User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2015-12: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:28, 5 December 2015

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives

Archive 1

Swmrs

I see we have some conflicting opinions on how Swmrs should be formatted and I am having a hard time understanding your reasoning. Is it possible we could discuss some of these topics to avoid further conflict? Thanks! 75Indians75 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to talk, but it's not about my incorrect formatting.

You removed citation needed templates without adding reliable sources.
You removed valid MOS:NUM formatting in favour of incorrect fomatting.
You created short sections. MOS:BODY Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose.

As you can see, you're formatting incorrect. Now that we have the ground rules down, what would you like to discuss? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And then there's the issue of the width of the bars. If you use decimal values, the image will not always be as clear. The tool that generates the rendered image often rounds up.

Also, if you use odd numbers for the inside bars, the space above and below will not match.

Look at this example.

The top row, 6 on 10, is the cleanest. It has a gap of 4: 2 above and 2 below. The next logical one, row three (5 on 10), clearly has has more space above. But the fifth row, (4 on 10) is clean again) while the last row (3 on 10) is uneven. The decimals are definitely uneven. Save the image. Open it in an image viewer. Look at the raw pixels. Blowing it up won't work because of the nature of the png. I can show the same with three or more lines. If you want to convey information clearly, the data must show clear separation. Looking at the last three rows, because 4 on 9 has an odd difference, it's unbalanced top-to-bottom, while the other two are balanced. That's why you should use even differences and whole numbers for charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Devices with higher definition displays will likely not have an issue with the spacing though. That, ironically, includes mobile devices. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

One of my questions were why were my sources for genres removed? and I think we could at least split the headings up a tad bit more. Thoughts? 75Indians75 (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources:

http://punktastic.com/news/swmrs-have-released-a-tribute-to-miley-cyrus/ starts "surf-punk". Punktastic is not a RS. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Are allmusic.com, punkbands.com, www.roomthirteen.com etc. reliable sources for asserting notability of rock bands?
http://www.rarasfarm.com/tag/swmrs/ is a blog and not a reliable source. It also does not support rock & roll. Nor does http://www.rarasfarm.com/2015/swmrs-homage-to-miley-cyrus/#more-7677
The next two, which should have been merged into one reference, http://overblown.co.uk/swmrs-share-debut-single-miley-us-tour-dates/, you're relying on a headline. The prose don't discuss those genres.

Headings:

Did you read the ordering section?

There are five paragraphs in all. It really doesn't need a single sub-section or sub-heading. Check the history sections in The Rolling Stones or U2. Only one section in the first article's history section is shorter than the whole history section of the Swmrs article. None in the U2 article's history section are. So my question is, why do we need any sub-sections? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What if we were to break it up into three headings, "Early Years (2004-2010)", "Don't Be a Dick, Lost at Seventeen and departure of Neumann (2011-2014)" and "Name change, arrival of Mueller and Miley/Uncool (2015-present)" Or maybe we could work on expanding the page and looking for some genre sources? I'd love to work on this project with an experienced user like you! Sorry for the late response! 75Indians75 (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you follow my logic? Did you check those two articles? It only needs one section and two is already more than enough. Three is too many, as is four. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay I completely understand and agree. I feel like it would be best to just label one big section as "History". Now, I do think we should look for some genre sources to help improve on the page. Do you agree? 75Indians75 (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Peterson's albums

We need to get Slugs & Bugs & Lullabies, Walk, Appendix A: Bootlegs and B Sides, and Appendix M: Media / Music / Movies deleted, if we cannot find sufficiently reliable sources to prove notability.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The appendix albums are not notable though. They were released quietly and the only reason I know about them is a radio programme I listen to mentioned them. I'm not sure about the children's album. I suspect that it was nominated for or won a Dove award in the children's music. This is a vague memory from that programme. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are correct with regards to the children's album. The other three should be deleted, where they are not notable.The Cross Bearer (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The message you left on my profile talk page

In the templated message that you posted on my talk page after you reverted my edit, you said that my edit wasn't constructive. As I provided a clear rationale for my edit in the summary, could you please explain why it wasn't constructive? Granted, deletion of a word may not seem construction, but it's often essential to remove parts to make the whole better. The presumed many previous discussions are not a factor here because the article must stand on its own or else give instructions to editors in hidden comments. Kumiponi (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The message was left after you did the same action and made no effort to improve the article or explain your position. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all of the work you put into Wikipedia! I see you, by far, the most in my watchlist! bojo1498 talk 12:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tracklisting templates

Hello. I saw that you reverted my edits on the tracklisting templates of a few albums. The reasoning behind my doing so is that another editor told me that it was Wikipedia standard, although I could never find anything saying it was standard on "MOS", I kept the Standard edition, etc. template style of editing until that editor reverted again, and brought in other editors that said the ''Album Title'' {{nobold|– Standard edition}} template was Wikipedia standard, so I started editing that way to avoid the hassle of being warned. Since I cannot find anything relating to the ''Album Title'' {{nobold|– Standard edition}} "standard", am I fine to edit again using the Standard edition, etc. standard? Thank you for your time and input. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 3:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't always revert your edits, I simply removed the superfluous formatting. That format is not a wikipedia standard although some article use it. If you want, I can have it made a standard or not, but where did you have this discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you revert all my edits, I was just making reference to my tracklisting template edits on Hurricane, Brave, and Exhale. The talk referring to that "standard" is here. Also, I talked to an admin. about it, and they pointed me in the direction to WP:MOS Albums, which pointed me to Template:Track listing, which made it look like Standard edition, etc. is the normal standard. They also said to contact the user who told me it was "standard", and I did, but they removed my question from their talk page. (No surprise there...) It's not necessary that it's made standard, I'm just wanting to know what is standard. Hope that helped. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 9:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Userpage

Just to let you know, you still have the blocked sock master listed as your mentee on your userpage. --JustBerry (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm giving it one more week. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for catching my over-zealous editing of Jürgen Klinsmann. I was reviewing new-edits, and reverted an edit by mistake. Name Omitted (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Template docs?

What are you talking about? Guess I need to read more about this... DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

At {{Infobox album}}: "If there is more than one producer, the names can be delimited by commas or

." It was recently changed from "three" to one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's annoying. I don't entirely agree with that. You're right, and I'll keep That's the Spirit the way it is, but I'm not going to be one who goes around changing every album to that standard. I think 2 fits a flatlist just fine. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's my understanding that up to three should be comma-separated and more than three use flat lists. I don't go looking for articles, but this one stood out when I was reverting vandalism earlier. It was more concerned about WP:OVERLINK, which you removed after the revert. Feel free to restore the list since it is more than one now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for explaining to me about the local flavors of English and the policy around them on Wikipedia. I didn't even know that sceptic was the British way of spelling it. :-)

Have a nice day!

Mr-aaron-gray (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Football

I understood now, they play 24 games in their conference and 10 in the other conference, so that means, you can play more games with stronger teams, it is not equal. But thats it.

Can you help me with this : 2006–07 Liga II, if you can split the big table in two tables, because all the seasons of Liga II have two separate tables. Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Christian Hardcore bands

Hey, I was wondering if we were going to edit the LOCHB like the List of Christian metal artists. Metalworker14 (Sup) 1:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there was a list of Christian hardcore bands. I have not edited it. I would argue that the former list is really a subset of the latter, and could probably be merged into that list. if you want to keep it separate, ask on the article's talk page and make proposals there. Let those who are interested in the topic comment there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, It's not exactly the same thing. We would have to change the name to "List of Christian metal artists" to "List of Christian metal and hardcore artists" Metalworker14 (Sup) 8:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco

Hi Walter I have a question for you. So Dallon Weekes has been recently confirmed to have been downgraded from fulltime member to touring member leaving Brendon Urie to be the bands only band. We currently have Weekes in the info box listed under former members but in parenthesis next to his name stating "(still with band as touring member)". How do you feel about this? Should we leave him out of it completely? Or should we put "(As Official Member)" next to his name instead? Any Ideas? Thanks! 75Indians75 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@75Indians75: It's my opinion that touring and studio musicians are not band members. It sounds like sources support that he's left the band so he should be listed as a former member. If that's not the case, add him under current members. No additional commentary should be listed in the infobox. See Template:Infobox musical artist#past members. It's best to discuss it on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

But the thing is he is still with the band. Just not as a full member now. So how do we go about this?75Indians75 (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I clearly don't have enough info. Discuss it on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I want to apologize for any difficulties I may have been to you. Bluhaze777 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

We all get hot under the collar and it's obvious that you're passionate about the subject and getting things right. I've been in your shoes before and I hope that I didn't intimate that I was piling-on. I would just like this major change to be agreed-on and generally correct. I'm glad you were WP:BOLD and made us think this through. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You're fine. Regardless, I am almost finished with my contributions. It's interesting to me how one edit led to another edit during this my past year here. I saw one edit I felt could be improved or added on one thing and then another and etc. Bluhaze777 (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hater (Korn song)

I saw your edit in this article's edit history. I find it funny how you as a seemingly dedicated Christian would (I presume) listen to Korn. I could see how you would respect Head, though. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 23:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily a listener of the song. Just editing the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Serneholt

If you want to, please help by improving this weeks TAFI article Marie Serneholt. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Apology (Verification and Validation)

I went back and followed the link for your original edit (on verification and validation). After seeing your rational, I admit that you were right. Thanks for your patience; I won't trouble you further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.225.12 (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't a problem, and I admire your persistence in light of my terse response. Those responses are usually for other long-time editors. I should remember that new editors might not be familiar with our common shorthand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Artist

What do you think about the David Thulin article in its present form.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not much content, but it looks OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oba Chandler

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Oba Chandler. It is a article that I have edited a lot over the years. So any improvements etc are welcomed. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Anberlin

Hey, I was simply removing sections that have little to no impact on the band page. The fact that in most interviews the band refutes the ideas of being a "Christian band" was enough grounds to classify them as a hard rock band and an alternative rock band, their most prominent genres, and remove the inaccurate and rather generic non-descriptive Christian rock genre that makes literally zero sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentBitsko (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The removal of this content had no impact on the band page? A four-paragraph-long section, with eight references has no impact? It really doesn't matter what the band does or doesn't say they are. It matters what reliable sources say they are or are not. While they may not have wanted to be pigeon-holed into some category, they have played in festivals that are associated with the sub-culture and have been nominated for and won awards for their participation in it. If anything, the section should be updated and expanded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article Lena Larsson that I have created. Could really need some help with it. Any help is appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

For All Kings

Hi Walter. Regarding the "citations needed" template on For All Kings, I agree that it should be sourced, but until the album is released, we can't provide a detailed description on the production, packaging, etc. In the meantime, I believe it's safe to list the band members without a cite, because it's obvious that an album by Anthrax is going to recorded by its members.--Retrohead (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

About your account name

I hope you don't mind if I ask you this but is your account name taken from the German historian? __209.179.0.121 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 205: / Line 205: @@
 ==For All Kings==
 Hi Walter. Regarding the "citations needed" template on ''[[For All Kings]]'', I agree that it should be sourced, but until the album is released, we can't provide a detailed description on the production, packaging, etc. In the meantime, I believe it's safe to list the band members without a cite, because it's obvious that an album by Anthrax is going to recorded by its members.--[[User:Retrohead|Retrohead]] ([[User talk:Retrohead|talk]]) 22:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
+== About your account name ==
+I hope you don't mind if I ask you this but is your account name taken from the German historian? __[[Special:Contributions/209.179.0.121|209.179.0.121]] ([[User talk:209.179.0.121|talk]]) 00:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)