User talk:SNUGGUMS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:XXSNUGGUMSXX)
Jump to: navigation, search

My talk page. Leave me messages here. I can also be contacted through email.

Super Bowl[edit]

Will you be watching this evening--any songs you're hoping for? I was about to say this would have been the opportune moment to make Katy TFA, but I remembered you already did so for her thirtieth birthday! —JennKR | 18:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I will be watching, Jenn. While there's little doubt Ms. Katheryn will perform "Roar" and/or "Firework", I'd love to see "Last Friday Night" from Teenage Dream as well as "Dark Horse" and "Birthday" from Prism, and "Hot n Cold" from One of the Boys performed. Those happen to be my favorite singles from the albums :3. I haven't previously said so on Wikipedia, but I love seeing that woman perform, and am pumped for her show! I've seen her in concert twice; once in November 2011 during California Dreams Tour, and once in August 2014 during Prismatic World Tour. During the latter, she waved in my direction while in the air on big balloons performing "Birthday" roughly 20 feet away from me :D!! It also kicks ass that Lenny Kravitz is joining her for the halftime show. As for TFA, this would be an interesting time, but there was no way I could pass up the chance for having it be on her 30th birthday. I had that set and planned before she was even announced to perform at halftime. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I loved her halftime performance :3! Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I know this is more personal, but I think I heard Brian Setzer's "Let's Shake" in the Superbowl as well. Should that be mentioned in the album for "Let's Shake's" article or in his article anywhere? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Could be worth a mention in the album article, not sure about his main article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks once again! -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course, Joseph. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, JennKR, did you watch yourself? Figured I'd ask since you initially brought it up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I did, and I thought she did a fantastic job! I expected it to be quite a colourful, bizarre visual spectacle, and I think it met all of these expectations. I particularly enjoyed "Dark Horse", because I thought that the staging and dancers captured the nature of the song well (even better than its video). "California Gurls" and "Firework" were also executed brilliantly; I particularly liked how in the former, she got the crowd to sing. Not to forget Missy Elliot who performed three of her classic songs and also killed it! —JennKR | 10:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they were all executed brilliantly :3. One of the dancing sharks also became a meme :P. I also fucking loved how Lenny opened up "I Kissed A Girl". Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Lemme join in the festivities saying that I loved loved loved the opening of the show. It was just sooo classic O-m-g moment. Even better than Madonna's. And Missy was just too good, can't wait for her to release songs inline with "Get Your Freak On". —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I really liked Madonna's performance as well, IndianBio, but yes KP just blew me away (like I knew she would) and made me proud to be a KatyCat. Damn, it feels good to let my inner fan show. Speaking of which, I actually must say that while I did like Madge beforehand, reviewing many of her GAN's ended up getting me more and more into her, so thanks for (indirectly) increasing my interest in her. Same goes to Bluesatellite and 11JORN. "Die Another Day", "Secret", and "Vogue" are among my fave's, even before I made my account here. Also, hopefully this year's show can be expanded enough for a DYK soon, and Arre 9 (who has done lots of expanding) might be able to help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I loved the visual aspect of Madonna's performance, it was similar to Katy in the respect that both really considered how the performance would look to the crowd, and not just for those at home. I suppose Madonna's biggest problem is that it's difficult to condense thirty-years of hits into one very short performance, although "Vogue", "Music", etc. are all good choices. Will either of you be watching the Grammys this weekend? Madonna is performing there. —JennKR | 15:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

True, it IS hard to condense thirty years of work into a brief show. Currently unsure if I'll watch Grammys or not. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Josh Hutcherson FAC[edit]

Thanks again for the support, just wondering if you could strike the previous neutral !votes? Lots of bolded words out there, so the ones that aren't relevant anymore can probably be struck-through. Gloss 00:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, Gloss. Care to work on J-Law together after his FAC concludes? Also, for the future, I've made a redirect for Hutcherson's filmography if you ever plan on splitting it off and going for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, I've been waiting on that one for this FAC to end, its been semi-stressful given it has been opened since November and two editors have ignored my pings. I'm looking forward to the J-Law one. And thanks for making the redirect, I'm sure I'll get to that split someday. Gloss 01:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing bro :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Taylor Swift[edit]

Do you think the consensus here is enough for the project to be started? If not, when do you think it would be? Thank you in advance. MaRAno FAN 16:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to say since I haven't closed these things before. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, not about closure. I am asking if the support is enough so that I boldly go ahead and start the WikiProject. I thought that a lot of people come to you for advice, so I would too. Do you think 4 supporters is enough? MaRAno FAN 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I see. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AfD closure[edit]

Snugs, I don't think this closure was appropriate. The discussion was barely touched aside from three editors (one a significant contributor to the article) making arguments to the person. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth a relist, but the main reason I closed as "keep" was article size (a factor mentioned). Not too small for its own article, even if not as famous as those for Michael Jackson's "Thriller" or Madonna's "Justify My Love". I am quite sorry you were bitten in violation of AGF, and the flame towards you was definitely uncalled for. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing this reopened. I don't follow AfDs too often but I'd definitely agree with deletion on this one. Gloss 19:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Gentlemen, after giving this some thought, the best course of action is probably a proposed merge to the song article if you feel the video doesn't warrant a separate article. No prejudice against either outcome, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it should be deleted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI for GAga690[edit]

HereIndian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Very much needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Missing[edit]

Thanks for the note. Life's been busy so I haven't been around lately, as you can tell. Going forward I still hope to contribute to the project, if not as frequently as during my peak. Cheers,  Gongshow   talk 00:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Understandable, Gongshow. If you go for long periods without activity, though, someone might re-add you to the list. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan peer review[edit]

I have put this article up for peer review again, since it failed FAC. Please have look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Shah Rukh Khan/archive2, and comment if there is any reason that it would not gain your support next time. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 15:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I would really value your input now, since you opposed last time. BollyJeff | talk 14:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll comment on it over the weekend. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Filmography in its own section[edit]

I see you are repeatedly removing the filmography header, citing WP:LAYOUT. I have not been able to find the paragraph in question you are referring to. Can you direct me to the section? Thank you. Nymf (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS:PARAGRAPHS states the following:
The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points.
With this in mind, Nymf, a referral link on its own would be extremely short section/subsection, and is not enough to stand on its own. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I disagree that it would not warrant its own subsection. "See also" is mostly meant for tangentially related topics, whereas the filmography is highly relevant to the subject at hand, and, as it is now, it is hard to find the filmography at all.
The paragraph that you cited says "generally do not warrant their own subheading"; this is one of those cases where they generally do warrant their own subheading, as not having it makes navigation harder. Nymf (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. A section with only a link is uninformative, and goes against WP:Summary style. Adding a list of works (or prose discussing works) in that section along with referral link would make it better, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Uninformative, but not unuseful. If you believe it should be expanded, the course of action from you should have been to add Template:Expand section, rather than blanking, and someone would have expanded the section. Nymf (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLIX halftime show[edit]

The second paragraph of the article states Katy entered riding a tiger. This should read lion, looking at the neck area makes this easy to notice. (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, looking to help[edit]


I am a student at American University and am currently enrolled in a class about wikipedia and public knowledge. I am interested in contributing to the Wiki project about Actors and Filmmakers. Do you perhaps have any suggestions or tips on how I could be of use in progressing this project?

Best, VeronikaGajer (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. If you'd like to help out, feel free to join the project by adding your username here, and then see what articles you'd like to contribute to. Basic ways you can help are by editing prose, adding citations to unsourced content, and maintaining neutrality. Happy editing! Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail[edit]

Where is the official policy on not using Daily Mail? I see it used repeatedly on here. Direct me to that section, and I'll gladly remove it. --Kbabej (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Many discussions have taken place on WP:RSN questioning its reliability, Kbabej, and it has a general reputation of being untrustworthy, especially when compared to other UK papers such as The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really a convincing argument for using questionable sources in articles. For more, John could tell you all about why it's a poor quality source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The Mail is a tabloid and is a poor source anywhere other than as a primary source on the opinions of the Daily Mail and its columnists. The publication has undergone and lost many legal challenges for publishing untrue and in some cases scurrilous and defamatory material. We can use it as a source for the most innocuous and uncontroversial facts only. Such exceptions should generally be agreed at article talk and in BLPs in every case. If in doubt, don't use the Daily Mail. The relevant policies are to be found at WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:IRS, plus numerous discussions over the years at the relevant noticeboards. --John (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


Can you please revert Josephla's continuous addition of to 1989 here. I don't wanna cross 3RR, hence asking. The user should also be trout slapped for the personal attacks. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have settled down for now, but yes their behavior is concerning. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Jake Gyllenhaal's article[edit]

Hey, I would like to know the reason for which you reverted my edit. Here is the link to it ---- (Nipun Nayar 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipunnayar (talkcontribs)

See the WP:LAYOUT link I provided in that summary and my above discussion on this talk page with Nymf. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(Nipun Nayar 17:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC))Hey! Thanks a lot for responding! I see the reason why you had removed it and I would like to tell you the reason why I had put it. It was because, when you are on a long Wikipedia article and you want to read a particular topic, you tend to click the link in the content box(and for actors, one of them is Filmography). The solution to this problem that I can offer is shown in
If you allow me to I could write some selected films on the page and add the link under the Filmography heading. I also some how think that it is unnecessary but, if you approve, I would love to contribute. Nipunnayar (talkcontribs)

It's plausible to add a list of films, but a cherry-picked list a.k.a. "selected films" would be POV as it would be based on unknown (and unobjective) criteria. Just remember to be comprehensive if listing his films. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup Feedback Form[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Feedback
Symbol support vote.svg

Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it.

Your responses will only be visible to the three judges.

Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition!

2014-15 GA Cup Feedback Form

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User: Atomic Meltdown[edit]

Hi there,

User:Atomic Meltdown keeps on changing the performers tables without thorough discussion and reach on consensus. If he really wanted to change the format, he would ask for consensus such as when there was a discussion about changing the awards table here. Please do something. --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

On which articles is he doing so? Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
He keeps on changing 85th Academy Awards and 86th Academy Awards. I reported it to administration and we both got a warning about being blocked to edit warring. I want to start a discussion at the 2014 Oscar's talk page with experienced FL makers to reach a consensus. I don't want to be blocked. Please can you help me? I certainly would appreciate the help in starting a compromises. Thanks. --Birdienest81 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll leave him a message first. It might be worth filing an RfC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Christina archive[edit]

Hey Snuggums, I'm pretty sure that when archiving a talk page you're supposed to just copy and paste the threads into the archive page. What you did at Talk:Christina Aguilera was move it and that took the entire talk page's history with it to the archive page. I think that's okay for user talk pages if that's what the user prefers but on article talk pages I'm almost positive a copy and paste is the right way to go. Pinging @Acalamari: for a second opinion, I may be wrong, but if I'm not an admin will be needed to delete the next Talk:Christina Aguilera page so the archive page can be moved back in. Gloss 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There is that option, Gloss, but I've seen other people before move talk pages when archiving. The important part is that none of it just completely disappears without ways of being found. What I've personally done is a page move when archiving an entire page's worth of threads, and a copy-paste for archiving only part of a page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
As I checked out WP:ARCHIVE it looks like we should be keeping the talk page's history all intact in the main talk page history whenever possible =/ Gloss 21:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please just copy and paste and provide an archive link in the future :) I moved the page back. Keegan (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I saw, and will keep this in mind for the future Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Enthiran/archive1[edit]

I have opened the peer review for the film. Please do suggest any changes that I should make before I go for FAC. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not right away, but I'll look at it later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

O'Shea Jackson Jr.[edit]

I notice you deleted the page I just created for O'Shea Jackson Jr. I don't think it's right to say he "fails" BIO - I'm still adding to the page and he's in one of the most anticipated movies of the year. The trailer already has 2.5m views in two days. Additionally, I just found out he already had a page under his rap name that was not deleted. Nothing linked to him and I didn't come up when I first searched (too many OMGs) so that's why I created the different article. So I proposed a merger. Thank you. Wikimandia (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't delete the article- I redirected it. Secondly, see WP:Notability (people), which is WP:BIO links to. Third, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Merging to his father Ice Cube's article is a good idea. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi there. I'm surprised you think this was necessary...there was disagreement over two bits of information, but there hadn't even been 24 hours to wait and see if the issue would carry on or be dropped (and Wool3linnen and TrueHeartSusie were discussing things on his/her talk page). We now have a rather ugly banner at the top of the page for the next three days, which I think it a shame. I'm sure your intentions were good, but maybe next time wait a bit longer to check that there's definitely a real problem. Just how I see it, no hostility or anything though :) Cheers --Loeba (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've seen worse edit warring, and didn't want this to get out of hand. Sorry for the ugly banner, though, it is a shame. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Azealia Banks discography[edit]

Would you mind leaving some comments here? It is a short list and does not require much work I believe. (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll look it over within a few days Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!![edit]

Wikilove2 new.png Valentine Greets!!!

Hello SNUGGUMS, 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,
 - T H (here I am) 12:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Thank you The Herald :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've responded to your comments for Her[edit]

Apologies for how long it took. Please give my changes another look, and reply to me at Talk:Her (film)/GA1. Thank you for reviewing! Sock (tock talk) 16:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll look it over again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Can you assist on the talk page of Pink (singer) in the infobox section? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Assist what aspect, exactly? Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone is trying to put infobox person on her article over musical artist, when there is really no reason to, and it has already been discussed and accepted. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I actually must say I agree with using infobox person. It allows more parameters to be used including spouse, net worth, residence, and children among others. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but typically person is used when they are notable outside of music. She is really not. Her spouse isn't all that notable either. And really, then there is no point in musical artist. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
If things were up to me, I personally would just use one all-encompassing infobox for all types of people. The closest thing to that is "person" with embedding other things when needed. All the other templates are simply too limited in parameters. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


You know what this reminded me of? How we were deducing that the IPs on "G.U.Y." were all associated with Reece Leonard. Behaviorly they were same but maybe not same person, that's what I deduce now. What do you think? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking back, that very well could be the case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
We were too harsh do you think. And do you believe he deserves a second chance? The thing is that Reece has not contributed anything to other areas of the Wiki to show that he can indeed be a good editor. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Definitely jumped to conclusions too quickly at times. Not sure if giving him another chance is worth it since he hasn't been very active in recent months. He'd definitely have a better chance of proving himself useful nowadays, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes the traffic on Gaga articles are really low, so The Fame Monster and her old articles can definitely go through a GAR. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Origin Teresa Heinz Kerry[edit]

The former candidate for first lady of the United States is known as Teresa Heinz Kerry, but her Christian name is Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões Ferreira. For the male line, her ancestry is entirely Portuguese (Jews from Portugal) and from her mother's side, her ancestors are British - very probably German Jews before that - who emigrated to South Africa, although her maternal grandmother was born in Egypt. Translated from this. Please read it carefully, if you should speak portuguese, as I do. Cruks (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My main concern was that you didn't include the citation in the article when making changes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Super Bowl XLIX halftime show[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Since when is the New York Post not a reliable source? RSN archives generally agree that it is one. And regarding the previous revert, the subject's social media is allowed as a source under certain circumstances. I do agree that the Instagram source, which does not mention Kinney by name, is not acceptable, but I'm just making sure you know this so you don't remove self-published sources with better uses in the future. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:SOCIALMEDIA being allowed in some cases. As for New York Post, I haven't seen any threads calling it reliable. If anything, I've only seen people who are against it. In any case, I found a better source and used that. Sorry that your girlfriend is officially off the market now, though :P. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
A few searches for NYPost turned up some questioning, but most seem to be in agreement that it's reliable for most uses. Anyway. Ha. I figured it was about time. Ironic that she's about to marry someone she met on the set of a music video for a love song about her ex-boyfriend, no? –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It is rather ironic. But is it like raaaaaaaiin on your wedding day? Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


You pinged me in something, but I did not get what context it was? Would you explain here? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please show me the edit where I pinged you. Otherwise, I won't be able to help much. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I got it dear, you archived your talk page here and there must have been a {{ping}} template there somewhere and it notified me that you had pinged. Lol, funny stuff. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
XD I actually had deduced that and was about to say it right before you posted :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLIX halftime show photos[edit]

Hey, how are you? I uploaded two photos to Wikimedia Commons of Katy Perry at Super Bowl XLIX halftime show. «Teenage Dream» and «California Gurls».--C.Jonel (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you C.Jonel- these will be useful! Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad very much, I was trying to add it to the article but still I haven't minimum editions. A pleasure to meet you, did a good job in Prism I still am adding information and correcting the article in the version in Spanish.--C.Jonel (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lady Gaga[edit]

(not really sure how to message on here so sorry if this is way wrong...) Yeah, thanks for reverting my edit. I did notice that the engagement had been referenced elsewhere but felt that the placing of my addition was more appropriate / fluent. I considered getting rid of that other one but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes... so maybe since you seem to be the Lady Gaga page overlord you could use your digression to revert mine and get rid of the other one. I wouldn't want to do it myself and offend you further. Thanks for caring enough to monitor the page though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabunnykin (talkcontribs) 10:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Annabunnykin, there are no "overlords" of pages, though I do often keep a watch on her article. In terms of placing, it might actually be worth moving all Taylor Kinney information to section where their engagement is currently placed (Artpop and Cheek to Cheek section). Snuggums (talk / edits) 10:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Unknown User[edit]

Hi there, An unknown user with the IP number keeps changing the multiple awards and nominations tables at Academy Award for Best Actor. And this list was formatted for Featured List reasons. Can you please tell him to stop? --Birdienest81 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I left a notice on the IP's page advising to seek consensus. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song) FAC[edit]

Hello there. Would you like to comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/archive3? Your help would be very much appreciated.--Earthh (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm working on the article.--Earthh (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've finished addressing your comments.--Earthh (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Just saw that it the nomination got archived before I could comment, sorry about that :/ Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton GA nomination[edit]

Hello! Just a response back after the seven day period that you left on the page. I should be able to start fixing potential problems remaining within the article tomorrow around this time (if not a little earlier), so whenever you start, I'll be ready. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Sure thing, LeftAire. I'll have it up by the end of this weekend. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Question on a dispute[edit]

An editor's basically trying to tell me, if it is something all fans know, or you know it to be true, it does not have to be sourced. I knew something was true, but got rid of it because there was no source provided. Also, this editor, because I got rid of the wrongly cited quote, said "I have never bothered to read the declaration of independence, therefore I will AFD United States." I don't think this editor is making much sense here. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't make sense, Joseph. The assertion of "if it is something all fans know, or you know it to be true, it does not have to be sourced" is outright absurd. I'd advise linking that user to WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and if you see my talk page or Wikipedia:WikiProject Taylor Swift on it's talk page, he is not giving in. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
(Shakes head in disappointment) Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Haha, yeah, and people call me a fanboy. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent AFD Closure[edit]

So, I'm not really interested in Sinéad O'Connor's music, but when I came across the AFD for a song article by her, I thought I would give some input. You closed it as a merge, and I really don't see that close being very appropriate. It should have at least been a no consensus close. The two merge arguments were heavily focused on WP:Routine, which is for articles on news events, not songs by musical artists. Also, the two keep arguments were based on WP:NSONGS. I just thought I would raise my concerns here. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:Routine was referred to by mistake, but one point of WP:NSONGS is that songs shouldn't have articles when unlikely to grow beyond a stub. I'm not convinced it could've grown beyond a stub. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Maybe I should bring it up at Deletion Review to see what others think? Kokoro20 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In this case, I'd say wait things out and see whether more secondary sources outside of album reviews come along that don't just give brief mentions. Feel free to start a draft in the meantime where such sources can be collected. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera[edit]

Hello, SNUGGUMS. Thank you so much for having adressed the flaws of the article Christina Aguilera on the last GA nomination. In response to your review, I have since addressed nearly all of your concerns. Would you mind casting an eye over it so that I could nominate it for GA again? Much thanks, (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your work so far is quite impressive, . As stated in the review, I would at least wait until her new album has been released and the article has stabilized. With her upcoming work in the shows The Voice and Nashville, those might also affect stability. While she was stable during my review, it would be more so when a new album isn't known to be in production. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography about Madonna[edit]

Really interesting article, but I don't know. Should this be part of Madonna bibliography? Or should it be renamed to List of books authored on Madonna or something? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting, IndianBio, but I don't know what to do right now. When looking at WP:WikiProject Bibliographies#Goals and other "Bibliography of _______" articles like Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant or Bibliography of New York, it doesn't follow the same format. I will say though that "Bibliography of ______" is NOT the same as "_______ bibliography" based on my impression from the Bibliographies WikiProject. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the naming convention seems fine no? I have notified the Bibliography wikiproject to verify the article as I hope they would know better. In the mean time this article needs formatting of the tables. I know you are busy, but tell me a future time if you would be available Snugs? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll happily help later on, and naming convention seems fine :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Bob Simon[edit]

Sure, he isn't "known" as Robert, but we seem to have a policy when we use a shortened form of a name, that we link to the disambiguation page for the full name, e.g. Reggie Evans or Manny Ramirez. And Robert E. Simon is kind of-somewhat known as "Bob Simon". hbdragon88 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it's more of a common practice than a policy. For someone like Ramirez, it's unlikely anyone would confuse him with anybody else that has a similar name. Likewise, it's unlikely Bob Simon would be confused with Robert E. Simon. DAB referrals aren't always needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 10:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


What source do you have to prove it is not official? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 12:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

From what is known, it is simply one of the snapshots that comes with the album. If you check the article's history, other editors have previously removed that saying it wasn't the official cover. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I knew that was your answer. Being a crazy Taylor Swift fan, the cover artwork IS NOT a snapshot that comes with the album. You can search for the pictures of all her 54 Polaroids that come with 1989 on Google. I know that the previous artworks were removed too, as they were removed by me, but now when I search for the single cover, this artwork is the one that was repeated the most on Google Images. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what search terms you used or which sources such images came from, but a Google Images search of "style taylor swift artwork" brings me things that aren't what you used. To be honest, most of the results there are just fanmade and/or from subpar sources. Even the Polaroids seem to be (erroneously) taken by fansites and such as song artworks. For now, it's best to not use any art in the infobox. This doesn't seem like a high-quality source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You may find it at her site, not sure if this is the artwork, because I can't load many sites at the moment. Including hers. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Joseph, I interestingly didn't see any artwork from the 1989 era at all from that link, only artwork for the singles from her previous four albums. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, like I said, wasn't really able to load many pages at the moment, was just trying to help. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's nothing to worry about- I know you meant well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, SNUGGUMS. It is best to not put any cover. However, you failed to send a notice to me to indicate that it is requested for speedy deletion. Plus, What I meant is that the orphaned file I use is not a Polaroid that comes with the album, as a search result for all her 54 Polaroids on a site would not have the picture we're discussing about here. The [fake] cover I used actually started when Taylor Swift gave fans like me on what she would be performing on the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 2014 as a hint on social media platforms. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, though it would be fine to use if she explicitly said it was the official artwork. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Eminem peer review[edit]

Hi, you listed Eminem for peer review. So are the issues pointed in it solved? If yes then I think it would be good to nominate it for Featured article.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not yet, and he is definitely not ready for FA. I've been meaning to touch up his article for a while, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Album artwork[edit]

Hi there! Since you have plenty of knowledge and experience with music related articles more than I do, I just have a question that maybe you could answer. For an album article, should a "Deluxe edition" cover artwork be used? TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends. Does the deluxe cover drastically differ from standard edition? In many cases, they add no benefit that can't be provided through standard edition covers. See WP:Non-free content criteria and WP:Image use policy for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any guidelines about whether alternate covers should be used in an article. The album cover I'm actually referring to is Chasing Yesterday by Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds and the "deluxe edition" cover isn't any different from the standard version. An editor who reverted my edits claims by adding another cover, it provides more information to the article which I don't think is really true. Every article I've seen does not use deluxe covers so why should this article be any different? The standard edition cover should provide enough in my honest opinion. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There are some instances such as The Fame Monster and Madonna (Madonna album) where it can be used. In this case, however, the deluxe cover doesn't add any benefit per WP:NFCC#8, "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha, I completely forgot The Fame Monster and Madonna (Madonna album) used them. Anyways, thank you so much for your help, Snuggums! I appreciate it. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Happy to help :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Katy Perry - Azorean Portuguese Heritage[edit]

I appreciate the head's up. I was in the process of adding the citation when you reverted the edit. I have since added the correct citation and re-categorized her with the correct Azorean Portuguese heritage.

Best regards,

Sussanam (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Sussanam

There are two problems in this case: 1) the citation you added wasn't reliable 2) Such detail is overkill, the only important part is country of origin, so just "Portuguese" is enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you ask a Portuguese scholar to validate your assertion. That category exists for a reason. The Portuguese colonized more land on this earth than any other nation. It is diverse, and the people hailing from those regions would take umbrage with your statement.

I appreciate your interest and concern as an editor, but you're a bit out of bounds on this one.

Sussanam — Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some genealogists and/or historians would disagree, and I'm not a scholar, but my point was that most readers aren't interested in such specific details. This might provide some insight. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Snuggums, do we have a problem? between the Perry Page and the Hanks page, I'm thinking we do. For someone who believes in uncensored information, I find your defense that readers on an encyclopedic site aren't interested in specific details to be bizarre. The Azores were colonized by the portuguese in the 1500's. The most recent "Portuguese" that either Perry or Hanks are, are in fact, Azorean Portuguese. If you're going to remove the category on Hanks that cite his Azorean Portuguese heritage, then perhaps you should also remove the fact that he's Portuguese. That long-standing acknowledged fact, cited right there on that page, also states in the very same citation that his family is from the Azores.

Please, trust that while you might not care very much about this stuff, there is a large population of people that really do. Do the right thing. Sussanam — Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Uncensored information" is not the same as going into excess detail. Last year when her page went into fractions of each ancestry, people complained it was trivial and excessive detail, so it was reduced down to simply the countries. Everyone was fine with that. I originally thought "more is better" before learning about what is and what is not considered significant detail. In some cases, going into extensive detail on ancestry can potentially be WP:UNDUE weight. These aren't based exclusively on my views, though.
For what it's worth, descent categories are problematic to begin with, and some people (including myself) would like to get rid of the concept entirely as a WP:NON-DEFINING trait. It's not like either of these specific people are even particularly noted for their ethnicities anyway. For prominent Portuguese people like Ferdinand Magellan, though, it could be a different story. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ben Affleck[edit]

Hi, you've put a notice on Ben Affleck's page about unreliable sources. Which sources are concerning you? Maybe mention it on the article's talk page and I'll try to replace the sources. Thanks!

Also "filmmaker" could mean cinematography, set design, anything. Is there wikipedia guidelines on this? Spielberg, Scorcese, Tarantino - their pages all mention their actual roles within the umbrella term "filmmaker" Popeye191 (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

From a glance, Popeye191, I see things like Blogspot, YouTube, New York Post, and Page Six. Not a good sign. As for filmmaker, it is a singular term that can be used for those who direct, produce, screenwrite, etc., and using multiple terms when just one can be used in place is occupation inflation and very needless overkill. On the other hand, if someone for example is solely a director or solely a producer, just that one term would be used. A common issue I see in biography articles is occupations being inflated, and I try to help reduce that problem. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. The blogspot link belongs to Tom Shone, a well-known journalist who uses his blog to expand upon quotes from interviews published by traditional media outlets - in this case, The Times. Is that not acceptable?Popeye191 (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Best to find another link Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 Oscars cleanup[edit]

Hello again,

I'm in the process of cleaning up the 87th Academy Awards article which includes expanding more on the production of ceremony, replacing bad links/questionable sources (IMDb, et al.), formatting, and other stuff. However, I'm doing the task on one of my sandboxes in order to avoid being entangled in an edit war. I'll transfer the edited version sometime in mid-March when the activity from the article dies down. I plan to submit it for FL consideration sometime in September.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like me to leave commentary, I'll gladly do so. Just notify me then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comma no comma[edit]

Here is the current discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Comma_before_Jr._and_Sr._in_biographies#Comma before Jr. and Sr. in biographies. Here was the !vote by seven people: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Comma_after_.22Jr..22.2C_.22Sr..22.2C_etc..3F. Here is the original one sentence in the MoS entry: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Child named for parent or predecessor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Thank you for contributing to the process we use for electing our administators. Please remember that the RfA page is for offering your comment regarding the suitability of the candidate. Anything else is off topic and belongs elswere. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, my comment was fully based on the candidate, no need to worry. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Another question[edit]

Would this make Drake Bell a model, or something of the sort? OK, another question. If you know what edit count is, the page where you see all your edits, top pages, etc. All of that is gone on mine. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, definitely not enough to make him a model. As for edit count, that thing is inconsistent in displaying things for me. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. It's weird like that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Another thing. If a promotional single was released, but it has two tracks on the CD, how would you display that in the promotional singles section of a discography page? I was thinking there would be a / in between tracks, such as Found a Way (Acoustic)/Found a Way. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Not really sure. Try asking that at WT:WikiProject Discographies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi there! I have a filmography – Salman Khan filmography – up at FLC. I was wondering if you could provide your input on it. I know that Bollywood isn't your cup of tea, but it will be very much appreciated. Link: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Salman Khan filmography/archive1. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've left comments, FrB.TG. Don't worry about geographic culture or location- I'm not picky about that sort of thing when it comes to article editing/reviewing :P. Couldn't find many issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bold text and accessibility[edit]

Can you please explain to Narconarco1 why bold text in marking up winners is not allowed due to WP:Accessibility. I have trouble explaining it to him.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Which pages is the user bolding winners on? Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Particularly ceremonies between 66th-86th. However, the bold reverting is actually being done by other users including ones with no names. In fact, the recent ones are still bold because I'm afraid to put daggers for fear of engaging in edit war.
BTW, can you review 63rd Academy Awards for featured list promotion? I would appreciate the help.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There's always WP:AN/3RR if needed. As for FLC, I should be able to comment within a day or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Rettenmund[edit]

Just a quickie, I don't think this article can be A7ed, as a small amount of news and book coverage exists. Not sure if it should go to AfD yet, a job for WP:LGBT perhaps? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

One book on its own ain't really much, just saying. Snuggums (talk / edits) 10:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but I can pick out at about 5-6 reliable sources and I've seen BLPs survive with that (yeah, I know). Anyway, as ever, I feel that speedies should be reserved for dead obvious, waste of time discussing, cases. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Screenshot for "Goodnight Goodnight"[edit]

Hey there. Can you please upload a screenshot for this song? ^ I just don't know the rules of non free pics so if that's not hard then do it yourself please. Here's the official music video [1]. Take the 0:37 moment when they are standing and looking each other. Thnx in advance! XO --$ign Language (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not right away- I'm occupied with other Wiki activity at the moment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank[edit]

Re: this edit. I tend to agree. While we normally don't include ethnicity in the lead, the fact that Leo Frank was Jewish is a large part of the reason that he is notable.—Kww(talk) 22:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I tend not to emphasize religion in opening sentences either, unless it's a religious figure like Pope Francis or Capers Funnye or Martin Luther. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera net worth[edit]

Hi Snuggums, Christina's netwoth has been updated to 130 million as of February 2013, simply typing "Christina Aguilera's net worth" will result in 130 million not 60 million.

Here are MULTIPLE sources backing me up.,aguilera,net,worth,disney,meltdown,to,affect,the,voice,coach,worth.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianbarreraa (talkcontribs) 00:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Brianbarreraa: These sources are not considered reliable. [2] --NeilN talk to me 00:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you NeilN, I would've said the same thing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Would you consider checking these two new articles, "Who Is the Sender" and "Italiana (album) " if they pass WP:NALBUMS? Thanks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 03:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Who Is the Sender might (I'm not sure if this is reliable), though Italiana does not due to lack of references. I've incubated the latter at draftspace. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up
Symbol support vote.svg

The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.

The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats!

Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year.

We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition.

There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form.

Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Mother in law[edit]

I am working on her mother-in-law if you are interested in helping. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Caroline Suydam Berryman Spencer

Thanks for the notification, I might contribute Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Album and Track Picks on Allmusic[edit]

I was wondering what album and track picks are, as shown here and here and the same symbol is on tracks of an artist, calling it a track pick, do you know what these are, or the point of them? Just wondering. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No idea Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks anyway, I found it: When looking at an artist's discography, you may see a blue arrow with the AllMusic logo next to the album cover. That represents the Album Pick for the most representative album of that artist's entire body of work. It may be a well-known hit album, a compilation of the artist's best songs or just a really great record.

On specific album pages you may see that same blue logo and highlighting next to two or three tracks on a recording. Those are Track Picks, the songs on a recording that our editors feel are most representative of the entire album (although not always necessarily the hits) -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Rihanna's upcoming eighth studio album[edit]

Hey Snuggums. You and some of your talk page stalkers are more knowledgable about music articles than I am, so I'll point your attention to this article. I'm not sure if it's notable or not, or appropriately titled or not... there's already an article about this in a draft somewhere (more on that on the talk page) and the majority of the article's content is copy and pasted from the FourFiveSeconds article. So if anybody lurking around here has the patience to look into this more, please do. Thanks, Gloss 17:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not notable yet, Gloss. Per WP:NALBUMS, an album must have a confirmed tracklist, title, and release date (in addition to the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources). Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, I didn't think so. Thanks for taking care of it! Gloss 17:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


..... I've only just realized your not called "Snuggles" at all Face-grin.svg,
Think I'm losing the plot you know Face-grin.svg,
Anyway sorry and thanks for noticing :),
Happy Editing SNUGGUMS! :) –Davey2010Talk 04:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I found it amusing myself, Davey :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)