Heya, I saw your edit correction here at The Amazing World of Gumball, where you state in your summary that Animation is not a formal genre classification. In the description for the Genre parameter at Template:infobox television, editors are instructed to refer to List of genres#Film and television genres for examples of appropriate genres. That article lists Animation as a main genre (along with Comedy, Horror, Erotica, etc). If I've provided a reliable independent source (RottenTomatoes) to support the addition, and even unreliable sources (Amazon.com, IMDb) describe the series "genre" as Comedy, Animation, I'm interested in understanding the justification for why it is not a "formal" genre in your eyes, and I mean that in a respectful way, not a combative one. Editors can only rely on the guidance they've been expressly given, and the List of Genres article is the only guidance we're expressly given. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- My removal of "animation" from the genre field, I'll admit, stems mostly from the fact that from the animated series articles I've seen—and I don't mean to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here—I've rarely seen "animation" being explicitly listed as a genre in the infobox. At most I've seen the term being used in the lead, i.e. "[name of show] is an animated comedy...", or in the format field of the infobox, i.e. "Animated series". I actually took a look at some GA/FA animated series articles before I carried out the edit, and I failed to find any examples where "animation" was listed as a genre; the listed genres seem to pertain more to terms such as comedy, drama, science fiction, fantasy, etc.
- If I've read it correctly, the list of genres article lists animation as a sub-sectioned format, and not as a formal genre classification ("Genres are listed under the sub-sectioned formats"), and from the way I've read the infobox documentation the genres article serves as more of a list of examples for editors rather than an enforced guideline of genres to choose from. I also don't mean to be combative here, and I hope you can see where I'm coming from regarding my edit. Thanks, Holiday56 (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the friendly reply! I think I understand exactly where you are coming from and agree with you in the grander scheme, (which I will address in a few sentences), but I still do respectfully disagree in the narrow scheme. The "Comedy" subsection of the List of Genres is as prominent a classification as the "Animation" subsection in that article. Horror is bolded and illuminated just as Animation is. That may be a fault in need of addressing, but that is the status quo right now. That said, I would propose that we try to find a middle ground here, because "Comedy, animation, cartoon series" seems to me a reasonable attribution of genre for that show, given the very vague instructions. (And clearly we can both see that this type of grouping looks a lot like a taxonomy, identifying the series broadly as Comedy, presented through the medium of Animation, in the style/format of a cartoon series.) There are other fundamental problems with the infobox, which is why I started a discussion here where I attempt to address the problems with the poorly-defined, antiquated "format" parameter. In an ideal world, I think there should be a clear taxonomy for TV. Yes, maybe genre SHOULD (as you propose) be broader: Comedy, Horror, Suspense, Drama, Reality, and maybe "Animation" doesn't quite fit as a broad classification, like you say, because animation could be a MEDIUM for comedy, or horror, or suspense. So maybe there should be clear sub-classes for Comedy>Animation or Drama>Soap opera or Drama>Soap opera>Daily series. Anyhow, until we get to the ideal, I would like to propose that we flesh out the genre field of Gumball a little bit to describe the series based on the current guidelines, which may hopefully dissuade the kiddos from porking it out with ridiculous "black comedy", "poop humor" tags. At least maybe we can both agree that no form of humor-style-interpretation" (slapstick, surreal, gross-out) should exist here unless sourced? In the interim, if you wanna join me on a (potentially painful) campaign to re-figure the status quo, I'd be happy to get your input! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey Holiday56, I have learned of a few US radio sites such as Frequency and the BDS Radio charts because of your edits to hip hop articles, which has really helped me add radio impacts/service dates to articles and finding single releases, that would else have gone unnoticed and not reflected on the various articles. I was wondering how the BDSRadio charts work and if it is possible to find a solid date or even estimated time period for any of them. An example would be "Bound 2" is currently on 28 Urban stations in the US, but I did not see a reported impact date on AllAccess or Frequency. I noticed a long time ago that just searching google for radio releases does not help anything. STATic message me! 04:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it did, and yeah "Black Skinhead" was exactly what I was thinking of, it never appeared anywhere. Maybe the sites have something against Kanye West aha. But I noticed you found a US Urban release date for "Used 2", did you search Frequency's archives or something? Because I have not been able to find a way to search the archives, and only going by the "featured music" section of their main page. STATic message me! 17:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Better source request for File:Michelle Branch - Breathe.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alone Together (Fall Out Boy song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idolator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bitch, Don't Kill My Vibe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Weird Al discography
- Yep, I'll try to start up the FL nomination as soon as possible. Thanks! Holiday56 (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You've obviously seen this already. Do you think the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart (and the equivalent albums chart) needs a new notation on discography pages? Personally, I think that as most users are aware of the current notation, a different one would only be needed if both the R&B Songs and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs charts are used on the same page: otherwise, if the user was really curious to the identity of the chart, they could follow the wikilink. Besides, some notations (such as US Pop or US Dance) are used for similarly named charts on different discographies already. However, I'm curious for your opinion, so I can try and establish some sort of consensus on the issue. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm gonna chime in and say that a new notation is not necessary, unless, of course, both of those charts are used in the singles table, as you mentioned. Infex (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to also chime in, but might as well since I was involved. I do think that it needs have the proper change and disambiguation since we now have the Hot R&B Songs and Top R&B Albums charts, we would not want anyone confused in what chart it charted on. Since I assume most readers just scroll through discographies, and not check every wikilink. This is especially confusing, since in most hip hop discographies have the Hot Rap Songs chart positions right after the R&B/HH chart, at least with the UK is actually referred to as the R&B chart, when its just a general urban chart. Not really sure why we always referred to it as just an R&B chart. STATic message me! 06:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe this is just because I've already gotten used to using the "US R&B" notation, but I do think I prefer the old notation and agree with Rufus and Infex that the "/HH" notation isn't particularly necessary unless both the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and the R&B Songs charts are being used in the same article. I've also noticed that the extra "/HH" makes the column width look rather disproportionate to the other charts (see Kendrick Lamar discography for example). Still, I can definitely see where STATic's coming from and I'm open to change if proper consensus can be established. Holiday56 (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)