User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

Archives

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6 § States and territories (dis)established in YYYY

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6 § States and territories (dis)established in YYYY on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. harrz ^talk 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Can i reference two notes? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Awards for 2024

		The New Page Reviewer's NPP Barnstar Award
		This award is given in recognition to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars for conducting 195 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars why you are adding italics on album and magazine titles in every album articles? Samchristie05 (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samchristie05: Because it is proper writing style per MOS:ITALICTITLE. Why do you remove italics from articles from no reason? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to undo the album i capitalize i think Samchristie05 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samchristie05: I don’t even know why you messaged me about this. You’re the one not following the MOS. Why not just do things correctly? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Tillotson

okay, i got Template:Johnny Tillotson into every articles i listed in Samchristie05 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HoN,Y redirect

Hi! I was the person that made the Hold on Now, Youngster page that you redirected to the album. I made that page for the 2006 EP of a similar name. I'm not trying to nitpick but I figured I might as well say just in case The August Crisis (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The August Crisis: Thank you for letting me know. It wasn't much of an article so my plan was to move it to draft space, but since I saw the very similarly titled article a redirect seemed to make the most sense. I'm glad you recreated the article in draft space, which will allow you to develop it without worry of being redirected or deleted. Good luck and happy editing. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 10 Lives (disambiguation)

The article 10 Lives (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 29 § 3007 until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Category:Eponymous categories

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Category:Eponymous categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About adding album cover in to infobox while making article without making draft

I'm creating an article without creating a draft, should I add the album cover in before, after or while i'm making the article? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newtatoryd222: I don't know if there is a recommended way of doing it, but I would create the article first putting a placeholder file name in the infobox, then I'd click on the red-linked file name in the article and go through the process of uploading the file. If done properly, I think that's all there is to it. Good luck. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, cool, i'll try that. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project Banners

Hi @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars quick question, how should i add 1950s, 1960, 1970s, 1990s, & 2000s albums like this one Samchristie05 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samchristie05: At max, you only need to add {{WikiProject Albums}}, the project for the genre of the album (if noted and sourced in the article), and the country project for the artist’s home country. Some project banners utilize other parameter options as well so read up on the projects before just adding or changing banners on every talk page. I recommend you not do it all because of lack of experience and understanding. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 7 § Per-year categories from 500s BC, 400s BC, 300s BC

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 7 § Per-year categories from 500s BC, 400s BC, 300s BC on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Beland (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

→

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars quick question what's → stands for on the View History tab? Samchristie05 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the history of all the edits done (by whom and when with the editor's edit summary) to whatever article or page you are looking at. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks cause it might be my 1st time using this Samchristie05 (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 25 § Years of the 20th century in French Polynesia

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 25 § Years of the 20th century in French Polynesia on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"2 DRUNK 2 FUCK" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2 DRUNK 2 FUCK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 26 § 2 DRUNK 2 FUCK until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars,

I just wanted to let you know that if you see articles or categories that credit work to Tochi Clement or Kourage Beatz NSI, it is likely the work of a paid editor sockpuppet. We have had blocked sockpuppets trying to create these articles since about 2023 and some of the page titles are fully protected. You work so much in the music editor and seem to review many newly created articles on albums and musicians that I thought I'd let you know that if you spot any ones in the future, they can probably be tagged for speedy deletion. Thank you for all of your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rating in websites

Hi, I hope you're doing well. I saw your edit on the article Broadway: Here I'll Stay — The Words of Alan Jay Lerner by Julie Andrews, and I noticed in your edit summary that you wrote: *"The reviewers don't rate the albums; AllMusic editors do."* The thing is, I often see it written the other way around, saying that the person who wrote the review is also the one who gave the rating — as you can see in this featured article: Madonna (album). Considering your perspective on the subject, do you think I should phrase it like this in future edits: *"The album was rated three stars from AllMusic, and the reviewer of the website wrote that..."*? Thank you for the edit on the article, and feel free to reply whenever it's convenient for you. Markus WikiEditor (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Markus WikiEditor: Yes, something like that should suffice or "AllMusic rated the album three-out-of-five stars and its review by so-and-so stated...". User:Koavf starting using "Editors at AllMusic rated this album [x.x] out of 5 stars, with critic [name of reviewer] writing..." and even created a template for such use (see Template:AMG text), although no one uses it. Personally, I don't think the rating needs to be mentioned in prose if it's listed in a ratings box since the rating can sometimes be at odds with the review (an album can appear to have received a rave review but gets 2 stars, for example). In regard to the Madonna album, note that the AllMusic page makes no direct connection between the review and the rating despite what was written in the article. It actually says "Editor rating" without association to whether Erlewine assigned the rating or not. Thanks and keep up the great work. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Markus WikiEditor (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings Box

hi @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars i was trying to put Record Mirror ratings of Hello, I Must Be Going! in the ratings box but it only has 10 ratings, it has two stars of that review, but no 11th ratings and review in the ratings box Samchristie05 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, Samchristie05? Anyway, I removed your addition to No Jacket Required since saying something has “a nice pattern” makes little sense in a review about an album. You need to better than that. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, btw what's aggregator stands for on the ratings box? Samchristie05 (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samchristie05: A review aggregator is like a summary or average, something that looks at all the ratings and reviews and can give a general consensus of the overall reception. Metacritic seems to be the one most widely used on Wikipedia. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Billboard Latin charts announced

So Billboard announced new subgenre charts of the Hot Latin Songs like they did with Latin Airplay ([1]). So I was thinking, instead of creating separate articles for each of them, to merge them to their airplay counterpart articles. So, for example, Latin Pop Airplay would be renamed to Latin Pop Airplay and Latin Pop Songs. I would also merge the #1 charts to their airplay charts as done on List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2025 or List of Billboard Hot Latin Songs and Latin Airplay number ones of 2025. What do you think? Erick (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Magiciandude, maybe the name of the article can be named as "spin-offs" from the Billboard charts article and have articles named, for example, Billboard Latin pop charts which would then incorporate the histories of "Latin Pop Airplay" with the new "Hot Latin Pop Songs". It's something I've thought about doing for other genre charts for a long time. I created rough drafts for these in 2011, such as Billboard rock charts. I didn't get too far with them obviously, but the idea would be to merge Mainstream, Alternative, AAA articles with the newer "Hot" charts and reduce the trivia clutter which is what takes up the space in most of those articles to fill them out but are really unnecessary. It would be more about the history of the charts for that genre in Billboard magazine, thus making it more encyclopedic. Just a thought, although it would take some time and commitment, which I haven't been able to do. I do like the idea of the combined lists, though. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! In fact I'd go a step further and even include the Latin Pop Albums chart as well on the Latin pop article. I'll go ahead and do the Latin subgenre charts first and then present them to WT:CHARTS see if we can apply to other Billboard genre charts as well. Erick (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Apologies for the over-linking/over-adding info on the articles you fixed a little while ago.. I was afraid if I didn't add a lot of context and sources to back it up the articles may have been nominated for deletion for being irrelevant or unworthy of an article. Thank you for the update/fix! I will follow model in future submissions. Bruteforce7700 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any further advice you may have for me on things I may be doing wrong but not realize yet would be greatly appreciated, trying to learn as much as I can and make good contributions. Bruteforce7700 (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not worry about adding a lot of context/content and put the focus on reliable sources. A detailed article with a lot of bad sourcing cam be more frustrating than a short article for a topic that has received significant coverage. It can feel like fluff and make one unsure of which ones are reliable or not. That's why this edit summary is concering: Some citations may be from typically unreliable sources but in this case the details check out and I can confirm the history is accurate and factual after doing hours worth research. Your research and thus your sourcing should be coming from reliable sources. How can you personally confirm the history?

In terms of linking, don't link countries (like United States or American), instruments (whether guitar or guitarist), common words, and repeating of terms (like the band's name or an album, just link the first use). Avoid overcategorization as well. Don't add both Category:Alternative rock groups and Category:American alternative rock groups, just the most specific subcategory. Keep up the good work, and I am glad to hear you strive to continually improve. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I just read this so going forward I will ensure to follow that example. My apologies for the hassle my previous edits/creations may have caused, and thank you for having patience with me during this learning process. I appreciate it! Bruteforce7700 (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And in regards to the sources on insight on how I can personally confirm the history, most of the time when I submit something or write an article about something, I tend to become obsessive on the facts and fine details and often find myself investing hours, day, and sometimes even weeks learning about the topic (especially music related) and will read years worth of articles published online, and then go through this whole process of researching data/content to confirm stories and notable events by going on the internet archive and searching the artists/bands historically archived official websites and comb through every one that has ever been archived reading and learning to backup and confirm whether what was said in online articles from third parties and news outlets actually happened and was correct. I often use the internet archive to read old magazines that has been uploaded and archived and are accessible to search, especially for topics that were popular before the internet era. Also, I do the same thorough research on official social media pages to see if artists ever mentioned it themselves and will listen to interviews they have given and I will scavenge YouTube videos of recent and historic interviews to help with learning facts from the bands/artists themselves instead of relying on journalists or bloggers. It seems excessive but I certainly have some kind of OCD when it comes to being obsessed and going all in on a subject. I think that has been part of my problem for over-sourcing too. 😅 But I will certainly take your advice and implement it into all of my contributions going forward. Again, thank you so much for the advice and being patient with me! Bruteforce7700 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		You're a hard-working editor and I think you deserve this. Keep up the good work! UnregisteredBiohazard (what did i do now?) 17:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ely Guerra albums

Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars,

Why did you create this category when you know another editor had already made a category for this artist. And you know because you removed it! This is really OWN behavior. What was wrong with the original category that was created that you had to make a new one that was slightly different? And your edit summary [here] sticking it to the other editor and implying that you have some privilege was really not civil. C'mon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we create "albums by artist" categories in the format of "Albums by Foo". You should know better than that. It was a simple correction for one album helping out a new editor. And I didn't "stick it" to the other editor. Why revert when I was right in the middle of creating it since the best way to create a category is to create it from a red link. If it had been there for a day or even hours, that would have made sense. Thanks and happy editing. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey

[2] - After doing some digging, I found where I messed up on the article for the song "Whiskey" by "Copperhead".. On top of mixing up the up the sources and linking the wrong references in the article, on page 61 of the February 5, 1993 issue of R&R Magazine, they listed "COPPERHEAD/Whiskey (17)" under the "NEW & ACTIVE" section on the right-hand side of the page in the "MOST ADDED" chart. I mistakenly took that as meaning it appeared at the #17 position on the AOR chart itself instead of what the #17 truly represented which is the amount of new radio stations that reported airplay of the song. I attached the digital copy of that exact magazine issue in the PDF file linked to this message from www.worldradiohistory.com where I sourced the magazine from so that you can see how I came about making the mistake and posting the incorrect information in my initial publishing of the "Whiskey" article... So sorry for my mistake, and I really appreciate you calling me out on my error. If you had not done so, I would likely have continued making this same mistake on other articles as at first I interpreted that as being the music chart data itself and not the amount of radio stations that reported they added the song to their airtime, this made me go back and study my mistake and thats where I found out how I messed up and what those lists and numbers actually represented. When I get free time today, I will go back and go over all my edits and update any other articles I may have incorrectly published such data. Again thank so you so much for the help and guidance, and I really appreciate you reaching out. Thanks! 😃 Bruteforce7700 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The King of Queens episodes has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I Must Be Going!

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars when you reverted my edit on Hello, I Must Be Going! by saying Per MOS:ALBUM, "include no more than ten reviews in table form, should i add another rating boxes? Samchristie05 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks I just want to make sure Samchristie05 (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]