User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Category:Zakerzonia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Pichpich (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion[edit]

Hi. You may be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Word Up! (song)#Little Mix version[edit]

Little Mix's version of the song is a notable cover version.

No it isn't. It hasn't been released yet and you provide no sources that indicate significant coverage. Plus by giving it its own section with an infobox, you giving it equal weight with all the other truly notable versions that have actual information to impart. All this needs is to be included in the list of other covers. Why don't you just wait until it deserves its own section based on coverage in reliable sources. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment request[edit]

Hi. Would you care to comment at this post? It is about the infobox for an album article and its "cover" and "released" field. Dan56 (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for noting that Teddy was Jewish. I get really resentful of the Wikipedians who think that they know better than what records, etc., show; and being family, I know that the Andrulewiczes became Anusim because we were heavily persecuted during our time in the Russian Pale, etc. (In fact, my great-great-grandma—of blessed memory—converted during the pogroms, and she would have highly resented anyone who knew telling her that the Andrulewiczes were not Jewish.). (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Vevo Certified music videos for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Vevo Certified music videos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vevo Certified music videos until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Eddie (album)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:John Eddie (album). Wieno (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


FYI, as an editor of this redirect, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 15. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirect Issue[edit]

Quick question, I tried to create an album stub for Blackberry Smoke, The Whippoorwill considering it has now been released in the UK. However, it seems to redirect back to the discography section - I was just wondering how that could be changed? Thanks. Karst 11:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to go to the redirect source and edit it as if you were editing or creating any article. You can do that by clicking on where it says "Redirected from The Whippoorwill" at the top of the discography page after you click on The Whippoorwill. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Karst 13:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call 80s Dance[edit]

Leave the article for the page alone. When people look at the article, they would like to look at the tracklist to decide on whether to buy the album or not. And it did chart well. It reached number 1 on the UK Compilation Chart which means that charting in the charts does make the album notable so get your facts right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Deep Colors (deleted article)[edit]

I modified the introduction to "Deep Colors" article, deleted february 20, 2014. A new version is visible here. Thanks for your attention --CoolJazz5 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You still don't provide any sources or an explanation of why it is notable. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Wpcm"[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25#Template:Wpcm about the nomination of Template:Wpcm in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Help needed with moving a category page[edit]

Greetings Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, can you please help me move the Category:The Headies winners page to Category:Winners of The Headies? I made a mistake when creating the category. For some reason, I can't move the page. I'm not sure which user groups have authorization to move category pages. versace1608 (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Another user suggested that the category be named Category:The Headies Award winners . I'm not sure which one sounds more appopiate. I already made a request at WP:CFDS. versace1608 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

One cannot "move" categories in the same way articles are moved. Since you just created it, you can simply create the new category and repopulate it, or you can take it to a full discussion at WP:CFD in which you can request the new name and everything will be handled automatically based on the outcome. It's also possible it can get deleted if others feel it is overcategorization per WP:OC#AWARD. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I was successfully able to leave a request at WP:CFDS. versace1608 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Karen Mok[edit]

What are you doing? When you make an edit and are reverted please don't just do it again. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can't read the source, 1997年莫文蔚的首张国语专辑《做自己》 says that it was the first Mandarin album, but why would anyone question this in the first place? And why would you immediately rush back to redo your edit again within 3 minutes? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Also deleting text in footnotes in favour of weblinks is hostage to link rot. If there is a relevant footnote, which this is, then by all means give the weblink as well, but please don't delete the actual content of the footnote. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually improving the footnote by citing specific information about the source (journal, date, volume, issue, page, author). Text is irrelevant because that is coming from a Wikipedia editor and not that actual source. All the information one needs to verify the content, with or without the weblink, is cited in the article using the appropriate Wikitools. You don't lose anything by removing text from a footnote when it is properly cited. If you want to include the text in the article, that would be much better way to present such info to the reader.
In regards to the article itself, you list a source here that isn't even cited in the article. But you say that is says it was the first Mandarin album. Ever or just Mok's first? I would find the former hard to believe and the latter doesn't suggest that alone would make the album notable. This article was severely lacking and your revert to your original poorly sourced article is why I reverted it back. All you had to do was address the notability concerns first. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
"But you say that is says it was the first Mandarin album. Ever or just Mok's first?"
... Good grief.
Anyway, (1) When you make an edit and are reverted please don't just do it again. (2) Please don't delete relevant supporting content cited text from footnotes. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── you're not listening are you. Why are you deleting the Billboard citation "Album Discography: "Karen," 1993 "Quan Shan Karen Mok," 1996 "Whole Body (Cantonese Album)," 1996 "I Say," 1997 "To Be," 1998 "You Can,"" Why is it so important to you to remove this? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(1) I will revert someone who reverts my edits if they do nothing to improve the article, which is what you did. You don't have to revert prior to making the necessary changes, just make the changes. It's not hard to work from a previous version if you so choose; (2) There is nothing relevant about Album Discography: "Karen," 1993 "Quan Shan Karen Mok," 1996 "Whole Body (Cantonese Album)," 1996 "I Say," 1997 "To Be," 1998 "You Can,". Quoting word for word from a source adds absolutley nothing. I will continue to fix your horrible and incomplete citation style as I come across them and as time allows using the proper wiki-citation templates such as {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, etc. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way, as an alternative to formatting the citations by hand.

Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus; see WP:CITECONSENSUS and WP:CITEVAR. The various citation templates below may be freely mixed, since they all produce a similar format.

But this isn't the issue, you can format citations using a template if you want, I am asking you to explain why you think a Billboard reference giving support for the lead Karen Mok .. Album Discography: "Karen," 1993 "Quan Shan Karen Mok," 1996 "Whole Body (Cantonese Album)," 1996 "I Say," 1997 "To Be," 1998 "You Can,". has to be deleted? You say it's not relevant, why should your opinion carry weight? You added a notability template to one of the best known albums of one of the world's best known singers, a quote from Billboard if nothing else should have prevented you adding a notability template. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(1) The keyword in your argument is "consistent". I'm not changing a consistent citation format to another, I'm changing an inconsistent, horribly formatted citation style to a consistent one. I would not change anything if you used proper citation style in a consistent matter, but you do not. It's not like I'm the only one who has brought this to your attention. (2) I add notability tags based on the content and sources within an article, and it is to bring attention to other editors that the article requires additional information and sources to establish the notability of the subject. How does listing the album in an artist's discography in a small blurb of a magazine suggest in any way that the album is notable? You added content to the article that asserted notability and I didn't put the tag back. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
(1) WP:MOS clearly says "Style and formatting should be consistent in an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia"
(2) You added a notability tag while removing the text of an article on the singer from Billboard which specifically mentioned the album. You should not add notability tags on non-English media while at the same time remove difficult to find English language article content. This applies not just to Chinese albums, but Spanish, French whatever - it is always more difficult to provide evidence of notability for non-English songs/albums/etc. Removing an English language citation which is directly relevant to notability while adding a notability tag is self-contradictory. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Also the fact that I've encountered this issue before means that I've been to the relevant citation pages and had a discussion about it. Which is why I am aware that WP:MOS clearly says "Style and formatting should be consistent in an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia" In ictu oculi (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have repeatedly mentioned to you about the issue of link rot, will you please stop deleting reference text. as here. Also particularly in Asia access to Google Books is sporadic and the same books/articles are not available in all countries. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


WPABarnstar.png The WikiProject Albums Barnstar
Thanks for all your help on the album stubs. Karst 21:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_22.
Message added 07:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Obvious question[edit]

You're probably sick of it by now, but since you don't have a user page... what does your user name mean? :) Best wishes, — Scott talk 17:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Only one other has ever asked. It's just a series of what I would call my pop culture influences. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for answering! — Scott talk 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups[edit]

Hello, I am aware that you are quite active with music related projects on Wikipedia, so I thought that I would pose the following question to you. Do you know if there is a good reason why we have not diffused Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups into by nationality or other possible diffusions?Hoops gza (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any reason why it hasn't been done. If you're willing to take it on, I doubt you'll get any objection. I don't think it would need any more diffusion than by nationality. That should keep it tidy, plus I don't think we need to overdue the categorization of these eponymous cats. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I shall be working on this as a long-term project.Hoops gza (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion[edit]

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Running 2014[edit]

There is a lot of information on the article to make it look a lot more than notable. When people look at the article, they would like to look at the tracklist to decide on whether to buy the album or not. And it actually did chart well. It reached number 1 on the UK Compilation Chart which means that charting in the charts does make the album notable and adding a tracklist is NOT vandalism, It is informative.

Wikipedia is not designed as a place for people to decide whether or not to buy an album. This is not Amazon. Charting in and of itself is not significant coverage. Are you just serving as a shill for the record companies? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No. When people want to look at a tracklist for a specific album, the first place they are most likely to search for it, is on here. User talk:hadji87

No they don't. They come to find information on notable albums. The track list is important but secondary to actual sourced information from publications that actually talk about the album, not just a list of what sold well in a particular week. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Need your help[edit]

Hi. Please could you stop CSD'ing categories of type Category:Pupils of <composer> for a day or so. I need to capture what supercategories they are in for an exercise I'm doing for Wikiproject Classical music. I will drop you another note when I've completed this process. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I did a handful at once and that was it. I hadn't done any before or since. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I found them from your contributions and have noted their supercategories in a text file, so no problem there. The exercise may generate some new ones and will, I think cause me to repopulate some deleted (or not yet created) ones. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm done with the exercise now. I think all categories in that group are now either populated or tagged with db-c1. Thanks for your patience. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I believe the following discussion about template accessibility may be of use to you. Please comment if you wish at Template_talk:Infobox_album#Consistancy. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. You have new messages at Template talk:H-Town#Removal of entries.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Album importance assessment request?[edit]

Hello Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars! I was wondering if you take requests for assessing article album's importance. I don't know if it constitutes as a "culturally or historically significant" album. The article I'm requesting for an importance assessment in particular is Romance (Luis Miguel album). Thanks! Erick (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Orelsan et Gringe sont les Casseurs Flowters[edit]

Hi. I've just done a hell of a lot of expansion on the album's article, so if you could review it again and maybe change the class on its quality scale that would be convenient. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 18:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Chandelier (Sia Furler song)[edit]

It should be under Chandelier (Sia song) because she is known monomynously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree - that is the way she is credited for this song.--Launchballer 13:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
All of the Beyoncé songs were disambiguated as "Beyoncé Knowles song" until her article was changed to what it is now, not because of how she was credited. Just take it to a move request Hadji87 so it can reach a proper consensus. Why are you so afraid to have a discussion about these things? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that a move request should be created for Sia's article if I want Chandelier to be moved?--Launchballer 17:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I was just offering a precedent. Make the move request for the song, although why not let Hadji do it. He appears to want to be a positive contributor to the encyclopedia, but he's a bit immature and needs a mentor. You seem to watch over him some, so that could be a good role for you. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
A good idea.--Launchballer 17:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As for Beyoncé, she is sometimes credited as Beyoncé Knowles like Usher is sometimes credited as Usher Raymond. As for Sia, she is never credited as Sia Furler. So the page Chandelier (Sia song) should have stayed how it was.

My thoughts exactly but as Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' move was technically a revert, the move was controversial and therefore the instructions at WP:RM/CM should be followed.--Launchballer 17:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
If Sia Furler is never credited as such, the name of her article she also be changed. Why don't you (Hadji87) open a move request for that as well? It would be a good exercise for you. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin anytime?[edit]

Hey there, just wondering: do you have any plans for adminship? Would you accept a nomination by an editor? Thanks. --Lixxx235 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Never really thought about it. Why do you ask? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Jenni Rivera[edit]

what do you mean notable I can use all as a source if you like. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc30002001 (talkcontribs) 02:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Does discuss the albums in detail? Or is it just a tracklisting? It's best if you can find sources that discuss the release, the writing or the production of the album, or reviews of the album by critics. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Check them out for Reyna de reynas I used ITunes the rest I used all music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc30002001 (talkcontribs) 03:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Those are no better. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 13:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well you know you can help find the sources you need. my point is that the albums should stay because it's part of her career discography if you will. if you are not happy with the sources posted try looking for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc30002001 (talkcontribs) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You should be happy that I'm just leaving them with a notability tag. Perhaps I should take them to AfD. Do you want them to be deleted altogether? They are not notable albums. If they are, you need to prove it, not me, because you're the one insisting they should stay. Just because she recorded these albums doesn't mean each one needs an article. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

you are right but the albums in question are her studio albums. and again you can help by finding the sources you need. I also seen your description on the first album and I think it's ridiculous. you are the first dude to tell me that sources needing reviews need to be posted. anyways I am just pointing out that you could help add the sources you want. again the albums in question are studio albums. also no need to be rude. P.S. I don't add all of the albums just the ones people add, I do them when I am bord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc30002001 (talkcontribs) 01:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone is telling you albums don't need sources, they are highly mistaken. The description I added to the first album came from a review that is sourced on AllMusic. I have no opinion on the topic myself. It's ok to disagree with a review; all I did was what you asked me to do - add information from a reliable source. Note that just because Jenni Rivera is notable doesn't mean every album she recorded is notable. Only albums that mean notability requirements should have articles. There doesn't need to be an article on every album in her discography. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Slave to the Rhythm[edit]

I don't think you understood my deletion request of Slave to the Rhythm (Michael Jackson song). An article exists for the song at Slave to the Rhythm (Michael Jackson Song), but per Wikipedia naming conventions, it should be at the title that is currently a redirect. Since I am unable to perform this move myself, I requested the deletion of the redirect so the article with "Song" can be moved to the same name but with "song". I can't just simply cut-and-paste because the history of the article that does exist should remain intact. This should be an uncontroversial move. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that is fine then. It seems like an IP also removed the notice. I will get an admin to merge histories and make the modifications you have suggested for you. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
History merge has been completed. Is everything alright now? In the future you may want to seek a history merge instead of a speedy delete notice for such article renaming requiring admin involvement. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. However, there was only 1 edit, which was the creation of the redirect, so it didn't require a histmerge. {{db-move}} is precisely intended to be used to request non-controversial moves, such as reversing a redirect. --15:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


Sorry for the delayed response - my poor computer was in the shop for a couple of days due to some kind of virus, and I only just got it back.

To find the requisite album articles I used AWB. First, I set it to make a list of all articles under Category:Albums and its subcategories. Once I got that, I turned it into a list of talkpages (using AWB) and saved the list. This I fed into my sandbox bit by bit to look for redlinks; as I found them, I set AWB to create a list of all it could find on the page, and generated talkpages from there. It's awfully involved - though much quicker than it sounds - but it's the best way I know to find the untagged articles. Sorry to make all the extra work; I don't believe in assessing automatically because I'm not looking at the articles themselves, merely the talkspace. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Any time. Always happy to be of help - that's why I create the talkpages, actually. So things can appear on the watchlists of people and projects who know what to do with 'em. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! discography > United States > Original Series > Now That's What I Call Music! 51[edit]

I have added NOW 51 to the list of the Numbered series (In the US), and you just keep deleting it over and over again! There is a "reliable 3rd Party Source". If you buy NOW 50 in the stores, it even says in the booklet, NOW 51 out August 5th! I have even contacted them on Facebook Chat, and they have confirmed that as well! Stop screwing around with it! I will keep adding it every time you delete it! It is true so stop messing with that section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltemas (talkcontribs) 13:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERCOM.--Launchballer 13:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Now 51[edit]

It is a reliable source, they have confirmed it themselves! It is not mentioned on websites yet because it is a little early, when it gets closer to that date, you will be thankful I put it on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltemas (talkcontribs) 17:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What he means is that he needs the proof from the reliable source. He also needs to check if it is official. JordanKyser22 Talk / Edits / Boxes / Subpages 21:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
When it gets to that date (not close to that date), when mentioned and referenced by 3rd party sources, then you can add it. Nothing to be thankful for, that's for sure. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups[edit]

Hello, is there a particular reason why you did not change the parent cats on Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups, whilst changing the parent cats of all of the subcats of this category? - Hoops gza (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No reason. I saw that Category:Wikipedia categories named after American people was added as a parent to Category:Wikipedia categories named after American musical groups so I thought if musical groups are all people they are also all musicians. I only did its sister categories and didn't think about changing the parent cat, too. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

SA charts[edit]

Hey, re: the SA airplay chart, I suggest I/we should remove old archives and chart positions from the Mediaguide site, as Mediaguide are now defunct and the chart is now EMA, all the charts prior to EMA are no longer on the website. Accordingly, peaks should only be notable on Wikipedia from when the EMA chart began on 21 May 2013, as all the charts from that date are archived on the EMA website, whereas the ones from Mediaguide are not and no longer exist. What do you say? Also, I still am getting no reply with regard to the SA album chart on the Records chart talkpage, and I want to add to the acceptable charts section on WP:CHARTS.—CoolMarc 00:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You may want to contact User:Kww directly who has been very good at researching the validity of charts, their methodology and archives. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

20xx in British music charts[edit]

I've spent a while today rectifying the "citation needed" tags you (correctly) placed on the '2013 in British music charts' article and putting proper citations in the article – I hope that I haven't missed out anything that still needs sourcing. I do plan to work back and rectify the citations for all the UK year end charts back to 1970 (the first year they were actually based on sales, rather than a points system), but I'd like to get some sort of consensus on consistency of presentation first: the format (some are in lists, others in tables), the cut-off point for the chart (some go to 40 singles/albums, some to 50, some to 100, etc) and other issues need to be sorted out first before I spend more time on them. My problem at the moment are the weekly summaries Hadji87 and others have been writing since 2011: quite apart from making the article absurdly long and not actually providing any really useful information, the date they use for each week's chart is the date it is revealed, every Sunday. The Official Charts Company uses a "week ending" date of the following Saturday, resulting in the "week count" in Wikipedia being one week out compared with the OCC. This may seem trivial, but apart from not matching the official source, it means the last week of 2013 on the Wikipedia article should actually be the first week of 2014, which is important when you come to talk about year end sales – and likewise for other years. I posted a message to Hadji mentioning this, and he has simply blanked his talk page.

I don't really know where to go to try and get this consensus on the yearly 'xxxx in British music' articles and the presentation of the charts: I can see Deb is the other person who often gets involved in correcting these articles but I'm not sure either you or her would want to get involved. Any ideas where I should be posting? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't expect Hadji87 to be cooperative especially if you are going to mess with "his" weekly chart summaries. He's pretty much of a loner and only wants things his way. I am in total agreement with you on its current presentation, however. I would agree with you on the dates as well, but how the dates are historically referred to in indepenendent sources would carry more weight. Maybe if you worked on, say, the 2009 or 2010 chart articles (whether a redesign of the page itself or in your sandbox), you can present it to the wiki-community for discussion. A posting on that article's talk page should suffice, and mentions of it with a link on other similar pages as well as the talk pages for Record Charts and Music of the United Kingdom WikiProjects, although neither of those seem particulary active. You can also go as far as requesting an RfC. I'll help and offer my support when and where I can. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply – I've given up on most WikiProject pages, as very few of them seem to be active (WikiProject Albums seems to be one of the few exceptions) which is why I prefer to go straight to editors who seem to be actively engaged on a particular article. The chart dates have always been recorded as the w/e Saturday: this made sense in the days before Sunday trading and 24 hour internet download availability, as there was a natural cut-off point for tabulating the week's sales after the shops had closed on Saturday afternoon, and this has been continued into the digital era. As for independent sources, the official chart books have always used this Saturday date – look at any copy of the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums or its replacement The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles and you'll see that all dates in the books, whether referring to chart entry, date reaching no. 1, etc. are w/e Saturdays, hence my wish to keep to this format. I don't mind if Hadji87 wants to keep doing his summaries, but if he's going to continue using "incorrect" dates and not cite his sources it's going to be a pain to keep correcting them.
Your suggestions make good sense – I think I will do as you say and pick an article from a previous year and work on it in my sandbox, and also ask Deb for her opinions. Cheers. Richard3120 (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like you've got a plan and you've got very reliable sources to use. It will certainly benefit the encyclopedia. Good luck. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just a quick confirmation please – when you suggested I contact User:A Thousand Years, did you mean A Thousand Doors? Richard3120 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did. My apologies. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, just an update on this: I've been looking at a few of the articles and it strikes me that most of the sales figures quoted in the year end charts aren't verified – I suspect most of them have been lifted from internet forums where chart enthusiasts have calculated them from the officially published year end artist sales figures, and then apportioning the sales among records where the artist has had one or more singles/albums out during the year. While laudable, it does mean these figures are no more than guesses, and more to the point, unverifiable. So I think all "sales figures" should be removed unless they have been published in Music Week or the OCC's website – this usually means only the top ten at most for each year will have any true sales figures. I don't believe there are any published figures at all before 1994, so I think all figures in the charts before 1994 should go, full stop. Or at the very least, there should be a note saying that figures are unofficial and estimated, but this kind of defeats the object of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of facts. What do you think? Richard3120 (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The musical song stubs[edit]

It is obvious you and I have very different philosophies. I think redlinks are good as they encourage passers-by to create the articles, and I think short stubs are even better as working off an already established piece of prose no matter how small, is better than staring at a blank page (any writer will tell you that). I also believe that an article, no matter how short, as long as the topic is notable and the information within it is correct, is fine to exist as is. Further, I think that all the articles I have created, at least the vast majority of them, are highly deserving of articles. You will notice that all the musical coverage across Wikipedia is shockingly underwhelming, and many standards and classics don't have articles yet. Yes, I am aware of WP:NSONGS, and I could pull up quotes from there than support my argument. Nevertheless if this is the course of action you want to take, enjoy. That's a lot of articles to go through though.--Coin945 (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Addendum Reading this back I realised it may come across as rude or harsh. That is not my intention. I am tired so may have not worded myself as tactfully as I could. What i meant to say is that if you do decide to continue, unfortunately I have created stubs on many different articles, so I am giving you the heads up it might take a while. Unfortunately for me, redlinks in templates are usually deleted, and apparently so are stubs. So it is hard to cover the breadth or articles I want to - by having all songs within a musical in the template so all articles easy to navigate between - and must instead make do with a very slowly growing batch of song articles being written across all musicals.--Coin945 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
When I see such articles, I cannot just take your word for it that the topic is notable. Nobility has to be verified with reliable sources, which you provide none. If the best you can say is "this song is from such-and-such musical", then it should not have an article but redirected. A redirect of the title to the musical will give any reader searching for such song a much more better background about it, or of course, will automatically tell them what musical it is from (if they didn't know already). Redirects can oftentimes be just as or even more helpful. I'm also not against redlinks in templates as long as they are for topics that are deserving of articles; however, the adding of redlinks should mean there will be an attempt to create such article in due time. It is possible to create stub articles which are properly sourced and provide beneficial information to readers to warrant a standalone article. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
<Observer comment> I came across the articles when I was patrolling the short pages, and I have to agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. If the songs cannot demonstrate notability - conforming to either WP:GNG or WP:NSONG - then the pages should be either deleted or changed into a redirect. Maybe famous songs within musicals (such as the Jet Song, which has been mentioned in TIME) could be expanded as proper stand-alone articles, but until notability could be demonstrated, the articles should be changed. KJ «Click Here» 00:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing category from Judas Priest album articles[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you removed Category:Heavy metal albums from some Judas Priest album articles. If it's not too much to ask, could you please explain why you did this? Johnny338 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's overcategorization because Category:Judas Priest albums is already is a subcategory of Category:Heavy metal albums, therefore any album in Judas Priest albums category is consided a heavy metal album by default. This is somewhat explained in the WikiProject Albums article style guide. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, I see! I was not aware of that style guide. Thank you for this explanation! I was close to reverting it, but figured I'd better clarify why it was done, which I'm glad I did! Cheers! Johnny338 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Basically, I've been reverting edits done over the last few months by some editors who also may have not been aware of the style guide (they are now). It's usually those top level genre categories (Category:Jazz albums, Category:Pop albums, etc.) which should not have any articles placed in them directly but in some subcategory whether by nationality of the artist and/or subgenre. Because so many articles could be placed in Category:Heavy metal albums, the subcategorization process helps thin things out and directs readers to a more specific or more defined set of albums. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You may have missed the point of my popcating those categories[edit]

Out of control category creep has been a concern of mine. Thankfully, I took the time to notice that it was due to editors exploiting loopholes in categorization policy/guidelines before I wasted a bunch of time with CFDs. However, after seeing those two categories, this brings it to a whole new level. So every article on Wikipedia should be accompanied by one or more vanity categories? That's the only possible explanation I can see for that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point was, but it is acceptable for albums by artist categories to have only 1 album in them. I actually find it extremely helpful when browsing the albums subcategories (such as Category:Alternative rock albums by American artists). Looking more closely at this album, it does appear that the categorization should not be split by two members of the band but in one category called Category:Whitford/St. Holmes albums. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Twenty One Pilots[edit]

Hi, I'm MYS77.

Can I create the category mentioned above? Now the band have pages for his current members and a discography page. I think it's pretty decent for now, right?

Cheers, MYS77 16:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, just forgot to mention: it was discussed earlier here. MYS77 16:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think it should take more than that to have/need an eponymous category for musical artists, but consensus from other similar CfDs suggests that what exists now will minimally support the category's existence. Please be sure to also create Category:Twenty One Pilots members. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I hear what you're saying about the Overlinking. And I'll create both cats, for sure. Thanks, MYS77 18:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

L.I.F.E - Leaving an Impact for Eternity[edit]

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Can you please re-rate the above mentioned article. It is no longer a stub. Thanks. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Losing jpg if merging album to band[edit]

Hi, maybe you would know this: is it axiomatic that if an album is merged into a band article (even if the cover is specifically mentioned in the band text) the jpg is no longer legitimate use? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not positive but in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Images and notation, it says a non-free album cover establishes fair use only in an article about the album in question and that ach image must contribute specifically, uniquely and irreplaceably to the article. That cover would have to have a special relationship to the band itself, I suppose, to be used in the article about the band. I'm sure that's not much help or anything that you didn't already know. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Beautiful" title discussion[edit]

Hey! I know I pinged you a few weeks ago when I bumped the discussion here, but I'd like to notify you again since it's been about 2.5 weeks with hardly any comment from other editors. Please drop by and weigh in if you have time! –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

2013 in British music charts - sortable tables[edit]

Hi again – I don't know if you have been following the conversation A Thousand Doors and I have been having about the presentation of these tables: it was he who originally suggested to me that sortable tables would be the way to go and I had no objection to this, and began creating the tables accordingly. Unfortunately you-know-who took it upon himself to revert these changes – A Thousand Doors left a polite message asking him to explain his reasons for the change here at User talk:Hadji87#2013 in British music charts, but it won't surprise you to learn he hasn't been graced with a reply.

I had only been waiting for a consensus, as I didn't want to do all the work of creating these sortable tables only to have to revert them all to basic tables or lists afterwards. It seems that you and A Thousand Doors both agree on the sortable tables format, so providing nobody else sees fit to change them back, I'll resume work on updating all the other years. Cheers, Richard3120 (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I can only say keep up the good work. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks – I notice that he's removed the Wikilinks from all names repeated twice and the Sortname templates, obviously not realising that it disrupts the sortability by name option... I shall have to change it all back. I notice he's also warring with In ictu oculi about a DAB issue with a song name, when his reason for it is quite clearly incorrect... he is a nuisance. Sigh. Richard3120 (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Indian animated characters[edit]

Category:Indian animated characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. JDDJS (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Album ratings[edit]

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, can you please rate these articles: Jagz Nation Vol. 2: Royal Niger Company, Sarkology, T.I.N.T., The Beginning Live, The GIGO E.P and Omo Baba Olowo? Thanks in advance. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


Care to explain why you redirected "Yahoos and Triangles"? Such changes require broad consensus. I checked that page's talk page and there was no discussion there. Captain Cornwall (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The article had just been created and fails to meet notability requirements for stand alone articles based on the policies of Wikipedia. I redirected per WP:BOLD but, of course, you are free to revert back to an article and/or start a discussion on the merits of the topic. Adding some verifiable sources would be a great start. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello. Can you check the categorization on Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!? I think the "thrash metal albums" is inappropriate there, but never hurts to ask a more experienced user.--Retrohead (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As long as Category:Megadeth albums is a child to Category:Thrash metal albums, there is no need to categorize individual Megadeth albums as thrash metal albums as well. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Using certification icons on Template:Certification Table Entry[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Music on whether or not certification icons should be applied to Template:Certification Table Entry. Erick (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)