User talk:SNUGGUMS

My talk page. Leave me messages here. Post new threads at the bottom of the page. I can also be contacted through email.

Gemini Man bombing

Hey man! Films, box office and financials are an area of massive interest and knowledge to me (both on this site and off), so I’m interested in your reasoning behind refusing to note the financials of Gemini Man. I get the “it hasn’t happened yet” angle, however there are two major counter points I have to that:

1) the film’s breakeven point is $275 million. With a two-week running gross of $119 million (including the two largest markets, the US and China, having been released and under-performed) we know it won’t get there; it would actually have to have the greatest multiplayer in cinematic history to do so, and all due respect to the Fresh Prince, it’s not gonna do that. 2) when films bomb (The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, Solo: A Star Wars Story, The Great Wall, The Mummy), the estimated losses are reported after two weeks. It’s literally the publications’ jobs to know film financials, costs and how movies play out; you said in your one revert that "the press has a bad habit of making premature assumptions for earnings", but I couldn’t find a single instance of a film was expected to lose $20, 30, 40 million only to end up turning a profit. If you have examples of this I would actually love to see them (like I said I love this stuff).

Guess what I’m getting at is just wondering why we can’t include film information in a film article. Are we supposed to wait another month for it finish at $165 million worldwide and *then* post the Deadline and Hollywood Reporter articles from four weeks prior that say the very thing that ended up happening? I saw Gemini Man, I enjoyed it and it’s a shame it’s bombing, but the whole point of Wikipedia is to be objective and I feel hiding the industry's evaluation of its performance is disingenuous. Alright, rant over. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You cannot presume a film will bomb solely based off its first couple of weeks, TropicAces, and have just further proven that you don't care how it's problematic to jump to conclusions so quickly. Restoring such speculation in the past also demonstrated that. By no means is it fair for editors or the media to make such guesses when the film still is in theaters and thus has a chance to make more money. We cannot know for certain whether it'll reach any certain amount as you seem to think, regardless of how much money has been earned so far or what other movies earned within any amount of time. It is far more reasonable to wait until this is out of theaters before calling it a financial failure because one can then make definitive calls with total earnings. I seriously doubt you or anyone in the news have some sort of crystal ball to look into the future with. WP:CRYSTAL says we shouldn't insert unconfirmed speculation, and see WP:NOTNEWS for why not everything that gets mentioned in the press is worth including. People in the media making presumptuous claims doesn't mean we should regurgitate those. There also is nothing remotely "disingenuous" about leaving out such early predictions when they're purely speculative and could be wrong. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

They’re not “early predictions” and presumptions, they’re mathematical and professional decisions. I asked for a single previous example of a publication reported estimated losses and you seemingly danced around that (I provided 4)... This is how it’s done in the industry; they look at legs, multipliers and remaining territories and make educated deductions. It is a fact Gemini Man will lose money; if you want to leave out the specific $75 million figure and say “tens of millions” that’s fine. TropicAces (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

Estimations are flat out meaningless compared to the actual results when they're based on speculation, and I admittedly don't pay nearly as much attention to them as the total grosses, which is why I didn't bring up samples. Such "decisions" aren't guaranteed to be right. Saying now the movie will lose money is purely a guess and you know it. WAIT UNTIL IT HAS LEFT THEATERS BEFORE MAKING SUCH A CALL. People shouldn't be so quick to simply assume that'll come true just because of what it already has made. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, at this rate and at this point in time, the film would need to gross 2.5x what it has made in its first two weeks in order to not lose money; that’s a multiplier even the Avengers films don’t touch. So given how films typically make half their total sum in the opening weekend (more/less, word-of-mouth plays a part) and in China that figure is even lower (and this debuted to just $20M there which means it’ll struggle to top out at $50 million in the world’s second-biggest market), then it is literally as much of a sure thing as a thing can be that Gemini Man won’t reach the $275 million breakeven point. I’ll leave the article be for now, maybe Panama or Ireland will have a record turnout, but just thought I’d let you know how these types of things work moving forward. Very rarely do losses get reported months down the road, unless they’re historically bad or points of interest (like Solo). The estimations will always be estimations, since studios don’t release the actual tax returns (and only rarely do they leak), so the two-week Monday morning quarterbacking is all we ever really have to go off of. None of this was meant as an attack on you or trying to seem like I’m an expert on the topic, just wanted to see your logic behind not including it (and as I said, Gemini Man's Wikipedia page is not a hill I’m willing to die on haha). Have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

You still are jumping the gun and being rather presumptuous, especially with the "sure thing" bit. Having doubts about reaching profitable numbers is one thing, and there could be cases where a film's highest grossing weekend is the one it first opens, but one cannot make 100% definitive calls on grand totals or overall losses before it leaves theaters. The only ways to know for certain would be time-traveling to the future and back or looking through a crystal ball. Obviously neither of those are possible when only fictional characters have such capabilities. I'm not suggesting it'll be a big hit in the box office or that the odds of becoming one are in its favor, only that it's too early to call this a flop financially when it hasn't been in theaters very long. We also shouldn't base such guesses off what other movies do or don't gross when not all earnings are alike. On another note, I never felt attacked, so no worries regarding that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt for that :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Katy Perry

Hello I added the list: List of songs that have been the subject of plagiarism disputes The Dark Horse song is on the list and reached a settlement. Lightburst (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware there was a plagiarism lawsuit and settlement, Lightburst. The problem with including that page in the "Dark Horse" article is that it has a rather broad scope of songs that don't specifically pertain to this one. If anything, it's better to just list individual tracks on that plagiarism article without linking to it on the song articles included. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I thought it was a good research point for our readers. POI. Lightburst (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The list itself still has potential to serve as a good research point. The main thing that needs now is prose outside of its table. Otherwise, things just look incomplete. Readers will want more than just a table when accessing an article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Whitney Houston lesbian romance claim

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This piece that I reverted is likely to become an issue, one that I might need to take to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and/or start an RfC on. If you have any thoughts on this, such as if it should be covered and how, please voice them. I know that the piece should not be a standalone section (whether titled "Books" or otherwise). Also pinging Popcornduff for their thoughts. No need to ping me if either of you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

And I can see editors (less experienced ones, and hopefully no significantly experienced ones) wanting to add her to one or more LGBT categories based on the claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not something I would give its own section. If the claim is true, then it would help to know when this relationship took place because that would give us a sense on where it would be ideal to discuss that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added the information as I think it's notable and we have a good source for it. It doesn't deserve its own section (though it could be part of a separate "Personal life" section if someone ever made that, I guess). Popcornduff (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS and Popcornduff, my issue regarding the material seen here after my latest revert to that article is that this is just a claim and that Houston is not alive to refute or confirm it. We do not know if it's true. And so, per WP:WIKIVOICE, it shouldn't be worded in a factual way, which is the way that Caterpillar84 keeps presenting the material, and Houston shouldn't be placed in LGBT categories because of it. Popcornduff did give the material WP:In-text attribution, but, regardless of WP:Claim, it seems that this is a case where "claims" should be in place of "said." I really dislike how Wikipedia biography articles seem to become a free-for-all once the person has died. Editors are like, "Well, this person is dead. No more WP:BLP. Let me just add this claim or theory in here." As seen at Talk:Whitney Houston/Archive 5#Sexuality, the "Houston and Crawford lesbian romance" rumor was also discussed in 2017; SNUGGUMS, Tenebrae and I felt that it should stay out of the article because it was simply a rumor. As for including it now that Crawford says it's the truth, I still find the inclusion dubious questionable, but I suppose it's sort of WP:Due because of the coverage. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is certainly appropriate for a sentence in the article - multiple reliable sources have covered this. I don't like "claim" because, as per WP:CLAIM, To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. There's no cause for our article to suggest she's lying. "Said" is neutral. Popcornduff (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, if anyone (like Houston's family or whoever) have responded saying Crawford is lying, then we can add that too obviously (assuming it's cited to a RS). Popcornduff (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I usually adhere to WP:Claim, but it's a guideline and not a policy. At the top of the page, we state, "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." And as recently discussed, our WP:Clam guideline is not perfect. And the cause for using "claim" in this case is that "said" makes her claim look more valid than it might be. It's still a claim, whether we call it one or not. If editors would use "claim" or similar if Houston was alive, which they no doubt would, if this claim would even be allowed in the article if she were alive, they should be okay with using it while she is deceased. I might change the wording to "According to," which would somewhat make the claim seem less definitive. Anyway, we'll see if anyone close to Houston challenges the claim or if a reliable source does; we were thinking similarly on that front. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, but I personally see "claim" as a very loaded word from a writing perspective, regardless of guidelines, and "said" as neutral. "Said" wouldn't even bother me if Houston were still alive, unless she denied it was true. Popcornduff (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Having Whitney alive would make this quite a different case. We only have Robyn's word for it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Tom Hanks

My source was straight from the horse's mouth. The woman who accused him is quoted in the site I linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldstandard32 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Aside from how I couldn't find any of what was quoted on him that it mentions, Goldstandard32, your addition was problematic when the citation you used was from a dubious publication. A more trustworthy publication discussing such allegations would be preferable to implement when it's a rather controversial claim. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Discography

Hello. I remember you told me that Basshunter's internet albums shouldn't be separated from studio albums as it has no matter. I found in Meghan Trainor discography section like "independent albums". Maybe I should also separate one album which never been released by any label and second one released by independent record label? Eurohunter (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to what certain people seem to think, Eurohunter, the type of label something was released under makes no difference with regards to whether it is a studio album. On the other hand, something that never got released at all shouldn't be included on discography pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Many thanks for that, CAPTAIN RAJU! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Lady Gaga lead

Hi. About my last edit you reverted, the information that I've included appears in the 'Achievements' section and the reason for my edit was that 1) I see this as a far more notable achievement than being one of the females with most number 1s in the 2010s (when swift tied with her it somehow became less notable since she wasn't the only one anymore) 2) i wanted to trim it a bit as there seems to be a lot of focus on 'ASIB' in the lead. and as to 'shallow' totally agree with you that it should be mentioned in the lead but wasn't sure how to include it without making the sentence too lenghty. ArturSik (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

My bad, ArturSik; I somehow completely missed that bit. In that case, once I come up with a good way to implement Shallow with your trim, I'll do so accordingly. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Teenage Dream re-issue

So if my infos are uncited, and they were deleted, so why uncited infos in Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) and Wide Awake (song) still remains in their infoboxes? infsai (dyskusja) 15:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

If they have citations supporting such times, Infsai, then insert those references into the Complete Confection page. I admittedly didn't get a chance to check those before my revert, but please keep WP:CIRCULAR in mind. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well S. MarnetteD|Talk 22:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, MarnetteD, and same wishes to you! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 01:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year !

Happy New Year! Looking forward to another year of working together. ArturSik (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Same wishes to you, ArturSik! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Entering 2020

Wishing all my friends here on Wikipedia a happy new year AND a happy new decade! Joining the site has overall definitely been worth it so far. Sure there have been frustrating times (which I'm sure anybody who's been here for six months or longer can relate to), but in the end, it really feels good to help contribute here and help more readers get accurate and quality content. While the many articles could use improvement, I enjoy being able to give what I can here. This will be my last edit for 2019. Have a happy 2020, everyone! See you in the new year and decade. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

B class ratings

Hi there, SNUGGUMS, and thanks for keeping a careful check on my assessments. It's always comforting to know that someone is keeping an eye on things. I happened to notice that many of the pages of the most frequently viewed women's biographies were seriously underrated. With the assistance of ORES, I have been trying to rectify the situation. You were quite correct to revert my rating on Kaley Cuoco. The ORES rating is only C (3.54). This was obviously a mistake on my part. However in the case of Selena Gomez, the ORES rating was FA (5.52). Indeed, the article is richly sourced with 326 in-line references. Even when you added "citation needed" for one minor item, the rating was still GA (4.84), certainly justifying a B rating. I have now added the missing source, bringing ORES back up to FA. I hope you will now agree to restoring the B rating on the talk page.´Please continue to let me know of any discrepancies. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

In view of your latest edit, I can only conclude there must be some kind of misunderstanding here. I've added an item on the article's talk page which I hope will lead to a satisfactory solution. Enjoy your day!--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for all the work you have done on this article over the past year or so. I see you have become the most active contributor.--Ipigott (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how exactly ORES works, Ipigott, but my bigger concern at first was an entirely unsourced section for accolades that got removed after I changed the assessment to C-class. With your deletion of the uncited item I tagged, it now is more appropriate to give Gomez's article a B-class rating. Glad to help with that article as well as the one for Cuoco. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see this has been sorted out. I noticed the accolades section but assumed the blue links were to properly sourced articles. As for IMDb, you might find it useful to look through Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Thanks for all your efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast (1991 film)-review

Hi! I 've jumped into your review on Beauty and the Beast (1991 film), and I have noticed that you haven't discussed a section (plot) not having citations. May I ask why? I am asking because the article has been translated to Greek WP and there is a GAN nomination running there as well. Everything is great, but no refs at a section of 5 paragraphs, troubles me. Thanks Cinadon36 09:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It already has been established that sections for basic film plots don't need citations, Cinadon36, at least here on the English Wikipedia. See WP:Manual of Style/Film#Plot for details. This is a rare exception to the norm of referencing content. Same goes for TV episode plots per WP:Manual of Style/Television#Plot section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Got it, many thanks! Cinadon36 19:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Residence Parameter

Hi! I just saw an edit here, and I just wanted to explain why I put the note rather than removing it altogether. It's mainly for people who are going to try and add it back when seeing it's gone when they don't know that it's been deactivated. So if you see a note I've added for that, that's why :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem, Lady Lotus, and I appreciate the explanation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Havana edit request

I figured as much; sometimes I just go with the standard boilerplate declines of "not clear" or "needs sources" as sort of a bureaucratic way of not feeding the trolls, but also AGFing on the off chance there is something serious behind it. No biggie though, just wanted to let you know. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Good to know, Deacon Vorbis. Though I see what you mean with trying to refrain from troll feeding, I believe that every once in a while, you have to feed a troll. You see, a troll is going to troll whether you feed it or not. It also has been frustrating seeing IPs insert Havana as Ethel Kennedy's birthplace before the page got semi-protection. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even realize it was an ongoing problem; I just happened to see it from the queue. Thanks for the heads up! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. If it keeps up after the current 3 month semi-protection ends, then I would recommend extending that to indefinite. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Patrick Warburton Discography

Hi, I was the one who added the section about Warburton's music. I thought it was a "fun fact" when I came across it so I threw up without much knowledge of Wikipedia norms. I can understand why you removed it.

But if you reconsider, here's a source for his musical activity in general and partial source for the specific song with Burn the Ballroom: https://www.today.com/video/patrick-warburton-talks-final-season-of-a-series-of-unfortunate-events-1423326275741?fbclid=IwAR1dmqTTNNposA-vyYnPKw1K5qOjHkR_JH43AGGSKKd3BiOUjqsavZ8ZopQ. The musical references come at the very end of the interview. And here's the Spotify page for the specific song: https://open.spotify.com/album/3yDiqmVd5TIkyzWg03cJZT?si=4Prrnk5EQKqpIL8iZzkNjA

Mike 199.230.112.154 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The links do help. One song alone, however, isn't really enough to warrant a separate section. If anything, it would be better to discuss within article prose of his career. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Katy Perry - Witness

""Hits Daily Double" isn't a trustworthy reference " why isn't it trustworthy? Dhoffryn (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Because they're known to make dubious reports and at times only consist of rumors, Dhoffryn. It has repeatedly been rejected as subpar. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"Stupid Love"

Hello! I noticed you redirected the Stupid Love page, so I thought I'd bring Draft:Stupid Love (Lady Gaga song) to your attention just in case you're interested or know of any additional information to add. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Got nothing new to add now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

DS alert: AP

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

Hello, here's your friendly DS alert for the AP2 topic area. You are supposed to receive one annually as long as you edit in the AP2 area, but the history of this page indicates that you have never received one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely news to me. At least it's just a procedural notice. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The rarest time of the year

Happy Leap Day 2020 to all my friends on Wikipedia! Make the most of this occasion because it won't come back until 2024. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Edits regarding Isaacsorry

Why you just report this editor at WP:AN, it's clearly they are just being disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant "Why don't you just". If so, then it's probably because hadn't paid enough attention to their contributions overall. Other editors such as yourself are free to file a report there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my English isn't good sometimes. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries when I had a sense of what you wanted so say. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller page!

Hello SNUGGUMS,

Thank you so much for the barnstar (I just learned what those are!), it's really encouraging and I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

I just started editing in February as an assignment for a class and sometimes it can be a little intimidating to navigate Wikipedia as a contributor. When I first started looking at the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller article, it seemed pretty quiet. I got so excited when I saw your username on the view history page because it made me feel like I was collaborating with someone. Not to mention that your edits and adjustments have improved the readability of the article.

I just saw that the article got updated to a C-class, which is very exciting! If you have any suggestions for the article or can point me in a direction where I can get more feedback/tips, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thanks again and see you around,

Mhamaguchi (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem, Mhamaguchi. Happy to help with the page! I'll probably leave any suggestions I can think of on its talk page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of guest appearances/other songs on discographies

Hi, I don't know if you saw, but I (along with a few other editors) have reverted your removal of guest appearances and other featured songs/other songs on artists' discographies. Artists' discographies don't have to include *only* singles or promo singles, it is and I mean this with all due respect, (as I said in some of my edit summaries) literally a discography of their entire works. Perhaps not 100%, (we try) but guest appareances, other recordings and even songwriting credits warrants inclusion, the latter usually on their own page, or even a separate article. Regardless of how thery were released. Either way... It is part of their recording career. They were quite contentious removals that you performed across over a dozen pages, and I say contentious because I wasn't the only one who found fault with your removals - which you seemingly didn't cite any guideline/rule for. I don't mean to be demaning towards your edits, and they were probably done in good faith, but please do not reinstate them, without at the least starting a discussion at the appropiate area, if you still regard them of unworthy inclusions. I, personally, don't think any discussions are necessary, since "featured/other" recording sections are common practive cross practically every artist discography page. Just thought I'd let you know. Thank you, AshMusique (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Even before my removals, AshMusique, it's not like every discography page I had come across had those listings. I thought it was obvious that they stuck out like a sore thumb, especially songwriting credits (which make no sense to include if someone isn't even credited as a lead/featured artist, and why anyone has added those to such pages is beyond me). Regardless, something I indicated was that charting, being released as a single, being released as a promo single, or any combination of those would merit inclusion, in which case it can be added to the appropriate section. The "other charted songs" section in some cases can include appearances as a featured artist on tracks from somebody else's album(s) when says songs never had single/promo single releases. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

365 (Zedd and Katy Perry song)

Tell me what was wrong with my edit to 365 (Zedd and Katy Perry song). I'm sure, it was recorded in 2018, even though it was released in 2019. 68.195.141.2 (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if it was recorded then, IP, categories for song years are supposed to be based on when they were released. That means this should be categorized as a 2019 song. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

But look at Category:2019 songs. The category page says Songs written or first produced in the year 2019. There are some songs which are listed in that page, but were released in 2020. So, they are also under Category:2020 singles. Look at My Way (Fetty Wap song). That song was released in 2015, but was made in 2014. So it is under Category:2014 songs and Category:2015 singles. 68.195.141.2 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I was thinking of how singles are categorized. Either that or it made most sense to have the categories match years. In any case, "My Way" shouldn't have been categorized as a 2014 track when none of its prose supported a 2014 recording time. I've removed that for now as lacking evidence. Getting back to "365", I'm guessing this is your basis for a 2018 recording time. That's assuming its vague "something was in the works" bit is referring to that particular track and not some other unreleased material they created. Keep in mind it notes how Zedd mentioned he wasn't sure his work with Katy would get released, though I can see why one would think the guy was talking about "365". It would help to find a citation specifically mentioning this track by name and how it got recorded in that year. 04:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

One Question

If someone changes/alters a consensed (achieved through a long and grueling discussion) version of a article. Then what we should do?Krish | Talk To Me 20:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't try to do anything; you should try to sort it out with the changer without dragging me into it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not talking about Chopra's article. It's a different article where an editor removed the criticism of a certain actress' performance. What to do? That version was discussed for 3 days and then everyone came to a conclusion. But this another editor who was not in that discussion or anywhere near it changed it without any talks or anyone noticing to remove criticism of an actress. What to do?Krish | Talk To Me 21:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case, you should at least ask that user to explain the removals (unless they've already done so within edit summaries) and point out the discussion that led to its inclusion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So if a discussion is held for that, would you take part in it? Krish | Talk To Me 21:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it. Either way, hopefully the issue gets resolved soon. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Here, in case you change your mind. Since you had asked me to not ping you I thought to just add it here. Anyways, are you working on any articles? Any plans?Krish | Talk To Me 21:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No particular focus or plans at the moment, and sharing that link was fine. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Haha.....I was hesitant and thought you would get angry. LOL. BTW, I really love your work on Katy Perry-related articles. Fantastic work and I think we should collaborate on something.Krish | Talk To Me 21:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:John Jacob Astor V.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John Jacob Astor V.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Review

Would you like to review The Sky Is Pink? I would appreciate it.Krish | Talk To Me 13:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not right now. Maybe later if someone else doesn't beat me to it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay.Krish | Talk To Me 13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey! This is my second attempt at FA and it would be a great help if you could put your comments. I would appreciate your inputs. Thanks!Krish | Talk To Me 14:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll give a media review. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay.Krish | Talk To Me 14:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

90th Academy Awards FLC

Hi there,

It's been almost four years since I've last done an FLC. Whenever you get the chance, could you proofread the 90th Academy Awards for featured list promotion? I would be grateful for the feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Long time no see, Birdienest81! I most likely will review it within the next 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Licensing issues with images

Hi,

Although I have been promoting several Featured list works for almost ten years, I’m not very familiar with appropriate usage of images on Wikipedia. Could you explain how it works?

—Birdienest81 (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:Image use policy, we should as often as possible aim for pictures that are free for use (meaning free of copyright). All photos taken after 1924 are copyrighted unless their file source specifically indicates otherwise, most often with a notice allowing creative commons use, which you might see labelled as "some rights reserved" on Flickr. The use of non-free images (i.e. posters and artwork) should be limited in accordance with WP:Non-free content criteria. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Genre-warring sock back

I cannot recall the original host account (Maria something), but I think they're back under Popmusicstan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just judging by their edit history and seemingly general knowledge. livelikemusic (TALK!) 23:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Livelikemusic, perhaps you mean MariaJaydHicky (the name definitely rings a bell), but I either way am not familiar enough with the sock master's tendencies to make a call here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes! That's the account; they "joined" yesterday, and have already mass-changed genres across multiple articles. Insanity. I don't get why blocked users don't just stop. livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Admin Ponyo thankfully has blocked that account. My guess is that sometimes people are just hellbent on having certain pages be the way they want and are willing to circumvent their blocks to make desired changes. Regardless of their motives, it does get frustrating. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, and they're actually a sock of Billiekhalidfan. Hilarious. Another user who can't handle their block. All is right again on Wikipedia. Any way, I hope you're doing well during this pandemic we're experiencing, wherever you may be! livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That user needs to drop the stick as well. Overall, I'm doing fine lately. COVID-19 is quite inconvenient for society but safety is a priority. Same wishes to you! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm doing well; I'm a introverted homebody, so I was built for this. And, if looks like we have another trouble maker happening at Chromatica. Long-term editor rearing their head again! livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps ECP is needed for that page. It would be much harder for sock masters to work their way around than semi-protection is with sleeper accounts. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It's going to need something, because it will be out of control. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wondering your thoughts

Hey mate. I haven't been around for a while so I am not up-to-date on the preferred formatting for lists etc. Can you take a look at List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lopez‎ and compare both versions and make some sense of the situation? Thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If you mean the difference between your revert here and what was there before, Petergriffin9901, then I'd say your change was justified as each nomination should have its own slots for verdicts. It's also nice to see you around again, regardless of how consistent your activity is. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

90th Academy Awards FLC Update

I've replaced the image of Kimmel from 2015 to the one with Kimmel in 2007 that you found. Is there anything else? I am also wondering about the 90th Oscars official poster. I know for sure that the poster is the official one from the Academy and it was probably compressed down. I even provided the web archive link from the AMPAS website and a news article from Deadline announcing the release of the artwork in January 2018 showing the exact same image.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The URL given for that poster is sufficient, no worries. I'll go through the page again. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Ava Alice Muriel Astor

I am going though, using AWB, the articles as listed in Category:Infobox person using certain parameters when dead. I believe the rational being if the person is deceased, then the net worth no longer exists. As the top of the category shows "These categories are used to track, build and organize lists of pages needing "attention en masse" (for example, pages using deprecated syntax), or that may need to be edited at someone's earliest convenience." - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Being dead doesn't change how much people earned, Rich Smith, and the purpose of the parameter is to show what money they have/had. I therefore don't recommend removing it from infoboxes just because someone has died. If you believe the numbers are inaccurate or have subpar referencing, then that's another story. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)