difficult to create an article. Use your sandbox to assemble the article, create the links and formatting you need, and then open another Wikipedia window, and type in the title you want to use. If it is not used by another article, Wikipedia will state that the article does not exist, and do you want to create one. You say yes, then transfer the article you created in Sandbox into the newly created article space. Do a preview to make sure all elements are working, and publish changes. Again, I don't understand what is this draft space is, and why other people are preventing you from turning it into an article. If someone challenges the article and says that it is an orphan, state in the new article talk page that upon acceptance you will link various articles that apply to your new article. If that doesn't appease the naysayers, send them to my talk page, and I will discuss it with them. In the mean time, I am not looking to allow article links to unaccepted articles. Good luck. Mburrell (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: You don't actually have to go through the AfC process to make an article. You can just create/move the content (as you are the creator) at Ahamefule J. Oluo yourself (it's currently a red link). AfC is just a process for experienced editors to assess an article's notability and sourcing before moving it into mainspace. I think your article (which you created in your userspace, then tagged with AfC assessment, which was then moved into draftspace, as that is the proper place for a pending AfC submission) is sufficiently sourced and establishes some notability. So just click on the red link and copy your created content there, then add the links. I would generally say for List of [year] albums articles, red links would be far too plentiful to add for every producer or label listed for every album, so we should draw a line and not include them. They should only be added when helpful (which is always a debatable concept) or very likely to be created. Ss112 03:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: I won't further dispute the judgment on List of 2016 albums. As for the draft, an earlier version of this had been deleted for lack of notability, and I was told by several people that it is inappropriate for anyone, even an admin, to override that unilaterally. The process described at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion allows userfication, but doesn't say anywhere that the user in question, even if an admin, can unilaterally bring the article back to "main" space. Also, as you can see at the top of Draft:Ahamefule J. Oluo, User:Robert McClenon seems to feel it has to meet criteria specifically for musical notability; I think he's wrong, but since we disagree, and the now-extended article is mostly my work, I think it's best to let a third party make the final decision. Feel free to be that third party! - Jmabel | Talk 16:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted and Vicious (tracks) - Halestorm

Conflicted:

You can find the auto-generated by Youtube track that is "provided by Warner Music Group". In its credits, the writers are: Andre Davidson Ingrid Andress Joseph Hottinger Lzzy Hale Michael Pollack Stephen Puth (!! Not Charlie) The credits on AllMusic are indeed messed up. StefanAtreides (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqSDxjzlXU4. I hope you can open it because I know this is not available in all countries. "Published on Jul 26, 2018

Provided to YouTube by Warner Music Group

Conflicted · Halestorm

Vicious

℗ 2018 Atlantic Recording Corporation

Assistant Engineer: Jordan Logue Bass Guitar: Josh Smith Drums, Vocals: Arejay Hale Engineer: Nathan Yarborough Engineer: Nik Karpen Guitar, Piano, Synthesizer, Vocals: Lzzy Hale Lead Guitar: Joseph Hottinger Masterer: Ted Jensen Mixer: Chris Lord-Alge Producer: Nick Raskulinecz Synthesizer, Vocals: Joseph Hottinger Synthesizer, Vocals: Josh Smith Technician: David Brown Technician: RockFalcon Technician: Scotty "Doc" Dachroden Writer: Andre Davidson Writer: Ingrid Andress Writer: Joseph Hottinger Writer: Lzzy Hale Writer: Michael Pollack Writer: Stephen Puth

Auto-generated by YouTube. "

Vicious: Hale, Hottinger, Chloe Churko, Kevin Churko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5vpalD5skw So, according to this, it's Chloe, not Kane. You decide if these are reliable. Thank you!

@StefanAtreides: Stefan, I will take the listing for the song writers for Conflicted, because that matches with a Revolver article, Halestorm's Lzzy Hale on Bad Thoughts, Good Sex, Re-Finding "Mojo" With New Album, but I reject the YouTube credits for Vicious. On the track listing, I provided a citation just for the Vicious track because I did find listing for Kane, and another for Chloe, and I found the news article citation more reliable than an uncited attribution. Thank you for locating a more believable listing for Conflicted. Mburrell (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You badly need to refresh your understanding pg WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. A nonfree album cover may only be used as an identifying image in the article whose principal subject is the album itself. Policy and consensus on this point have been long and clearly established. Rather than continuing to edit war to restore inappropriately used images, you should raise your questions on an appropriate NFC policy-related discussion page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and you are wrong. I will comply, but you interpret too strictly. A non-free album cover may also be used in articles about the artist or musician if there is significant discussion about the album cover art. I cannot perform a critical discussion of the cover art. All the information was buried in discussions referenced in the footnote, which I did not notice before. So I say this. 1) I will comply 2) You make articles worse 3) You support Wikipedia's mission better Mburrell (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I call bullshit on your defense of edit-warring that you used on the HoneyHoney article, by saying it is not edit-warring if done for the right reasons. First off, right reasons are questionable. Second, provide the rule or citation that allows three edits in a 24 hour period for the right reasons. Mburrell (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting List of 2017 albums

You've indicated that you object to certain guidelines being used to justify splits. Can we then agree to split the article based on reasons other than any particular reading of a guideline? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onetwothreeip, we share different philosophies. I think Wikipedia is better for these large unified lists, and I interpret your philosophy to be that large articles are unnecessary and inhibit editors from improving overly large articles. In the postings I sent out improperly to various high-level editors, one statement in that expresses my view of your approach, going beyond being useful in improving Wikipedia and are moving into damaging Wikipedia.

I am not sure what the intentions of those who control Wikipedia are, but I doubt you created the articles that list Wikipedia articles by size, so it shows that to some, there is a concern about size. This is why I would like to hear from the people who have an overall vision of where Wikipedia should be headed. It might be that my philosophy is wrong. I have been keeping an eye on the earlier article size list, Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles by size, and when I first saw it, there was one article that was over a million characters long. I went to that article, and it took a rather long time to open. I am in agreement that articles over 1,000,000 characters are too big. However, there were just a few months ago about 28 articles bigger that List of 2017 albums, and about 60 articles bigger that List of 2016 albums, and I mourn the reduction of many of those that were lists. The Supreme Court law clerks list was justified in being split because in the words of one user, it kept growing with no sign of slowing down, but others, such as British Honours lists for some years in the 1920s was probably not going to keep growing, and was fine how they were. I just don't know where the size cut-off would be, but I felt those list under 750,000 characters total responded well when visited, but then I have a decent computer, if about 4 years old, and could be wrong about the technical issues.

I do believe that you will eventually position the album lists to be split. I think you will convince the community to split the list because the large lists now are not as large as the large lists a few months back, and eventually people will argue that the album lists are way too large compared to the other lists, and the lists will be split. I just don't believe that the lists are too large, and that editors and users are finding these large lists as inconvenient.

I am trying an experiment when I have some free time and going to try editing these large lists using my iPhone SE (several years old smart phone) and a slow bandwidth region (the back of beyond, where I work) and seeing if editing is very difficult. I have already tried opening and reading the lists under these conditions, and had no problems. I also want to try Visual Editor, which I have only tried once, earlier this week, and see if that throws in some complications. My one attempt using it this week showed me that it was a bear to use on the iPhone 4" screen under any circumstances.

Long explanation short, I disagree with splitting many of the long lists, not just the one we are in discussion about. Mburrell (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that shorter articles are preferable to large articles where possible, and the larger the article, the harder it is to edit and to read. The people who have a vision of what Wikipedia should be are all of its contributors, and those same people are they who have the power to change it. As for the British honours lists, it was definitely too much to be on one article given all the different honours that were awarded. I think it's worth noting that there's only one featured article with more than 300,000 bytes, Barack Obama. If you want to conduct that sort of experiment, I recommend having multiple tabs open as well. The visual editor is by far the biggest problem, since many people report that their edits simply cannot be saved when the article is too large and I've had that problem too. I don't see how splitting articles, particularly less than a hundred articles, is damaging Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just comments about some stuff, not substantive. I discovered this wonderful tool linked on the Wikipedia:Article size page called XTools. It shows how much prose is in an article. The Barack Obama article, despite its size, only has 80,000 prose characters. The Beatles have more prose, at 98,000 characters. Now, the Barack Obama article has way too many hyperlinks. Does foreign student need to be hyperlinked, or senator, or civil rights. That is truly distracting, and there should be limits on that sort of thing. You might be right that splitting 100 articles is not damaging Wikipedia, I just got the impression that 100 would grow to more. When List of 2017 albums was split, the latter half was something like 167,000 characters and still a May be Too Long tag was added to it, so I just felt this was going to be ongoing. Sorry, just threw some substantive stuff in the comments. Logging off for the night. Mburrell (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all articles that are too long should be split. Some of them should be condensed, elements can be removed, they can be deleted, or parts can be moved to other articles. I've noticed that a lot of the entries for List of 2017 albums don't have their own articles. Are these necessary to have on the article? There's also a lot of references, is there any way that many of them can be merged? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The references cannot really be merged. In order to show notability, an album must have a independent third party (also known as a reliable news source) write an article specifically about the album. Not about the artist, or a song on the album, and not a list of albums anticipated to be released. Occasionally, there is an article that lists two new albums by the same artists being released, and so those two entries share one references, but otherwise not. We have generally allowed an entry if either the artist or the album has a Wikipedia article, but it there is neither the album or artist, the listing is removed and a suggestion is made to create an album or artist entry, or both. There is a discussion on Talk:List of 2019 albums#Do we need a citation per album? about the references, which is really also about the keeping of notable albums only, but the response has been underwhelming or disinterested. However, without a consensus from the community, I don't think we can start pulling citations.

If you go to 2004 in music#Albums released or earlier, you will see a different format for listing albums. In the earlier lists, there is no citations, no requirement for album notablity, no genre listings, no record labels, and no producers. Somewhen in 2007 or 2008, the format got changed to the larger table, but without the format today. About 2009, the format got changed again to the current format. User:Redrkr went back into 2007 and 2008 and changed their format to the current standard, then went into 2005 and 2006 and pulled them out of the "200x in music" articles and created new articles for them in the current standard, and I have been pulling them up to the current notability standards. However, I have never liked the listings of labels or producers in the lists, and thought they were just article bloat. I kind of like genres, so people can look at the lists and see at a glance which albums share the same styles.

If we pulled the references, we would open up again to allowing any album, no matter how non-notable, so there may be some character savings by pulling all the references, or there may not. As for the producers and labels, if they were pulled, I would not be the one fighting for them to be re-installed, and would even vote to support pulling them. I have no clue how to estimate how much savings would be by pulling the producers in the "List of 2017 albums" article, but I would bet about 100,000 characters. If you look at the albums released on January 27, 2017, you will see that there are several albums where the majority of the text is about the producers. Mburrell (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by merging references is that instead of having one link for each album, one link could be used for many albums if that link can verify more than one album. I gather from what you're saying that there is a strong case that certain columns can be removed, and certain albums without their own articles can be removed. A column for genres seem reasonable, but there might be some issue with what genres to describe albums with. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I was thinking about deleting the producers and record labels from the List of 2019 albums and seeing what reaction would occur. The users for that list, except of Ss112, seem somewhat apathetic, and I thought a kick in the pants might jump start a discussion. However the change you did was reverted fairly quickly and not much of a discussion was initiated, except for AnotherBeliever wanting to get rid of the extra column, genres, that I want to keep. Mostly a sad lot of users. I would suggest that a discussion on a users talk page is good to think out loud about an issue, but the discussion then needs to be opened up on an article talk page to prepare the users of that article for a significant article change, and to be used as a justification if no-one speaks up until after the change.

I want to be specific about why I am not onboard with merging references. Per WP:CSC, lists can be selective by notability, "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia". As you noted, some albums do not have a non-redirect article, but if the album does not have an article, then the band does, and on the albums lists, we have been using WP:GNG, which states as the subject lead "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Therefore, the independent news source used as a citation is the proof of notability. Any news source that lists 5 or 10 or 50 albums being released or being anticipated fails to show independent notability of a particular album. Admittedly, one news source is not enough to prove "significant coverage", but the list would not support 3 or 4 news citations per album, so one news source is representative of the others not listed. Ideally, the album would have an article which would include multiple news source links, but some of the album articles are just sad, but if we can find a news source, we allow the listing to stay on the list. Mburrell (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I said talk pages I meant article talk pages, as in for 2019 and 2017. If there are three people on that page supporting removing those columns and one person is opposed, we really ought to proceed with that.

The WP:GNG guideline talks about topics being notable enough for inclusion, not entries. An album or a band is not a topic, so if an album is notable enough to be on this list it should be notable enough for its own article, and vice versa. "Independent notability" has nothing to do with how many albums may be included in a source, it just means that the source is separate from the album, which means it excludes any source associated with the artists or labels. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For your constant upkeep of the List of [year] albums articles. Ss112 04:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort

Hi there! On this edit, you indicate that the sortkey should be "List of" instead of "2011". I don't know whether you're aware that the DEFAULTSORT tag is overridden by any specific sortkey added to the category. Thus DEFAULTSORT:2011 albums will not affect the order of the article in these categories, as they have sortkeys added:

[[:Category:2011 albums| ]]
[[:Category:2011-related lists|Albums]]
[[:Category:Lists of albums by release date|2011]]

The only category that will be affected by DEFAULTSORT is Category:Incomplete music lists. If you object to the way the article sorts in this category with the DEFAULTSORT:2011 albums tag, then I differ with you in regard to sorting style. If you object to the way the article sorts in any other category, feel free to add sortkeys to specific categories as you see fit. Her Pegship (speak) 17:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her Pegship, maybe I overreacted. My thinking was that the list was part of a series of lists, from 2005 to 2019, and you were only editing one, 2011. When I look, only the 2011 list is stating it is incomplete. From 2005 to 2010, the lists are called out as a dynamic list, which indicates it is incomplete without adding it to the incomplete list, so that is what I will change the 2011 list to. The lists from 2012 to 2019 don't state anything about the completeness of the list, and maybe they should. In general, with a series of lists, a change for one should be a change for all. Mburrell (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! I'm just wandering through the unfinished lists category, sorting and adding categories and what not, so I didn't see any of the other articles. I see from your talk page that the album list articles are of particular interest to you; any changes to the "inc-musong" tag I will leave up to you. Cheers, Her Pegship (speak) 17:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honeyhoney

Working on small mobile device, in mobile view, took some time to get through all the research and review of the proper or missing dates and titles and authors at the many citations, which meant that the transition in the results was still underway while you swooped in to say it was inconsistent. Over the last few years you have clearly put lots of time and effort, more than any other editor, to keep this article updated and alive. Time spent "instantly saving the day" on a bit of formatting that was part of unfinished work... could have been spent, over the years, on the research and review of the proper or missing dates and titles and authors?

While the edit Tags clearly show that each was a "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit", I do acknowledge that I could have helped further emphasize the pace caused by working on a mobile by adding “part 1” or “first section” to my edit descriptions, since I could see how long it was taking to get through each section. Just did not expect someone to react within 35 minutes of the first edit, while I was working on the next part, when the article hadn’t been touched by anyone in over 6 months.Jmg38 (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Just looked back through your "Talk" history here, and found examples of people jumping on you for not making edits quick enough for their liking!! You can’t win sometimes - so please disregard. Jmg38 (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I saw but did not register the mobile edit note, but it meant nothing to me, as no-one raised that issue before. I will be more aware of it in the future. If I thought anything about mobile edits, I would have just said that meant the editor was a masochist. I have tried to use a mobile device to edit, and I thought it was for limited edits only, not for major article edits. I have a desktop computer, and on weekdays I tend to jump on for a couple hours after work, and check my watchlist and catch up on my articles and advance some more. On weekends, my window is broader, but it is only about four hours, and your edits just coincided with my time on.

I will not make any more edits tonight on Honeyhoney, but tomorrow, I will go and convert all the dates to fully spelled out dates. This is my preference because although honeyhoney is an American band, so the format should be mdy, Europeans and Antipodeans are used to dmy, so a numbered date can be confusing to some readers while a spelled out date is distinct in the month and the day, even if the order bothers some. Go have at least 15 hours of undisturbed editing on the article before I return and clean up some formatting to fit my bias. Mburrell (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”I would have just said that meant the editor was a masochist.” Had to laugh out loud at that - many mistakes made due to fat thumbs or sudden incoming texts or phone calls taking over the screen! Also had to cut and paste certain symbols into “Notes” feature, since they aren’t available on the mobile, such as tilde and consecutive -‘s. Just “signing” this requires 4 tildes. Might be time to put it down and go out into the sunshine? Cheers. Jmg38 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Just want to thank you for always going above and beyond to ensure that the yearly album lists on Wikipedia are top-notch and have accurate, non-speculative sources. It's great that someone else shares my passion for keeping these pages up to date and relevant 😊 Sean Stephens (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Hart profile image

Can you please help me edit the profile pic for her page. I work for her and every time I change it, it goes back to an old picture. The current pic is over 12 years old and does not represent who she is today. I want to use this pic from our website. Can you please help? https://www.bethhart.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Beth-Hart-2019-Credit-Greg-Watermann.3-1.jpg Rocky228 (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocky228: Rocky, there are certain rules for posting photos for Wikipedia. I looked at the one you posted for Beth Hart, and I would take it down myself. First and foremost, it must be free content, should basically be your own work. The metadata for the photo says the author is Greg Watermann. You define it as a press photo for War in My Mind. This means the photo is copyrighted, and unless your name ins Greg Watermann, not by you. If you work for her, take a photo of her, and use your own photo. Or have someone else who has a camera take a picture and post it. Just don't use a copyrighted photo. Here are the rules for uploading a photo: WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. You can also use a freely licensed photo or a public domain photo, but you must prove the copyright holder has released the image under acceptable free license. I don't know how to prove that, as I have never attempted to post a photo that was not an album cover, which is covered under a fair use rationale. A publicity photo is probably not covered under a fair use rationale.

Next, the photos on Wikipedia are of a limited size, so as to discourage photo theft. Your file is 2000 x 1355 pixels. You need to keep the total pixels under 100,000, which is length times width. For a file of that proportion, you would need to shrink it to 384 x 260 pixels.

If you take care of both the free usage and the photo size, people should not revert your photo edits. Mburrell (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I did exactly what you suggested. Hopefully, it'll stay put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky228 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocky228: It looks like a great photo. The photo is still too large. Remember that they will reject photos with more than 100,000 pixels. You need to edit your photo to a size of 258 x 386 pixels or smaller, and load the smaller photo to the Wikipedia photo page. If your photo was square, the largest it could be would be 316 x 316 pixels. Anything larger than that will be challenged and eventually deleted. Mburrell (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Wouldn't the edit(s) Rocky provides violate WP:COI, since they claim they work for and with the subject in-question? It does not keep the page neutral. livelikemusic talk! 15:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Livelikemusic: Yes, but I cannot see how a picture that is more current than 12 years old is anything but a neutral content addition. However, you are correct that it is a conflict of interest, which while not forbidden, is strongly discouraged, and the editor is expected to disclose the information when they seek to make the change. The editor did disclose the information to me, and also disclosed the information to the general public by listing it in the edit summary. You can write to the user's talk page and initiate a conversation, as Wikipedia encourages collaboration over confrontation. You can also report the user to administrators and let them choose the path of education and correction. I have tried to get the editor to reduce the size of the picture to limits directed by Wikipedia, and the editor ignored that facet of the addition, so I do not take the editor to be fully cognizant of Wikipedia rules of etiquette and operation, nor quick to do the extra steps to be a good Wiki-citizen. In general I try to avoid conflict, so I have let the edits ride, on the theory that it did improve the article and someone more rule conscious would enforce the size limit. I overlooked the conflict of interest issue, but that is another issue for another editor. Mburrell (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying my previous comments. I just visited the Beth Hart page, and I see that Rocky228 has re-sized the photo to the Wikipedia size limits, and has disclosed the conflict of interest as required by the third paragraph of the lead section of WP:COI. It is true that the paragraph says the editor should not edit directly but should make the edit on the talk page, but as someone who makes a living reading codes and specifications, there is a difference between should not and shall not, so it is not forbidden, just strongly discouraged. For posting of a photo, I suppose the editor could upload the photo and go to the talk page and ask someone to make the final hook-up, but that seems excessive. I believe that the edit improves the article, that the editor has made an effort to comply with the rules, and so I support the current photo addition. Now, if Rocky228 started adding text information on the page, up-selling the artist, I would have an issue. It is when one wants to post information, such as "hey, did you know Beth Hart was abducted by aliens as a teen, here is her interview stating that," then I would like to see the paid editor post that on the talk page and allow another person to upload. For the current photo addition, I am good with what has been done Mburrell (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocky228: Your photo was deleted on Wikimedia Commons, which is the site that hosts the photos for Wikipedia. The reasoning was that the photo was on Beth Hart's Instagram account, so it did not look like your own work. I posed a question to the administrator who deleted the photo, and asked if an employee could post such a picture, if it was the poster who originally took the photo. I am pasting the administrator's reply. Basically, because the photo is associated with Beth Hart, you need to do some additional steps to get the photo approved, but it is not impossible. When you are ready to post your photo again, just perform the same actions you did before, but also perform the following step first:

Specific: if the uploader, the mentioned user Rocky228, works for the depicted person Beth Hart, it shouldn't be a problem for him/her to send an email from his/her Instagram's account-email address to [email protected] (OTRS), in which he/she confirms 1) that he/she is the photographer (or legal copyright-holder) of said image (mention the filename on Commons), and 2) that he/she wants to release said image under the choosen free license. Information posted by Túrelio on that user's Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

Proper citations with adequate sources

Can you point me to the helpdesk article proper citations with adequate sources? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganhotdogs (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Veganhotdogs:, your request is a bit vague. What article are you editing, and what problems are you encountering? I edit many articles, mostly in the music milieu, and I see many issues.

Right now I would guess that you are either trying to add albums to the list of 2019 or 2020 albums, or you are trying to add biographic data to Mel Parsons, as those are the articles I am pushing back on right now. If you are trying to edit a living persons biography, the article Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is your best resource. It has 3 key requirements, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Verifiability will mention reliable sources, and take you to a section in the article Reliable sources, which defines sources as "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I cannot tell you all the reliable sources available, but if you are working on albums, there is a page for that, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. This page is not comprehensive, as there are several good sources not listed on the list, but a general rule of thumb is if the source is listed in the Reliable Sources section, it is good to use with caution (read the notes, consider what you are using the source for. For example, AllMusic is listed as reliable, but I try not to use it to show notability because they review almost every album, with very little discrimination). If the source you want to use is in the Unreliable Sources section, don't use it. There are sub-articles for Korean music, Christian music, etc. Harking back to the three key points for biographies of living people, the other major point is no original research. Do not use "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." There is a note attached to this statement in the article that I will not transcribe, but it gives additional caveats to consider, which you can find by visiting the article.

If you are not working on a biography of a living person but rather on one of the album lists, then the rules of the list have formed over time by pushing and pushing back by editors. What the album lists are are stand-alone lists. There is a subsection labeled Selection criteria which basically says every list should have a selection criteria that is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. There are common selection criteria listed, but none quite meet or describe the music lists, as the music lists are trying to cover albums that have not been published yet, or albums that have been published with several available reliable sources but for which no editor has created an album article for the album yet. Because of this, the interested editors have developed a guideline that follows the rules of the General notability guideline, that basically states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So each album should be proven with one reliable source independent of the subject (note this excludes social media sources, such as twitter, MySpace, facebook), and additionally, if an editor looks for more sources, they should be available (significant coverage). We don't ask for the listing of multiple sources because of space consideration (the List of 2017 albums was at one point the largest article in Wikipedia, before it was mandated to reduce size by removing much of the linked citations), but the presence of an album on the list can be challenged if someone does search for multiple news sources and does not find more than one or two. Note that news sources are preferred because Wikipedia divides sources into primary, secondary and tertiary sources, and it states that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.", and "secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." So while a news source is not required, locating a book covering a current album is harder and it may not be available before or while the album is being released, so most people prefer to use news sources. An in-print off-line source can be used, but that falls short of verifiability and may lead others to challenge the source. That can be defended, but there are probably plenty of on-line sources to make life easier for everybody. Mburrell (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Fader vs. Fader

Publications and companies do not always have the complete title of their website in their logo, and I trust you know this, but that appears to be all you are basing your opinion that the website is supposedly just called "Fader" off of. Otherwise what else is there that supports that it's just called "Fader"? Where's your evidence? Meanwhile, the URL includes the definite article, https://www.thefader.com/, the website's title (when it's loading in a tab) states "The FADER", its footer says "The Fader, Inc." Mentions of its issues all include the definite article, even when it could not be mistaken for a "the" at the start of the sentence, for instance on a page about its latest issue here. If it were just called "FADER", they would have written "As part of FADER's 20th anniversary issue" and the like, but they have consistently used "the". Its social media accounts, such as on Facebook and Instagram, all refer to it as "The Fader", whether Fader is in all-caps or not—that would be a stylisation per WP:TMRULES regardless.

You stated in your edit summary that Wiki users have just inserted a definite article and have "provide[d] no evidence", except you don't have any evidence of outside of the logo because if you had let your eyes wander off the logo you would have seen all of what I just mentioned. If you still disagree after this, you are very clearly ignoring the amount of evidence it is called "The Fader" here, because they quite consistently use "The Fader" in prose and everywhere on their website aside from only their logo. Also, if you respond, I don't require a ping and please don't write two long paragraphs where you overthink and deconstruct an issue like you did to someone else above and have in the past. I can't control how much you (want to) write, but this is not worth writing that much on because it's quite clear your "rule of thumb" is certainly not correct here. Ss112 13:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I agree with you. The one issue I will raise is that URLs are not titles. Sometimes you try to get the URL that matches your company name, but someone else is using it, or owns it. URL is insufficient. However, your linked example is good evidence. Thanks Mburrell (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing See Also: List of <Year of> album links

Surely, you realize that removing dozens or hundreds of see also sections from article where they are stable is disruptive and pointy. Please post to WT:ALBUM if you want to have a site-wide conversation about "See also: List of [year] albums" sections. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC:

@Koavf:, thank you for writing. I was certainly unaware fo the discussion going on at WT:Album, so I would not have known to post there. Howver, you mentioned disruptive and pointy, and neither apply to my edits. Pointy is taking an action that is against Wikipedia policy to prove a point. I know of no Wikipedia policy about this, so I am not trying to prove a point. The articles are stable whether or not there is a see also section it it, so it does not damage stability. I will have to think on disruptive. However, if you peruse my history, you would see that I have purged the see also section over many years of excessive linking to the album list, so this is not aimed at you but me maintaining my standard pruning of edits in Wikipedia.

Seeing that there is a discussion going on at WT:Album#Changes to WP:ALBUMSTYLE, re: bottom of the article, I will hold off on removing the other 2/3rds of the incorrectly added See Also additions if you also hold off on adding anymore. I will join the discussion and see where it goes. Mburrell (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT does not refer to breaking rules. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point includes all kinds of activities that are like this where you make a huge spate of edits to make your point with no consensus. How, in your mind, is List of 2018 albums inappropriate for Kamikaze (Eminem album) but 2018 in hip hop music is appropriate? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been opened as a discussion on WT:Album#Changes to WP:ALBUMSTYLE, re: bottom of the article. I will hold off on removing further See Also if you can also hold off on adding more to further albums. Let the discussion take place and a consensus form. You are also making a point with your non-consensual additions. Let us let Wikipedia consensus mediation work, and we can proceed from there. Mburrell (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This now appears to be closed on the Album Style list. As you pointed out, it was not policy but a suggestion or advice, and has been reversed. I am ready to continue clean-up. Mburrell (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2020 albums - a thank you

Hey, just wanting to say thank you for this recent edit. I wasn't sure which of the artists (ODESZA or Golden Features) to link to, so I'm grateful that you found a more suitable way to include both artists. Keep up the good work!

Cheers, Sean Stephens (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problems there. I wanted at first to create a paragraph in Odesza's article for the collaboration band, but didn't think it would work with the artist article. If they do more than one collaboration, then a new article for the collaborative band should be created. You too keep up the good work. Mburrell (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mburrell I Need Help With Editing a page

hello Mburrell i need help with editing a wiki page that is the ninja sex party the prophecy you see Doggy12345 keeps on changeing my wiki page and i need help on how to get a better wiki for it thanks a bunch in advance also he said he would ban me?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:92C0:3B20:F532:6869:D736:6240 (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I’m Doggy54321*. The page has been redirected and protected, and the user has been blocked for a month. If you want to move the project into draftspace then go ahead, just know that this user is now blocked. I also didn’t say I would ban them, I said I would report to WP:ANEW and they would probably get blocked. They got blocked anyways.

Also - it’s not "their" wiki page, no one owns Wikipedia. You probably already knew that. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous user. I read the conversation you had with Doggy54321 on that user's talk page, User talk:Doggy54321#Add back The Ninja Sex Party album, and thought that User Doggy54321 provided a reasonable explanation of what made an article notable. Basically, time most likely will resolve your problem, being that over time, some magazine or another will write an article about the album, The Prophecy (Ninja Sex Party album). Once two or three articles have been written, or interviews with the band with significant discussion about the album, you will have enough building blocks to build an article. As was mentioned in the other talk page, not all albums are inherently notable, and notability is not inherent from the band or from other albums by the band. Just wait a few months and look around on the web again for news sources. Be wary of primary sources, especially from social networks such as Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. They may appear to provide information and make the album seem notable, but primary sources can never prove subject notability. This is why you need secondary independent sources (news sources, which include periodicals that exclusively review music). Blogs are another trap, they are just one person's opinion and do not generate notability. Good luck, and I hope you stick with Wikipedia, learn the rules, and learn what works and doesn't work. Wikipedia continues to develop because of a large range of people willing to put in the time to develop articles, and I hope you will persevere and become a great contributor. Mburrell (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for your enormous response. This actually helped me clarify some stuff as well, thanks for that! I don’t think they’re coming back to Wikipedia based on comments on their talk page, but I really appreciate you taking the time to read through this. Thanks so much! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle unsourced edits vs. vandalism

Captured from User talk:Johnuniq

Two days ago I asked for page protection because of repeated original research edits by a user at IP address 78.118.77.170. At the time, the page protection was declined, and the user at 78.118.77.170 was blocked for a period and you stated the following: "Please let me know if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)". Today, a user at a new IP address, 77.196.166.246, is making the same edits, so I have a suspicion it is the same user. User:Ohnoitsjamie deleted the birth date of Diane Birch as unsupported, but I restored it with some citations, which I admit are not as strong as I would like. One solution would be that you or Ohnoitsjamie deletes the birth dates again stating that until strong support is provided, no dates shall be listed. I would not like that, but could live with it, as I am somewhat unhappy with the strength of my citations. I would not have used them if I thought they were bad, I am saying they are not great. I also initiated a request on the article talk page for help. Otherwise, I would ask that the user at new IP address 77.196.166.246 be watched for vandalistic editing, or perhaps you might suggest that I could re-list the Diane Birch article for page protection. I would appreciate any help or advise or action that you would grant. Mburrell (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an ideal source (it looks some kind of aggregator with no known pedigree) but it's better than some. I'm glad to say that Ohnoitsjamie handled 77.196.166.246 (talk · contribs) an alternative for 78.118.77.170 (talk · contribs). By the way, please don't use "vandalism" in an edit summary. If something is vandalism (see Wikipedia's definition at WP:VAND), either rollback or use "rvv" (revert vandalism) as the edit summary. Telling a vandal they have performed vandalism only encourages them. The IP's edits were unsourced and did not have consensus. That is not vandalism and the edit summary should refer to WP:RS and/or WP:CONSENSUS. That's a good comment at Talk:Diane Birch, thanks. Let me know if further problems occur. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mburrell (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying of anons and acting like you own articles

Like other editors, you've got absolutely ZERO respect for anons.You reverted every one of my edits to the Grace Potter article, AS IF you OWN the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B013:61A6:0:0:5264:D801 (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think I own the article. Please provide citations for your edits. I support the proper use of citations as required by Wikipedia and resist the use of original research which is banned by Wikipedia. Mburrell (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic refs

Figured I should ask, has there been a discussion about not using Metacritic as a ref in the List of Such-and-Such Year Albums articles? The MC entry on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources doesn't exactly say either way for these specific instances, perhaps a discussion is needed? Or has that discussion already been had and I just haven't seen it? I've noticed you changing out the ones I've put up with alternate refs, and if that's because of a rule I'm unaware of then I'd rather adjust my own editing rather than keep making more work for you (Though I do appreciate your diligence in cleaning up after me and everyone else editing those articles). Thank you for your time! QuietHere (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of citations in the album lists is to show album notability most times, as the album article will provide the facts such as release date and genre. Citations can also be used to show facts when there is no album article or much mention on the artist page about details, but the primary need is to show notability. The primary source project page for album article sources is Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which divides sources into reliable and unreliable, with links to other project pages, most notably for me, the Korean music source page. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Aggregates, it mentions MetaCritic as a source for aggregate score, but then advices against using the review excerpt below the aggregate, instead suggesting seeking out the review in full and cite them individually. This translate to me that MetaCritic is not showing notability either, and that the individual reviews are needed for that, but that can be discussed.

The source that might be controversial is AllMusic, which Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Generally reliable sources lists as generally reliable, but in my opinion fails to be an independent secondary news source, as it aims to list every album in existence, so I believe coverage by AllMusic fails to show notability. I generally prefer to see news articles by music sources, and I have my favorites, ones I trust and use frequently, such as Pitchfork, PopMatters, Exclaim!, Billboard, Paste, Alternative Press, Blabbermouth.net, Louder, Consequence of Sound, The Fader, HipHopDX, Idolator, The Guardian, The Line of Best Fit, Loudwire, JesusFreakHideout.com, MusicOMH, RapReviews, Slant, Spin, Taste of Country, Sounds Like Nashville, and XXL. There are many more acceptable sources, many from Scandinavian countries, Germany, Korea, Japan, and genre specific ones. So in the case of AllMusic, I am using my opinion, not anything from Wikipedia project pages, so someone can come along and challenge me on that, but so far no one has.

Primary sources, either commercial like AppleMusic, iTunes, or Amazon, or social, like Twitter or Facebook, can never show notability, they can only show facts, and so can only be a back up source to support a date or a album label, and must be used in conjunction with a news article.

I hope this explains my thinking, and the project page I base most of my choices on, along with experience. Mburrell (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! I'll admit that I had kind of the opposite thought process in mind before, that the album article would have plenty of notability-establishing refs and the list page only needed to verify the release date, which Metacritic seems to be the only source that is consistently reliable in doing so. Now that you explain it the way you do, I see that your take on that makes a lot more sense than mine and I'll be looking at it that way from now on. As for the question of MC establishing notability, I can see where you're coming from but it seems that's the kind of assumption that would do better with a consensus. I went ahead and dropped the question on WikiProject Albums' talk page (found here), linked back to here from there but if you think you need to reiterate/clarify what you've said there, you're obviously free to do so. QuietHere (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I read your query on the WikiProject Albums talk page, and don't see the need to contribute anything further, as you were very even-handed in your description. A pleasure to work with you. Mburrell (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Mburrell, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, 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 love on the eve,
Happy editing,
D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 03:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

You Signed Up for This

I moved this page back to the lower-case f title before I found Novaredant has move-warred with two other editors, including yourself, before I saw his paragraph at the top of the article, and before I saw you actually requested a move back at WP:RM/TR, so I hope you don't mind but I removed your request as essentially being "done". I've asked the editor to start a regular move request at WP:RM. Ss112 05:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head up. I am confused by this article. Now it has been deleted, and I cannot find a reason why. I didn't think the article was bad, just that one editor confused proper title case with stylized title listing, but all history and discussion is now lost. Oh well, we do what we can. Mburrell (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even more confused by the article. What looked like deletion has now been restored. Looks like the article champion deleted content in a fit of pique, and was restored by an administrator. Mburrell (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. The user has now started a move request on Talk:You Signed Up for This. @Richard3120: you might like to know this as well. Ss112 17:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head up, but be careful of falling afoul of Wikipedia:Canvassing, which I kinda did on Talk:List of 2017 albums/Archive 2. I disagree with the assumption that I tried to influence the vote, as I had clearly stated I did not care which way they voted, but it was still judged to be canvassing, and got me in some trouble. The Canvassing article does state you can reach out to concerned editors, but to be fair you need to reach out to those who are pro and anti any argument or you could be accused of canvassing and have some votes thrown out. Mburrell (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stop watching this article and the actions of User:Novaredant, it is a hell of a train-wreck. Complete refusal to understand that consensus is consensus of editors in Wikipedia, and not of sources, refusal to understand that an entity like Wikipedia might have it's own internal manual of style, and absolute frenzy at getting voted down, like a fish pulled out of water that flaps and flings itself about a boat, trying to change the outcome, with about as much success. This is almost entertaining, and very sad. Mburrell (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit List

I admit I'm not that much of a Joan Jett fan, I don't much care either way how the articles are worded. Thank you for being polite in your edit summary when reverting my changes. I changed it because of how Garage, Inc. is worded. Another covers album article, Re:(disc)overed does say studio album, but it's not counted as numbered. Just out of curiousity, why is The Hit List counted as Joan Jett's seventh studio album?TJD2 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A compilation album may contain some new music as a teaser to get people to buy an album, but is generally a mix of songs already released as separate songs, EPs, and songs from other albums. The Metallica album Garage, Inc. mentions that it has covers, but also it has B-sides and an out-of-print EP, so that although it has some new songs, it is a compilation because of the B-sides and the EP which were previously released. Studio albums are albums released with new material specifically recorded for the album, although they may continue singles released earlier which have not been included on an album. Alice Merton had a massive radio hit with "No Roots", so then she had the backing of the studios to go into the studio and create her album Mint, which includes "No Roots", so a studio album does not require all new material. An album is larger than an EP, which is typically under half and hour and would have about four to six songs, while an album would typically have more than six songs and be longer than half an hour, just as a rule of thumb. By this logic, Puddle of Mudd's album Re:(disc)overed should be a numbered studio album. I cannot say why it is not. Perhaps the band has stated that they don't consider it a studio album, perhaps the creators/editors of the Puddle of Mudd article and their discography article imposed their opinion/belief on the album listing. You will note that discography pages have a infobox table, where you can list number of studio albums, compilations, EPs, along with singles and videos, but the infobox table does not have a listing for covers albums, so that appears to be a creation by the article editors and not a standard breakout of album type. If I had more time, I would post a query on their talk page towards determining their reasoning, with the intention of listing the album as a numbered studio album if the editors did not have a supportable reason, but I don't have time so I choose my articles to work on. Again, I reference Ozzy Osbourne, which is a much viewed artist, and see that Under Cover is listed as a studio album, and in the discography page is shown under the studio albums and is numbered as the ninth studio album. So, whenever I question whether I am on the right track, I try to look at popular artists with a long track history, such as Aerosmith, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, Ozzy Osbourne, etc. I am not perfect, I do make mistakes, and Wikipedia is not perfect, and it contains mistakes, I just try to do my best, and sometimes I impose my opinions over other peoples opinions, but I do try to find supporting examples when I can. The best option would be to find Wikipedia rules (e.g. Wikipedia:Verifiability) and guides (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums), but I don't see one on defining a studio album, so editor consensus might be the best approach. Mburrell (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify for release dates

Since you brought it up in your latest edit, figured I should let you know that if you hover your mouse cursor over the year at the top of a Spotify album page, a text block will appear with the full release date. I don't know if that works on mobile Spotify, but both the website and desktop app have this. QuietHere (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Story

I would recommend American Story (franchise) being moved back to American Story as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Every page that links to American Story (album) links to it as that and only that. 21AndSon (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article American Story (franchise) never existed until today. The Template:American Story does have history. However, there appears to be no evidence at this time that American Story is the primary topic. I do agree that Bearfoot is a lesser known band, and therefore their album is a lesser topic, but I reviewed the article titles cited for the American Story article, and saw no evidence that American Story is anything but a Wikipedia artifact, an article bringing everything under one roof. Not one citation in the franchise article provides a news story about American Story, the media franchise. While I agree that the franchise article is the stronger contender for primary topic, I would want to see at least a month of data to analyze and probably some news source citations listing the franchise, not just the individual pieces, and not just assume that a newly created article is primary. Just because the template is primary topic does not make the article primary topic. Sometimes, neither is sufficiently important for a primary topic, and a disambiguation page is acceptable. There is no doubt in my mind that people looking at the article title American Story (franchise) will be confused as to its meaning. Mburrell (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline Hollywood officially referred to the franchise as the American Story franchise in announcing the two newest spin-off series in it. 21AndSon (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Petski, Denise (August 13, 2021). "FX Orders 'American Sports Story' & 'American Love Story' Spinoffs From Ryan Murphy". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved August 13, 2021.[reply]

Thank you for locating that reference. I would recommend linking that citation to reference of the franchise, so that others can see that it is not original research. In general, I do not like a one-day old article being declared a primary topic, but in this case I acknowledge that there is the template which has been around for a few years, and that in the modern world, TV and film franchises tend to reach a wider audience than books and albums, so I will not disagree that the franchise is or will be the primary topic for American Story. Mburrell (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the split 2021 albums lists

I know the size of these lists has become a concern of yours in recent years and hence why the 2021 albums list was split in two. I've just edited the list and noticed it's ballooned out to listing 51 albums coming out on November 5 alone, with all apparently being considered notable just because all the artists have articles...if this keeps up you'll probably need to start splitting the lists into three-month intervals List of 2021 albums (October–December), then maybe by month, e.g. List of December 2021 albums. Ss112 06:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: That is out of my hands. I fought for years to nail down the definition of what deserved to be on the list, and got a definition that seemed good. Then User:QuietHere and User:Tete40i took a strong interest in the lists, and learned to follow the rules, and just went to town, and I just tried to keep them within the rails, but that was all I could do. User:Tete40i dropped out, but User:QuietHere seems to have a mission to list every album out there, and while that was the purpose of the list, it is more than I envisioned. I don't want to change the listing requirements or eligibilities, so splitting the list again may be necessary.

I don't see splitting the list by month, but by quarter is a possibility. However, I will state that album releases in December slow way down from November. Just looking at the statistics, I don't think we will peak near 500k, so I think the list is safe with a semi-annual split.

Sometimes it is a case of be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Now there is a list believer that cares for the list more than any other user. I had always thought an album should be mentioned first on an artist's page or their discography page, but now many albums are being listed on the album list first, but that is not against the list rules. Just curious how long the interest lasts. Mine has lasted so far for about six years, but you never know when life changes your course. There have been others who came and went or came and slowed down. User:Redrkr had a strong interest for a few years, but now only makes a few list appearances. Mburrell (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been listing things that fit within the current set of requirements, and yes I'm quite aware of just how many entries that is. I don't know if the solution to that is to tighten up listing requirements (Can't really think of how we'd do that anyway) or to further split the lists, but if it really is getting too big then sure, go ahead and change something. QuietHere (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere:I have seen that you only list things that fit in the requirements, so I have just tried to keep the polish on the list, and let you run. If you read any criticism in my preceding comments, that was not my intent. I agree that I can't think of anyway to tighten up requirements, except to not list EPs or mixtapes, and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. If the list grows too big, we can always split again. There are no limit to the number of articles Wikipedia can handle. I just don't think we need to split until we get between 450k and 500k, and I think we will be okay for this list. Mburrell (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had other thoughts about what could be possible restrictions, but I can too easily foresee those looking like arbitrary rules to non-regular editors who don't know why they're in place, and will lead to further issues trying to enforce them. Another split is the best bet, but only if entirely necessary as you said. QuietHere (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HList, bullets vs commas

Hi, regarding your reverting my applications of hlist, I agree that MOS:HLIST doesn't say anything about commas vs bullets. But the document for the musical artist infobox template provides guideline that commas are acceptable for a short list of 2-3 items, but for longer lists it is preferable to use hlist or flatlist. Aithus (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spill Magazine dates

So this is a bit of a confusing one but I think I get it. If you look at the links to "related articles" below the article you're looking at, there are date stamps listed there. For some reason the date of the article is never listed on the article itself, but it shows up elsewhere (such as this search result). It's a roundabout and very annoying way of finding the date but it's there, and I suppose the bot is retrieving it through metadata that we just can't see. I don't know how that would hold up to policy given it isn't verifiable on the page, but it's not impossible to find. QuietHere (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing me how to find the dates for Spill Magazine. I do the same thing for Blabbermouth.net album reviews, where the dates are not shown but can be found using Blabbermouth's internal search engine. Mburrell (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot

Hello Mburrell

I noticed the citation bot has been blocked on the album list pages - I should probably mention that I didn't use it when adding the album references, I simply copy-pasted article titles to the title parameter of the ref without taking into account the different types of quotes and how they are displayed by MediaWiki. I will pay closer attention to this in the future - sorry for the oversight. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UltrasonicMadness: It was not you who was using citation bot. That is a Wikipedia-wide bot that sweeps through articles and makes changes that some programmers and administrators think makes Wikipedia better, but some users don't agree with all the changes. User:QuietHere has reverted a few of the changes with comments in the edit summary that express exasperation with the bot edits, including comments like "What is the necessity of this change and why does it keep happening?" and "Unnecesary". I agree with QuietHere and have reverted a few myself, so I just went into Wikipedia to see if there was a way to block this bot from making edits to the list, and I think I have found a tool that will work, but I won't know if I did it right until a few weeks pass and we see if there are any more bot edits by Citation bot. But under no circumstances was this meant to imply you did anything wrong.

I think you have done a wonderful job of adding new data, and minor quirks peculiar to the list can be learned with practice. When I enter new albums, I tend to just copy an entry from above or below to get the spacing and formatting, then replace all necessary data to create an entry for the newly listed album. As for the citations, I have worked to create a uniform manner of entry for all the lists, so it is always consistent, so I have just a couple of forms I can cut and paste from a saved Notepad file. My forms are <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |work= |date= |access-date=June 19, 2022 |author=}}</ref> and <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |trans-title= |work= |language= |date= |access-date=June 19, 2022 |author=}}</ref>. I also have versions saved of the citations in dmy format for adding citations to European or Australian articles. Mburrell (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I assumed the citation bot was a frontend tool I missed that automatically scraped reference details from a URL. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the reference style, I've been doing the same thing of copying the reference from pre-existing list items. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vents Magazine

Saw your re-addition of the "vents" blog again this morning, apologies for not replying sooner. Happy to help you locate the prior discussions: There are conversations from 2016, February of this year and this month. Each evaluation was clearly that it is not reliable. This site is almost exclusively paid placement and spam, there are hundreds of ads on the usual sites for blackhat placement, and there is absolutely no indication of competent editorial control or disclosure of advertorials. Garbage like this, from just today, is common. Can you share what you're seeing that makes you feel this is WP:RS? Happy to start another conversation at WP:RSN, but I'm not clear on how to articulate the counter-position when beginning the discussion. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the use of the term "blog", but I do agree that Vents Magazine seems to have several partial votes for unreliablity, although not to the point that anyone has posted it as an unreliable source on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources, which is where I would like to see confirmed Unreliable Sources posted. I see a preponderance of opinions lean towards unreliable, so I won't dispute further the removal of Vents Magazine as a reference on the List of Albums pages, but I don't consider this conclusively answered until Vents Magazine is included in the Unreliable Sources list. Mburrell (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I get your point - Vents clearly started as a Wordpress blog years ago, but I don't know what platform they use for posting and aggregating feeds now, so you're right. As far as enumerated lists of junk sources, there are thousands of fake SEO-oriented sites popping up. I think wordpress and other popular blogging sites started offering "newspaper-like" templates that make it easy to produce scam sites, and the marketing people just went nuts. Most are pretty blatant - completely fake authors, fake addresses, etc, but some are starting to get much more creative. I've started a list here of the ones that get repeated traffic, but there are thousands more. I had not seen the list at WikiProject Albums; looks pretty solid. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

File:Until This Shakes Apart.jpg	The uber helpfull award
	This is a custom Five Iron Frenzy Award!! I'm giving this to you since you did one of the most helpful things ever!! If you hadn't pointed out that reference problem, my article may have been rejected (it's not accepted yet, but its no REjected yet)!!! Thank you so much!! your a lifesaver!! enjoy this custom award!! Babysharkboss2 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_2023_albums&diff=prev&oldid=1191484661

Hello, can you please clarify this edit to help me make future contributions? The source was changed, why is one preferable over the other? And why is EP removed from the title? The official name of the album contains EP across all platforms. Also see "The Valentine LP" by Wheatus that has LP in the name. Trying to determine when I should clip the EP/LP.

Thank you for your help TheWikiCurmudgeon (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiCurmudgeon:, glad to clarify. For the EP title, there were two reasons. If you go to the Wheatus discography page, Wheatus discography#Extended plays, the EP title is displayed in the EP table as Just a Dirtbag Christmas, without EP in the title. Per the various citations, EP is not in the title, from the citation you provided, Essentially Pop citation, and the one I provided, Stereogum citation, plus the one on the band page in the section that mentions the EP, Legacy Recordings citation. For example, on the Legacy Recordings website, it has Just a Dirtbag Christmas in quotes and EP as a following descriptive word, not as part of the title. Further review of the prose on that page shows the title again shown, in italics, without the word EP in the title.

For the other part of the question, why one citation over the other, the Essentially Pop citation was an interview with the band member, which means the source of the article is from a band member, so it is not an independent reliable source as required for citations on the list of albums page (see the prose at the top of the list page to see source requirements). The Stereogum citation is a reliable independent source, which allows it to prove or show album notability. Mburrell (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! TheWikiCurmudgeon (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy nominees

Hello, can you please see below and let me know if Grammy nominees can be restored to the list of notable albums, regardless of media coverage. It says it only has to meet one criteria (major award nominee). Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)

Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: 4. The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. TheWikiCurmudgeon (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Johanson

Is not The Deep and the Dirty Johanson's seventh album ? Following on from Burn It Down, Blues in My Blood, Below Sea Level, Covered Tracks, Vol. 1, Covered Tracks, Vol. 2 and Live at DBA: New Orleans Bootleg ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Derek R Bullamore, it is the seventh album, but the citation I was using (American Songwriter citation), which I had linked to the wrong one but corrected in the article, states it is the fourth studio band album. I thought about it, and decided that Live at DBA is a live album, so not a studio album, and the two Covered Tracks albums were recorded at his home during COVID (Guitar Player citation), so instead of just calling out his seventh album, or his sixth solo album, I decided to use the term from the citation as not being original research. We can additionally add that it is his overall seventh album to the article, but I wanted to stick with the wording of the citation for the initial statement. Mburrell (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes perfect sense. I think it would be advantageous to also state that it is his seventh overall album release, just to clear up any doubt there might be in reader's minds. Well done. Regards. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let It Be

Hi there! My watchlist shows you've been making lots of edits to Beatles articles today. It seems many of your edits are to change [[Let It Be (Beatles album)|''Let It Be'']] to [[Let It Be (album)|''Let It Be'']]. Since Let It Be (Beatles album) redirects to Let It Be (album), the link is not broken, so you can literally let it be, unless you're making other edits at the same time.

Please use an edit summary for each of your edits, and mark your edits as minor edits when you're only making superficial edits. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty I made over 250 edits today for a simple fix, changing a redirect to a correct link. For simple fixes, there is no need for an edit summary. Only one person commented, and I am surprised that the comment was not a "Wow, thank you for all the fixes, for making these articles better!", but it takes all kinds. You do your thing, and I will do mine. For the record, in a few days I will do the same thing for Let It Be (song), removing the links to Let It Be (Beatles song). You can stop me from doing this by doing all the fixes yourself, using edit summaries and minor edit indications for the one or two hundred articles that you will have to edit. Otherwise, I will do my thing when I have time to spend three to four hour doing it my way, or four to six hours if I was to do it your way. I see no reason to do it your way, since instead of complementing me and thank me, you provided nit-picking criticism. Did not make me a friend of yours, or make me feel like adding a couple of extra hours of work to make you feel better. Mburrell (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you're making the articles better as your changes are invisible to the reader. If you wanted to invest your time to improve articles, such as expanding articles in Category:The Beatles song stubs or resolving issues in the Cleanup listing for WikiProject The Beatles, you'd be more likely to receive thanks from your fellow Beatles fans. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Good thing we are all different, and think things different. I do believe I am making the articles better, that is why I am doing it. I do believe my edits are visible to the reader, because I discovered this issue when I clicked on a Let It Be (Beatles album) link, got taken to the article Let It Be (album), and saw the blue redirect comment at the top of the page, so there was the visibility. My corrections remove that redirect, so my changes cause the problem to disappear. What I am doing is what any editor who changed an article title should have done, after changing a title, one should always go through the What Links Here page and correct all the affected links. I am doing the job that the changing editor should have done but didn't, perhaps intimidated by the amount of work involved.

Here is some advice on improving articles. You do what you think improves articles, and I do what I think improves Wikipedia. Also, what makes you think I am a Beatles fan? I am a music fan, and I do like the Beatles, but I am not a Beatles fan. That is why it took me four months after the article title change to discover this lapse of editing. Mburrell (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking of examples of invisible changes to the reader. There might be a badly written phrase, "He had a apple", and the correction to "He had an apple". After the correction, the change becomes invisible. Another example is "We is a team", which would be corrected to "We are a team". Again, becomes invisible to the reader afterwards, but bothersome to the reader prior. Also thinking of if we all did the same thing, made the same decisions, made the same edits, a form of groupthink. If we all did the same thing, we would have no nations, no wars, everyone would be omnivores or everyone would be vegan, the Beatles would not have broken up, and there would be no other bands besides the Beatles, because how could you appreciate other music if we all thought the same and knew that the Beatles always put out the music that satisfied our needs. Since we don't all think alike, we probably prioritize different things when we edit, or create. In the immortal words of the Beatles, Let It Be. Mburrell (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my poor phrasing of "invisible to the reader". Maybe I should have written something like "no noticeable effect on the rendered page". If a reader looks at the link Let It Be before you edit the article, and then looks at the link Let It Be after you edit the article, the article will appear unchanged. Apologies for presuming that you are a Beatles fan just because you have spent many hours editing Beatles articles. I guess I've spent time updating groups of articles where I'm not a fan either.

If we all did the same thing, we would have no wars? That sounds like a good thing! Imagine someone writing a song about that. :-) GoingBatty (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Okay, I just might be a fan of that song. I think "Imagine" is the best song ever written, in concept, in sound, in philosophy. Peace be with you. :) Mburrell (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]