User talk:Koavf/Archive056

User talk:Koavf archives

001 81 topics (2005-03-05/2006-03-07) 63 kb 002 56 topics (2006-03-07/2006-08-08) 44 kb 003 47 topics (2006-08-08/2006-09-14) 48 kb 004 60 topics (2006-09-14/2007-06-05) 73 kb 005 48 topics (2007-06-05/2007-08-21) 80 kb 006 35 topics (2007-08-21/2007-11-30) 73 kb 007 42 topics (2007-11-30/2008-02-19) 44 kb 008 34 topics (2008-02-19/2008-03-26) 46 kb 009 38 topics (2008-03-26/2008-04-19) 38 kb 010 39 topics (2008-04-19/2008-05-31) 60 kb 011 88 topics (2008-05-31/2008-08-04) 88 kb 012 40 topics (2008-08-04/2008-09-11) 61 kb 013 46 topics (2008-09-11/2009-04-13) 47 kb 014 60 topics (2009-04-13/2009-09-29) 50 kb 015 37 topics (2009-09-29/2009-11-21) 46 kb 016 22 topics (2009-11-21/2010-01-04) 22 kb 017 49 topics (2010-01-04/2010-02-18) 54 kb 018 63 topics (2010-02-18/2010-03-23) 63 kb 019 44 topics (2010-03-23/2010-05-02) 48 kb 020 46 topics (2010-05-02/2010-06-28) 56 kb 021 46 topics (2010-06-28/2010-09-01) 71 kb 022 54 topics (2010-09-01/2010-10-14) 43 kb 023 49 topics (2010-10-14/2010-11-26) 43 kb 024 54 topics (2010-11-26/2011-01-22) 37 kb 025 61 topics (2011-01-22/2011-06-08) 37 kb 026 43 topics (2011-06-08/2011-07-12) 39 kb 027 44 topics (2011-07-12/2011-08-15) 48 kb 028 44 topics (2011-08-15/2011-10-08) 42 kb 030 73 topics (2011-11-25/2012-02-17) 62 kb 031 47 topics (2012-02-17/2012-03-14) 74 kb 032 40 topics (2012-03-14/2012-04-15) 39 kb 033 41 topics (2012-04-15/2012-05-01) 43 kb 034 42 topics (2012-05-01/2012-05-30) 38 kb 035 58 topics (2012-05-30/2012-07-27) 73 kb 036 44 topics (2012-07-27/2012-09-03) 87 kb 037 41 topics (2012-09-03/2012-10-26) 61 kb 038 47 topics (2012-10-26/2012-12-01) 111 kb 039 56 topics (2012-12-01/2013-02-05) 78 kb 040 63 topics (2013-02-05/2013-05-14) 69 kb 041 71 topics (2013-05-14/2013-09-04) 135 kb 042 81 topics (2013-09-04/2014-01-09) 109 kb 043 53 topics (2014-01-09/2014-05-15) 69 kb 044 62 topics (2014-05-15/2014-09-17) 92 kb 045 123 topics (2014-09-17/2015-05-16) 156 kb 046 66 topics (2014-05-16/2015-11-11) 73 kb 047 91 topics (2015-11-11/2016-09-30) 113 kb 048 43 topics (2016-09-30/2017-01-09) 74 kb 049 67 topics (2017-01-09/2017-07-21) 96 kb 050 35 topics (2017-07-21/2017-09-11) 75 kb 051 50 topics (2017-09-11/2017-11-25) 83 kb 052 82 topics (2017-11-25/2018-06-13) 106 kb 053 99 topics (2018-06-13/2019-01-01) 219 kb 054 124 topics (2019-01-11/2019-09-23) 240 kb 055 89 topics (2019-09-23/2020-02-04) 190 kb 056 105 topics (2020-02-04/2020-06-20) 253 kb 057 61 topics (2020-06-20/2020-09-11) 158 kb 058 372 topics (2020-09-11/2022-09-10) 596 kb 059 71 topics (2022-09-10/2023-01-05) 98 kb 060 93 topics (2023-01-05/2023-06-05) 113 kb 061 156 topics (2023-06-05/2024-01-10) 262 kb Current discussion

An Award for you!

File:Vsauceaward.png	The Vsauce Award
	This is presented to you for asking and answering knowledgeable questions! Tsunami307 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tsunami307: Thank you kindly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You handled that ugly situation with grace and appropriate restraint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: How kind of you to say, North. I've been trying to be more gracious as a person, particularly online, where tone doesn't always translate. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry it took me a little while to figure out what's what, Justin. My apologies. El_C 05:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

El C, No worries--you didn't do anything wrong by me, C. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate your gracious reply. No, it took me too long to realize that user was engaging in provocations. El_C 06:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

A Charlie Brown Christmas

Hi - any particular reason you deleted the Vince Guaraldi Trio chronology in the infobox from A Charlie Brown Christmas (soundtrack)? Cheers. 205.148.51.41 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't: it's still there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Army of Lovers compilation albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Army of Lovers compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Terumasa Hino albums

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:Terumasa Hino albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dan arndt (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Terumasa Hino albums

In answer to your query I removed the categories from the redirects because standard practice, as per WP:REDIRECT - most redirect pages are not placed in article categories. Given that none of these pages are actually articles it is fairly evident that they should not be included in an album category. On this basis I would appreciate it if you revert your recent changes. Dan arndt (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Dan arndt, While it is true that we generally do not categorize redirects alongside articles and so your edits are totally understandable, there is a decade-old consensus to categorize album redirects. Consequently, I'm sure you can understand why I will not revert. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate you pointing that out as I wasn't aware, noting that is just a guidance note not a policy. This is likely to be redundant in any case dependent upon the results of the CfD discussion. Dan arndt (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Dan arndt, Again, totally understandable instinct and usually a best practice. Which CfD did you have in mind? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Koavf,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Sex- or gender-related stereotypes has been nominated for discussion

Category:Sex- or gender-related stereotypes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Using Template:Frac in Template:Album ratings

If you wish to start doing this, can you please get consensus at either Template talk:Album ratings or WT:MOSALBUM? I really hope this is not something you've started here and intend to carry on elsewhere. As I said in my edit summary to The Lookout (album), you have previously been concerned about font size in other templates, so why you have used fraction templates to render text even more minuscule in a template that already uses 85/90% font size baffles me—I could barely make out what those scores even said and I have fine eyesight. I have also never seen the fraction template utilised for this purpose, and that certainly tells me something—that most users don't consider it appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate nor correct, nor do I believe every score out of another should be treated as a fraction. You've also put decimal scores in fraction templates, which is just bizarre. If you reply here, I do not wish to be pinged. Thank you. Ss112 20:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, You posted here knowing that I would use the {{Ping}} template. I thought that it would be more semantically appropriate than "1/5" and I agree that it is not as easy to read. Additionally, this is exactly the sort of comment you know that I've asked you to not post here before. Please don't post on my talk page if you can't be nice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, you are not forced to use the ping template, so do not act like you have to use it, because you don't. If a user asks you not to use it, I don't understand why you can't respect that request. Now, if you think my message above was "not nice", you are being incredibly oversensitive, and I would be more than happy to not post here if you want to be that sensitive. I posted here to provide a reason why I removed your use of fraction templates and to avoid you outright reverting me, which you've done before. Ss112 21:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, Yes, and what you've done before is removed my talk page posts with undo, pinging me. I don't care for your, "Hey, you're secretly a hypocrite!" posts which are just pointless. You already explained your actions in your edit summary, which is exactly the place for it, so posting to my talk page was at best redundant but at worst is just another way to complain about and bother me, which you routinely do just to be annoying. Not because it has value in building an encyclopedia but because you have some ulterior motive. I have assumed good faith about your interactions for a long time and your actual edits to the content of the encyclopedia are almost always spot on but the way you talk to others and use talk pages as some kind of playground for personal sniping and fights is tiresome and something that others have noted as well. I'm not so overly sensitive that I have to make a personal rule that you can't post on my talk page: I'm asking that if you post here, you do so for its intended purpose rather than use it as an excuse for stealth attack on my character. The notice you have on your talk page to "Please be civil, and don't leave condescending messages" is a handy one and the fact that you posted here when you write of me that I "cannot engage in civil discussion"/"it is evident nothing productive will come from discussion." is telling: by your own admission, you think I can't engage civilly or productively, so... why did you post here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. You are so busy accusing other people of doing and being things like you don't have more than enough users who don't like you and what you do that you don't see how annoying you are. Revert this message or remove this entire section and be done with it. My talk page notice doesn't go for how I interact with others on theirs. You are one of the most stubborn and tiring editors on this site and given your ANI thread that nobody's forgotten in a hurry, I think you're the bigger problem on this site out of the two of us. You can write another 1,100 byte diatribe if you want to get it out of your system Justin, but I'm done. Goodbye. Ss112 21:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, That's a lot of not answering my simple question, which is typical. I'm not surprised but still disappointed. Have a good day. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina clothing

A tag has been placed on Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina clothing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pete Davidson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"Getz (Breaking Bad)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Getz (Breaking Bad). Since you had some involvement with the Getz (Breaking Bad) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

References next to dates on number-one lists

This is just not a thing we do, and is not done on any list, nor should it be. Were you just trying to find edits to make to articles I had edited recently after I edited a couple of pages you had edited today? It really seems like it. We're not sourcing the date. The source for the number one should be in a separate column at the end of the entry to signify that it sources the whole thing. You also added a WP:REPEATLINK. Overall, that was a strange edit to make. If you think it's an improvement, by all means, please open a discussion on the/a relevant article talk page. Ss112 05:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, I'm always confused by your criticisms that consist of "This is not a thing we do" or "This doesn't need to be done" or "This is not as popular as it used to be", therefore don't do it. I don't think those are very compelling reasons to do or not do anything in particular. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, precedent and consistency are more "compelling" reasons than providing none at all. You also ignored the fact that I did provide a reason: the source doesn't pertain to the date, it pertains to the whole entry, which should affect its location. Ss112 05:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, Ss112 strikes again! "Thanks". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, I'm assuming "Ss112 strikes again! "Thanks"" is an in-joke only you understand because I certainly don't. I provided several reasons to your zero. If you want to ignore that and act like I'm doing something I always do, then by all means... Ss112 05:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, It's not really a joke but it's an observation that you've decided to be rude and provocative (again) and you get pissy about me doing something that you did (again) and make specious claims (again). As soon as I saw that you posted here, I knew what to expect and you didn't disappoint (even if your behavior is still disappointing in some respects). I'm still confused as to why you post on my talk page when you think that I "cannot engage in civil discussion and nothing productive will come from discussion". Why is that? And your claim that we are sourcing the entire row, therefore references should be hanging in the ether of their own column makes no sense to me and I don't know of any policy or guideline that implies that. Feel free to provide one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you're well aware on Wikipedia we place citations next to the text it applies to. We wouldn't put a citation next to a fraction of prose it applies to if it applies to a greater part. Same goes for tables: why would we place a citation in a different or earlier location in a table/table row when it applies to all of a row? I am sure there is a guideline about placement of citations and placing them next to the text they are a source for, but forgive me, I can't recall which one. Now for what else you said, literally nowhere in this thread have I been rude. I'm assuming from this point on you are hypersensitive to any criticism, can't take criticism, think anything I say to you is rude for the mere fact it comes from me, or you view it as "rude" any time an editor you have a history of disagreements with reverts you and comes to your talk page. That's what it seems like. You're the one engaging in digs at me every time I come here. You literally just made a joke at my expense and presumed I was rude from the moment I posted here. That is entirely hypocritical of you and I'm quite sure you also lack real self-awareness, which is a disappointment for any editor who has as many edits and done as much on Wikipedia as you, but probably not surprising. My talk page applies to my talk page only, not how I act towards editors I've asked not to post there outside of it. You can stop mentioning it now. Thanks. Ss112 05:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, Your claim that we are sourcing the entire row, therefore references should be hanging in the ether of their own column makes no sense to me and I don't know of any policy or guideline that implies that. Feel free to provide one. Additionally, why do you keep on posting on my talk page, bearing in mind what I just wrote, quoting you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not "hanging in the ether". That's quite a vivid mischaracterisation to make having a dedicated column for the reference seem completely out of place, like it's some uncommon thing when it's far more common than placing a reference next to...the date. I don't suppose it will make any sense to you however I explain given your silly edit, so I'm out. I will revert any more edits like this that I come across considering you have still failed to provide a single reason why (other than what I assume is your personal preference, just like your rigid insistence on list-defined references) and I'm guessing you won't at such a late stage. Considering it's your talk page, do feel free to continue pinging me with a reply and a final dig, in typical Koavf style. Ss112 05:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, No reason to be rude, Ss. The reason to put the citation somewhere other than in a column of its own would be to shrink the size of the table itself and not to hide text using tooltips. Again, you are appealing to how common (you think) something is as tho it's normative and what I'm asking for is if there's any actual precedent written down anywhere other than what you've happened to notice. Otherwise, it's just anecdote versus anecdote, which is not particularly helpful to get anywhere. Oh, and I see you kept on adding in things again and again while I was responding: my "rigid insistence" on list-defined references is not merely a matter of "personal preference". Additionally, why do you keep on posting on my talk page, bearing in mind what I just wrote, quoting you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it kinda is still personal preference actually. Regarding the final dig you predictably made and repeated, I already said, and I quote: "My talk page applies to my talk page only, not how I act towards editors I've asked not to post there outside of it." This proves you read little of what I say, or are primarily interested in repeating yourself to the point of annoyance of other editors and/or trolling said editors. Are you a troll, Koavf? No? Then don't act like one. Tables do not need to be shrunk when they're not even that wide to begin with. If it were the width of the entire page, I might agree. This sounds like your personal preference yet again, which is not a valid reason. Sorry, Koavf. A column dedicated to references is not widening a table that much. Is it written down somewhere that tables that aren't wide need to be even smaller? If that's all you have, I regret replying. Ss112 06:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, Was it supposed to be some funny in-joke when you used an underline to simulate inserting text? It's not trolling or a dig but a genuine question: if you think that someone cannot engage in civil discussion and nothing productive will come from discussion on your talk page then why post to his? What changes when you go to someone else's talk page that makes someone civil or more productive for discussion? You have no problem insisting that I answer your questions but you seem hyper-sensitive when I ask you to answer mine. Maybe you lack self-awareness... Also, my "rigid insistence" on list-defined references is not merely a matter of "personal preference". Are you a troll? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming you are indeed a troll with that lame reply. Predictable as usual, Koavf—don't forget to ping me! Ss112 06:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, I'll take that as a yes. As always, feel free to post here if you're going to be a decent person and feel free to not if you aren't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Author & Professional Dating Coach Alan Roger Currie

I have a request for help from you: Can you kindly provide me with some support for the Alan Roger Currie article that I created in April 2015?? I would VERY MUCH appreciate your support and assistance. Thank you. The Discussion is HERE Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I helped to fix Nintendo Switch software page that you flagged for lead lengthening

If it's okay, can I remove that tag? Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 22:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mac Henni, Sorry Mac, the page you linked is non-existent. Can you point me to which one you have in mind? Have you seen WP:LEAD before? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: My fault. Here you go. Nintendo Switch system software is the correct one. i typed it wrong. Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 23:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I always check with the tagging user, just to be on the same page. After all, I may not have the same goals as you :). As for your question about [[@WP:LEAD, I think that the tag description describes it well enough for me Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 23:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mac Henni, Thanks for checking. If you think it's good, I think it's good. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then. I think that that's that then! Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me check the tag on Nintendo Switch system software, and for using WP:FAITH! Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 00:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A Simple Trick to Happiness

Hi. Thank you for starting this article. I noticed it as it is a redirect I created and had watchlisted. However, I wanted to ask, where did you get the genre and recording year from? I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but these are considered contentious details for most albums that a lot of users will take issue with if they're not directly cited. If you got pop rock from the sidebar of AllMusic, that's not considered reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. I checked out the AllMusic review and I scanned the news article cited, but I didn't see anywhere it said Loeb recorded the album in 2019. I could have missed it though. If you got it from somewhere, it'd be appreciated if you could provide a direct citation for it. Thanks. Ss112 05:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, Thanks. Fell asleep listening to interviews with her. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The Guy for This

How were you able to move this page without leaving a redirect? I mean, from The Guy For This to Draft:The Guy for This, then from this to The Guy for This without leaving a redirect at both times? I want to be able to do the same for other pages. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, Wikipedia:Page mover ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Formatting

Continued from User_talk:CloversMallRat#Confusing_edit.

That's the correct template for the formatting of the tracklisting. It was used on both of her prior albums and it used in all other major album releases that I've come across. I also added several links for songwriters and the mention of the featured vocalist on one of the songs that you had missed when I switched the format. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

CloversMallRat, There's nothing normative about requiring the track listing template. Where are you getting the idea that it's the "correct" formatting? Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Track_listing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

What is your problem with the cleaner and sleeker look of the formatted tracklisting? I'm getting the idea that it is the "correct" formatting because it's used.... everywhere else. Her own last two albums. Golden Hour (album). Lover (album). etc. Literally every new album release by any remotely notable singer has adopted this. I can't remember the last time I even saw one formatted the way you're choosing to, unless it was like a country album release from like 1997. You also in reverting my edits for the format have now on several occasions removed information that I've added that once again you missed (in this case being the featured vocalist on track #7). Stop removing my edit. CloversMallRat (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

CloversMallRat, I think it's ugly, takes up a big block that it doesn't need to, doesn't flow with other block elements in the article, and is (usually) semantically inappropriate, as it's using tables to show non-tabular data. Please respect the fact that there is an established style on this page. How popular one style is versus another is irrelevant, so I don't know why you are telling me this. Additionally, Randy Newman is mentioned in the personnel section, which is an appropriate place to capture that information. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if you think it's ugly or takes up more space or whatever. It's literally the same format that was already in place for her last two album, so if the argument is cohesion, then you're the one switching things up here by using this primitive style (for a lack of better word) for the tracklisting, lol. Also, no, featured credits for vocalists belong in the tracklisting as well. He is credited on the song alongside her so it does not belong exclusively in the personnel section. CloversMallRat (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

CloversMallRat, So now you have undone my work four times on the article, which contravenes WP:3RR. Are you going to revert yourself and post to the talk page to seek consensus? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I was not online for a few days but I see now after catching up on the report you filed against me that I was found to be in no violation of any rule-breaking with my edit of formatting the tracklisting for Brandy's album to match her prior two (and the overwhelming majority of other Wikipedia articles for albums). As User:Amakuru stated in that discussion, the claims you made that I was unwilling to be reasoned with were incorrect as I explained my rationale for making the edit. Granted, I only even entered into said discussion with you after you had already reverted my first edit with the summary "Rv. No thanks." which is a pretty flippant remark for someone supposedly keen on discussion. It was only once you had done that that you messaged me personally and it seems obvious from your wording that you took my edit summary of "corrected tracklist formatting" as me telling you that you were 'wrong,' which was never my intent from the start. I think this was a misunderstanding. One thing that bothered me about that though is that beyond adding the formatting of the table, I did it in conjunction with adding missing links to songwriters and the missing featured credit (both indisputably valid & beneficial edits), and those were disregarded with the reverting. Lastly, to clarify the latter issue of adding the lead single to the infobox and forgetting a source: I legitimately forgot the source initially and when I added one, I did not use your method you had in place on the page because I 1) did not see the method that you were using for sources was different and 2) I've honestly never encountered said method before. Again, it was not with malicious intent.

Anyway, all of this to say that I (and apparently the administrator that reviewed the dispute) do not believe there was anything inappropriate about my edits to Brandy Clark's page in order to make it cohesive with her previous two albums + the majority of similar articles for other recent mainstream album releases (country or otherwise). So with that in mind, I'd like to request that you allow the formatting change to stay without further needless disruption because we're all on the same side here and I have no qualms about anything else you're doing. Cheers. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

CloversMallRat, You gave no reason for changing an existing style, so how much reason should I give in reverting it? Please see WP:BRD, please post to talk, please seek consensus, please respect established styles. I don't think you have malicious intent: I do think that you are using faulty logic and irrelevant reasoning to make things the way you like, which is not appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Once again false, as I said several times why I changed the 'existing style' because it was an intent to mirror her prior two albums and the majority of other articles on Wikipedia. The administrator who dismissed your libel against me said the exact same thing, too. You also seem to be addressing me as if you have some sort of superiority over me because you created the page and established what you believe to be is a consistent 'style' (none of the other stylistic choices you may or may not have made on the article have a single thing to do with the edit for the tracklisting anyway) that gives you some sort of high ground over my edit, which it doesn't, because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. And who all even reads talk pages to be able to weigh in on this matter for that to be an effective way to handle this? One who would think that taking a quick look around and realizing that the edit I've attempted on Brandy's page is the standard norm for tracklisting sections on every other album article being created for major artists on Wikipedia right now is consensus enough. I am not imposing some radical new format. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

CloversMallRat, I don't like you making weird allegations like libel. Please back off on that nonsense. I've made my points on the talk page, so I won't go into them here but: 1.) just because something else has [x] doesn't mean this should have [x] (for that matter, I'm not convinced that the track listing template is more used) and 2.) there's nothing superior about an established style: it just is that style. There are reasons to use the template and reasons to use an ordered list. Since there are reasons to do either and we can only do one, deferring to what is already the standard is the default without a really compelling argument. You don't have one, so things should stay how they were. You started off with the ridiculous claim that you were "correcting" something that wasn't incorrect and now you're grasping for straws as to why this should change to what you like. Who cares if a Billie EIlish album article uses {{track listing}}? What does that have to do with WP:ALBUM's style guide and how no single format is normative? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well if you don't think the tabular format is more commonly used after I both 1) provided a number of high profile examples of album articles that use it that are much more heavily-contributed-to by a number of editors (compared to a page where you've single-handedly done most of the work without aid from others -- and when others have tried to help it's led to these shenanigans) and 2) just common sense from being able to wander around on Wikipedia and look at things with your own eyes for yourself and see the amount of usage it receives, then idk what else to say on that front. You also keep bringing up the "correcting" comment again after I explained that there was no malicious intent behind it because I did not make that part of my edit summary as a direction at any editor (you or otherwise), so speaking of backing off on 'nonsense.' I merely saw that it did not match the format of her previous two album tracklistings and made a change. I probably should've just left the edit summary blank because it clearly set you off from the jump and that's really how we got where we are. Your whole argument seems to pretty much boil down to: either method works, but you created the article so you have final say over what goes because you took the initiative to impose a certain 'style' and any Wikipedia editor who contributes to the page now must adhere to your preferences. Also in regards to the first point, you literally reported me like I was a common troll and even tailored your argument as such (like at one point saying I responded with "lol" when it was merely one word in a paragraph response). The administrator saw through it though and not only dismissed your report against me but also acknowledged that I made attempts to engage in discussion and offered rationale for my edits, both things you initially claimed I didn't do and/or ignored. So, regardless of what tracklisting format ultimately is imposed on the page, I know the only real mistake I made is getting sucked into this pointless mess. I've got better things to do, lol. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

CloversMallRat, I have probably edited more album articles than anyone on Wikipedia: easily over 100,000. "High-profile examples" are by definition not the majority so I don't know how that would prove that a majority of cases use the template. I never said that you had malicious intent, so I don't know why you keep on saying that you didn't: no one is disputing that. If you don't want to get "sucked into this", then just leave the perfectly fine article the way it was before you decided that you wanted to edit war to your preferred format. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Black Mirror images for deletion

It is rude and aggressive to nominate many images on Black Mirror episode articles in separate consecutive "Files for discussion"s in the manner in which you have done. If you had concerns on this, you should have first raised them at a forum like Talk:Black Mirror given that many of the articles are GAs and FAs. Based on the speed of your nominations, I trust that you have not seen consensus for individual images at places like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Junipero/archive2, nor read the individual fair use rationales written with NFCC#8 in mind, nor read the articles and observed how the caption justifies the image under NFCC#8, or why the image is necessary to understanding a facet of each article. — Bilorv (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, I don't think it's rude or aggressive: I just nominated images that had unjustifiable use as I saw them. I did in fact read the fair use rationales which were (almost?) all "key moment of episode" which is not a valid reason. You have the misapprehension that because they were nominated in short order, I therefore didn't have several tabs open and look at several things before pressing the button to nominate them for deletion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It comes across as rude and aggressive. I would rather see this in a central location than be bombarded with deletion notice spam on my talk page. If you performed due diligence then you should have found different contexts for many of the images, and offered specific deletion rationales for each image rather than the same copy-and-pasted message. For instance, at San Junipero you should have read that: The scene, visual style of the episode and characterisation of Kelly and Yorkie are discussed extensively in the Plot, Analysis and Critical reception sections of the article (after an explanation of how the image demonstrates each of these attributes). Whether or not you agree with this, you should comment on it in a deletion rationale. Instead you wrote that the image was not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration. That's not a good faith reading of the image rationale.

I see now that you've not nominated images for every episode, which makes me think that you believe some of the episode images' fair use rationales to be acceptable. Perhaps it would have been better to open with this and then discussing how the 10 episodes you've distinguished are different from the other 12, and whether it's possible to strengthen rationales, use a better image or whether nothing is appropriate unless the article is further developed, or ever. — Bilorv (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, I can't speak to how it came across to you, I can only say what I intended and that I've never gotten that feedback in over a dozen years proposing media at FFD with several hundred deletions and a 98%+ success rate. I hope you understand, that was not my intention. Not sure how deletion notices are spam. There have been many times when I have nominated dozens of files a day and never even had someone suggest it was rude or ask me to have a centralized discussion (isn't that what FFD is?) so this is all confusing to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope you'll reply also to my comments made about why your rationales are not detailed enough, if not here then either at Talk:Black Mirror or the FFD discussions. I would also appreciate constructive attempts to find better images if you believe any exist (which I suppose you likely do, given the 12 images you didn't nominate). I have limited free time and I can't simultaneously find ten better images and ten convincing arguments for them in a week, particularly when I don't understand the difference between images you have and haven't nominated for deletion. — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, I do not feel that there are better images as I have never seen these television episodes. As you point out, some episodes have totally acceptable screen captures: e.g. ones that explicitly discuss the actual aesthetic, visual effects, etc. that really require an image to explain something that can't be captured in text. A screen cap of a guy standing in a street with the rationale "key moment from episode" is not acceptable. I don't know that my rationales are not detailed enough, as the burden of proof is on the uploader--that's really for the community to decide, but again, they've decided in my favor somewhere around a thousand times, so I think that I have a good feel for this. I appreciate that you have limited time, note that FFD lasts for several days. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that it lasted for a week, but I don't think you appreciate the many hours of discussion, suggestion and collaboration it would take to do the topic of the episode images justice. The articles are available for you to read even if the episodes are not available for you to view, so you should be able to suggest facets of the episode which are discussed sufficiently in the article and may be able to be depicted by images. — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, Elements of the plot being key moments are irrelevant for including non-free media. What matters is that the media itself (audio, photo, video, etc.) is something that can't be explained via the text in any realistic way. The test here would be if I read the articles and they tried to describe some unique visual elements and I couldn't really get what the authors are trying to say but an image would make it sink in. That's true in some of these episodes, hence I didn't nominate the media in them for deletion. In others, it's just a guy standing in a street: that should never have been uploaded in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

8

Was the article for the Billie Eilish song "8" accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatleswillneverdie (talk • contribs)

@Beatleswillneverdie: I don't know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Scrolling

Was it deliberate to disable scrolling on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data, with edit summary "Internal scrollbars are not accessible", I take it you meant they are not available on mobile, because otherwise they worked fine prior to your edit. Sun Creator^(talk) 14:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sun Creator, I did not mean that: I don't know anything about mobile devices. I meant Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Sun Creator^(talk) 15:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sun Creator, Thanks for asking. If you were confused, someone else probably was as well and that's my fault. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Brandy Clark

Template:Brandy Clark has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleting charts sections when articles have other unsourced sections

Hi. I was wondering why you are deleting entire sections from George Jones' album articles when most of the articles, presumably for being unsourced, when for example We Love to Sing About Jesus, contain paragraphs of unsourced prose, some with claims which ought to be sourced, which you are leaving alone. Would it not be better to be consistent and delete those too? Ss112 02:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, It would be better. Just trying to get thru a certain task before I fall asleep and only devoting [x] concentration per article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited I Made a Place, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Berman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility

You will need to clearly explain what the issue is. Discussion is Template_talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data#Scrolling Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content at Sufjan Stevens discography

On Sufjan Stevens discography, may I ask why you removed the font size reductions for featured/guest artists? From my experience, small font sizes are typically applied to visually separate the title of a work from other artists involved with the project. I find this prevents confusion to the reader, making an obvious stylistic separation. Ping me if you reply, please. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC).

Carbrera, I am primarily concerned with the misuse of the <small> HTML tag, then readability, then consistency. If someone wants to convert improper HTML to a semantically correct template, I would certainly prefer he wouldn't because it would be harder to read but if someone does at least that, I would prefer that it be done in a way that's consistent among all of the parenthetical notes. This isn't print, so there is no reason why we need smaller text--why would we have that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Bill Rieflin

On 25 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bill Rieflin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 14:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Spencer: Thanks. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pop albums by Gibraltarian artists

A tag has been placed on Category:Pop albums by Gibraltarian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

R.E.M.

No disrespect, mate, I thank you for the addition to Up as it and New Adventures in Hi-Fi are my their favourite records and their longest albums. I really thought that Bertis Down and Jefferson Holt didn't deserve a place on the table, but it's your decision and I respect it. I look further in collaborations with you.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

@The Mad Hatter: Thanks for the kind words--I look forward to working with you as well. It's not really up to us to say who deserves to be a member of R.E.M.: the band said that they're in the band. We can't really argue with who is in the group. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Award content deletion

Hi. I've noticed that you are deleting the award nomination and wins content in multiple articles involving multiple programs. Could you please explain why you are doing this? Shabidoo | Talk 13:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Shabidoo, Per WP:V. Everything needs a source and many of these don't have them. For the ones that do, I leave them be. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, it doesn't hurt to do a little homework as well. Normally award content if easily verifiable and I've found them to be almost always correct even when the author forgot to leave their soruce. It's fairly easy to check with sources that aren't hard to find if the info is correct and then add the link. That way you are improving the article instead of deleting useful information another user spent a fair bit of time entering and formatting. It also wouldn't hurt to contact the user who added in all this information. They may be easily able to simply add their sources. Shabidoo | Talk 11:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Shabidoo, That is much, much more work that I would be obliged to do to fix someone else's mistakes (or hoaxes or lies). Yes, we can always put forth much more effort to make Wikipedia better. I work on this encyclopedia for hours every day and I've been using it for 17 years. How much more do I need to do? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"The Tune (flim)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Tune (flim). Since you had some involvement with the The Tune (flim) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring over template protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox U.S. state symbols‎‎

Hi, sorry, about Template:Infobox U.S. state symbols, we can talk at the discussion there, but MOS:SCROLL has more to say than the bolded text. The reason that text can be collapsed by default, per MOS:SCROLL, is if that text is just a table repeating information already included in the article. Since all 50 states have sections title "State symbols", I think this applies, and the template can be set to be collapsed by default. Happy to discuss further if you see it another way.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 01:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Patrickneil, Are you sure that all of the places where this is used and will be used replicate the text of the article? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112

Hi Koavf. I have been approached by Ss112 who is concerned that you may be watching his talk page and then engaging in unfriendly editing based on issues that pop up there. While I don't know the background, and would prefer not to go there, I am generally aware that the two of you are not exactly on each other's Christmas card list. Also I have not gone digging around his talk page editing history and tried to cross check to see if there is any pattern between your editing and what shows up on his page. So this should be regarded as a gentle and informal reminder that while there is no rule against watchlisting another editor's talk page, it is considered bad form to follow them around on pages that are of interest to them. This should not be understood as any imputation of bad faith editing on my part. However I would ask that you please be sensitive to this concern, and to the extent reasonable, kindly try and keep some distance between your editing and Ss112's. I do realize that you have overlapping areas of interest so this may not be possible in all circumstances. But your cooperation here, as far as practicable would be greatly appreciated. I really would rather that we avoid any unnecessary unpleasantness here. Thank you for your long history of commitment to the project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Do you have any diffs or pages in particular? I know of instances of the opposite: where he edited articles that I created and he had never edited before seemingly out of nowhere. Maybe that's what you have in mind? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not have any diffs. As I stated above, I have not done any looking around in editing history for either of you. That said, I will clarify my above comment to indicate that this is not a one way request. Ss112 is likewise asked to avoid editing pages that he knows are of high interest to you. If both of you will make an effort to avoid stepping on one anothers' toes, that would go a long ways towards keeping temperatures down and curbing suspicions of unfriendly editing, by either of you. This is not the first, and certainly won't be the last instance where, sadly, two highly experienced editors have ended up on acrimonious terms with one another. In almost every instance it is to everybody's advantage if a personal conflict can be deescalated before it becomes a problem requiring a more formal intervention either by administrators or the community more broadly. I have seen this sort of thing before and if it lands at ANI or one of the other drama boards, the likelihood of a happy ending is low. Let's all try to make the best of an unfortunate situation. Maybe you can both have a conversation somewhere and agree on terms to limit your interactions with another. In any event, I am here on an informal basis for now and would like to keep things that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Yep, an unfortunate circumstance to be sure. I don't have any clear action items from this but it's nice of you to be so diplomatic. While he's experienced and definitely adds value with many of his edits, I do not feel like Ss112 acts in good faith and is an outright hostile and negative editor and person. I have been contacted off-wiki several times about his rude and inappropriate behavior and I'm sure you've seen it yourself but somehow, he's like Teflon and nothing seems to stick to him. If I could avoid him entirely, that would be great but as you can see from my talk page, he comes here periodically just to annoy me. He's done the same on third party talk pages where he has stalked my edits. And now he's done it again. It's a sad cycle that I can't really control but I don't see any changes in his behavior until and unless someone forces it. That falls outside the scope of your message but it's related to the inciting incident and ongoing behavior from him. Again, thanks for posting and reading all this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am hopeful that both of you will do what you can to do a little on wiki "social distancing." If there is a desire to discuss some sort of mutual agreement that would spell things out in more detail, I am happy to provide a place for that conversation (given that communication on your respective talk pages seems to have broken down). Thanks again for your letting me hear your side of this and doing what you can to keep this from becoming the latest Featured Event on the drama boards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, No worries, man. Thanks for offering to referee--it's thankless free labor. I've seen your name a few times over the years and you seem to do good work. If I had the time and energy, I would spell out all of the problems with his editing but I frankly don't. If you can look at all his posts on my talk and tell me what he's written isn't hostile and inappropriate, I don't know what to say. Again, that's not what the purpose was of you posting, so I realize that's added labor but if you're serious about investigating what has happened here, I'd recommend you take a look at some very inappropriate language that he's used here in addition to subtly gaming the system, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't remain quiet on this when I've been pinged here multiple times. Koavf, you constantly talk about my rude behaviour and like I come here to "annoy" you. No, I come here over issues with your edits on articles, not to have a pointless, time-consuming argument with you. The intent is not to "annoy" you. I would prefer I not have to interact with you ever. Why would other editors have approached you about me? Are you my parent? I find this dubious or an outright lie, but on that note, I myself have talked to at least five other editors in recent memory who have spoken about Koavf's own rude and hostile behaviour that he exhibits around the place. As for "third party talk pages", you are obviously referring to Lk95's talk page, where we had an argument after you dropped Lk95 a message about Lk95's edit to a Brandy Clark album article you've edit warred on, related to something you had just reverted me for on another article. Lk95 and I have talked many times and his talk page is on my watchlist, so that's how I saw it. I didn't need to "stalk" anybody to see it. As for "just done it again", where? Koavf, you know very well earlier today you joined the RfD discussion I was notified of on my talk page by Steel1943, and only that discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Queen for a Day (album). I fail to see how else you would have happened across that discussion. Then you edited the redirects I created mentioned at the discussion. I'm well aware I have edited pages you've created, for example if articles you've started have charted. That's about all I can recall. I'm not interested in a back-and-forth here. I'm clarifying. Don't try and twist what you've done to me back around on you and play the victim. Thanks. Now I'm being accused of "gaming the system". How? If you're going to throw out baseless accusations, have proof. Ss112 01:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, I don't recall pinging you and I don't know who did. I think this conversation is between two individuals and you are not included. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, Ad Orientem did. Multiple times. See above. Ss112 01:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, Okay. I've asked you to stop posting here and you've posted again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, unless I am mistaken, you asked me to stop posting here if I had "nothing nice" to say, not to stop posting here entirely. But regardless, fine. I have no need to if you anymore if you stop editing pages soon after me, or perusing my talk page and editing based off that, and stop trying to flip things to make yourself the victim. I'm well aware I've been rude and said harsh things to people. I'm not excusing it nor have I ever said I'm perfect. Things annoy me. Just as things annoy you, or any editor. You have also said plenty of harsh things back to me, like on Lk95's talk page. But I have not "subtly gamed any system", whatever that means without any explanation from you. Thank you. Ss112 01:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, My last two posts implicitly told you to stop. This is the third post you've made where you're not welcome. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note I pinged Ss112 as what I was writing had relevance to him. In general when you tell someone not to post on your talk page, that is the wiki equivalent to breaking diplomatic relations and it is not a one way street. If you tell someone to stay off your talk page, it is, with very few exceptions, expected you will stay off the other's as well. Beyond that I do not want this to turn into a lot of finger pointing and recounting of who did what to whom in the past. That is a dead end and nothing positive will come of it. If there is a desire to converse I am prepared to host a discussion in a neutral page environment. For now I would ask that you both try to avoid antagonizing one another and just accept that for whatever reasons, you have not gotten on. I am requesting that you both desist in communicating on your respective talk pages. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ad Orientem, Good deal. To be clear, I have never told Ss112 that he can't post here, only that he can only post under certain conditions. I'm happy to have his feedback if it's constructive so while it's generally considered a mutual arrangement, I'm not going to bar him from my talk (minus a conversation where he's been told to not intrude and minus any instances where he is rude or otherwise inappropriate). Where, in principle, would be a place to talk that you think is a neutral territory? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Ad Orientem/Switzerland. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Thumbs up emoji. If you're willing to initiate and ping us both, that's great. Otherwise, not sure how to start the process since by definition, it's been fraught. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm in discussion with Ss112. I will get back to you shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. For the present Ss112 has declined my invitation to discussion. All I can suggest is to try and minimize interactions to the extent reasonably possible. That obviously applies to him as well. Hopefully that will be enough. If it is not, then this may have to be handled more formally. Sigh... It's getting late here and I am about to sign off. If you need to bring anything to my attention, not limited to this issue, please drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, How kind. Sweet dreams. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am having a difficult time squaring your edit at Glorious (Ella Henderson song) with what we discussed last night, and in particular my request that you try to avoid antagonizing Ss112. Seriously. If this does end up at ANI that sort of thing is not going to look good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I didn't think there was anything inappropriate about my edits. Is there something wrong with the content of what I added? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Re-reading what you wrote above and the thread at that user's talk, he thinks that you told me to remove his talk page and I'm not seeing that. If anything, I thought that doing this administrative work would be helpful to him because it gets something out of the way. I don't see how that's antagonistic. Nothing I wrote in the content of the article or the edit summaries or elsewhere was in any way directed to him or intended to do anything to hurt his feelings or reputation: it just removed one thing from his to-do. Is that wrong? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Content... no. But WP:HOUNDING other editors is a serious no no. You have been asked, repeatedly to stop watching Ss112's talk page and jumping into issues or topics raised there. This really is starting to look like deliberate stalking. You were very clearly asked to avoid Ss112 as far as possible. Please stop. You should regard this as a Formal Caution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Sounds good. Thanks. If you would be willing to fix the Musicbrainz link there to a6c24c9c-7c0f-40e2-b1ea-08bbc826cbdd that would be nice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My spidey senses tell me our next port of call will be here given Justin doesn't seem to understand what they've done and are continuing to do wrong. –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"The Legend of Zelda: the Hero of Time" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Legend of Zelda: the Hero of Time. Since you had some involvement with the The Legend of Zelda: the Hero of Time redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paul_012 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ella Henderson - Glorious.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ella Henderson - Glorious.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) 02:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sports coaches in South Dakota

A tag has been placed on Category:Sports coaches in South Dakota requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Please see:

• Category:Sports coaches from South Dakota
• Category:American sports coaches by state
• and this edit of mine.

--DB1729 (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"The Office (U.S. season 3))/redirects" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Office (U.S. season 3))/redirects. Since you had some involvement with the The Office (U.S. season 3))/redirects redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"The Office (U.S. season 2))/redirects" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Office (U.S. season 2))/redirects. Since you had some involvement with the The Office (U.S. season 2))/redirects redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"The Office (U.S. season 1)/redirects" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Office (U.S. season 1)/redirects. Since you had some involvement with the The Office (U.S. season 1)/redirects redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please stop following me already?

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.

---

You obviously looked at my edits to edit Bloom*Iz after me. You were already asked to stop looking at my edits and editing articles after me by @Ad Orientem: so please stop. You have no reason to still be doing so. I don't know where this came from; because I edited The New Abnormal? I have no idea. But I have no interest in editing articles after you, so stop doing it to me. I don't want to have to drag up a whole bunch of unnecessary drama at ANI when you can easily stop stalking or hounding me. Thank you. Ss112 08:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, No clue what you're talking about: I was editing several articles on List of 2020 albums and Category:2020 albums. Some stood out because they were purple links (i.e. I had edited them before) and some had some funny typography so I clicked on them. Please see my edit history and please do not make up lies about me. You are hyper-sensitive about what you claim to be stalking and it's now WP:OWN territory, particularly when I am making very uncontroversial edits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh my God. Who are you expecting to believe this? @Ad Orientem and Davey2010: Bloom*Iz isn't even listed at List of 2020 albums, and there is no way anyone is going to believe you decided to edit that article out of hundreds of articles in a category right after I did. You found it and edited it not long after I did, and you explicitly targeted what I did on the article. Please stop making up lame excuses. This is not something you stumbled onto by chance. Ss112 08:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, As I wrote, it looked funny and is in Category:2020 albums. Please do not abuse Wikipedia:Rollback or else you will have those rights removed. I don't know that you want more eyes on your edits when you are abusing your privileges. I did not go about stalking your edits and I did not even know that you had ever edited The New Abnormal as it's not on my watch list. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

People use rollback for that purpose all the time, so in that case, every user should have their rollback rights revoked. Koavf, this is a seriously pathetic excuse even for you. Nobody, if I filed this at ANI, would believe you stumbled on an article I edited only earlier, out of hundreds listed at a category, especially after you were told by an administrator to leave me and my edits alone. Is this the excuse you're going to use now when you edit an article not long after I do and continue to target what I've done on that article? Final time I ask: Leave me and my edits alone, or I will take it to ANI. I am not levelling empty threats. If you do not stop following me to articles and targeting my edit on them right after I've edited them, I will ask admins to intervene further. This is straight-up Wikihounding. Find something better to do than stalk my contributions. Ss112 08:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, I have no clue what you edit because I don't hound/stalk/follow you. Please don't abuse Rollback in the future. If you don't understand what the proper purposes are of rollback, I have listed them below:

1. To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
2. To revert edits in your own user pages
3. To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
4. To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
5. To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, You did that thing you do where you edit your comments without adding any markup while I'm responding to you. I did not undo what you did on the page (I never saw what you did as I never looked at the edit history) but what you evidently did was not adding the caption that I removed. I was not undoing what you did as I didn't know you had done it and you didn't add that in the first place. Please stop abusing rollback and escalating things. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not abuse rollback; everyone who has rollback has used it for that purpose. Don't sidetrack the discussion. Are you seriously expecting me, or anyone, to believe that this is coincidence? This is the exact reason I did not want to have a pointless conversation with you to "work out differences". You are condescending in the extreme, and you are an experienced Wikipedia editor with two million edits making up incredible excuses no other user of this website would believe to excuse that you edited an article soon after me, when you were given a formal caution by an administrator to stop hounding me. @Ad Orientem: It looks like this is the excuse Koavf is going to resort to now to get around being told to stop following me: "it was in a category, and I decided to choose that article out of hundreds to edit, coincidentally right after you". Koavf, this is not something anyone is going to fall for. Grow up, and find better things to do on Wikipedia than hound and harass editors like myself. Ss112 08:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, Earlier today, I made articles for albums released in 2018 and 2020. I routinely add "List of albums released in [year]" to album articles I make. I also tried to go about harmonizing the category with the list but that was way too much work for me to do at 4:00. It seems like you are very upset, so I recommend muting me. Please do not abuse rollback and please do not escalate this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, Oh, you did that thing where you edited your comments without adding any markup while I'm responding to you. Please don't do that anymore. I don't see anything constructive coming from this thread, so please go about all of the otherwise very helpful edits that you are apt to make on Wikipedia and do not abuse rollback or edit your comments repeatedly on my talk page. I don't watch your talk page, I don't subscribe to your edits via RSS, I don't check page histories to see if you've edited them: the personality of your edits is a non-issue for me. It seems like it's midday in Australia now, which is where I believe you're located, so have a nice day. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's 6:30 PM in Australia; I have no idea where you got midday from. I'm not "escalating" anything. if anything, you are escalating this yourself by still following my edits then making excuses to justify it. You explicitly targeted something I did on Bloom*Iz. I do not believe for a second you chose that article out of hundreds out of coincidence, nor that you did not look at what I did on the page when you targeted what I did on it. Of course, nobody can prove this, so that's why you are coming up with such a ridiculous lie. For the second and final time, I did not abuse rollback, so stop saying this. The next time you edit an article right after I have, when it's not something that was in the news, a recent album you would be interested in, or I personally do not believe you came across it naturally, I promise you I will take this hounding to ANI, whatever you bring up against me be damned. @Ad Orientem: Can you please give a stern "final" warning to Koavf here before I go to ANI? I've had enough. Thank you. Ss112 08:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, This is the fourth time you have posted here where you've asked to not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for that notice. Please don't ignore what I said and continue to follow me, or I will take this to ANI. By the way, can you please fix your edit on Template:Track listing? When you edited it the other week, you removed the headline being bold. If you want table captions to show up in bold before every other table, I don't know why you want the headline= param of Template:Track listing to not be bold and be in plain text. Thank you. Ss112 08:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, This is the fifth time you have posted here when you've been asked to not. I can tell you are upset: I don't see anything constructive coming from you continuing with this thread. Please go about having a pleasant evening doing other things with your time--I hope that they include doing the mostly helpful things that you do to add to the encyclopedia here. If you have a request for a template edit, please post it on the the template or module's talk page. If you want me to personally respond, you can use {{ping}} I have no clue what you mean about table captions showing up in bold otherwise, as I have never stated a preference for that. This is an example of you escalating by trying to tacitly call me a hypocrite or somesuch. Lastly, please also stop abusing rollback--it concerns me that you fundamentally misunderstand this user right you have been given. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

And you are abusing your template editor privileges to make changes that have not been discussed; this is one of those times. Users have already posted about this at Template talk:Track listing#Headlines. I discovered you made the edit to the template to make headline= no longer be bold after they talked about it. You are trying to spam Wikipedia with your table captions now. You know table captions are ordinarily bold. If you didn't want them to be, you would probably have already made them not bold by abusing your template editor privilege by making undiscussed changes. The headline= param of Template:Trrack listing should not be different, so can you please fix your own edit? I don't see why I should have to go through requesting a change when you can just make it right now. Ss112 08:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, This is the sixth time you have posted here when you have been told to not. Thank you for alerting me to the discussion there: I did not see it, as no one pinged me. As we discussed with Wikipedia:Rollback and your abuse of your user rights, we have different understandings of what these mean. Wikipedia:Template editor suggests that as a rough guide "Changes that require at least some discussion, or at least several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal" include "Visual layout changes that are minor but still noticeable, e.g. swapping the order of a few parameters in an infobox, or slightly tweaking something's color." This seems like a totally fair instance of that and now that I have been alerted to that discussion, I can participate. Please also look up the definition of "spam": I find it genuinely morally concerning that you consider accessibility to the blind to be "spam". Your language here is increasingly inflammatory and inappropriate. I suggest that you do other things with your time. Please do not make unfounded allegations about me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If you don't want me to reply, don't ping me. I will reply here if you continue pinging me, because that certainly indicates you want to talk to me. I was trying to say the number of edits on all these articles you've been making is "spam", not necessarily the fact you are adding table captions. Please don't try and get all moral on me like you're so righteous or a crusader for the visually impaired when you're really not. Just a reminder: do not continue to follow my edits or use them as a guide to edit articles right after me, or I will alert ANI about your Wikihounding. Me continuing to reply on your talk page when you've pinged me is not an example of this. Do not think you have a right to disregard warnings from an administrator or that anyone will believe lame excuses to get around them. Thanks, and good day. Ss112 09:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, You have now posted here seven times where you've been told to not. You fundamentally misunderstand what {{ping}} is and you have yourself used notifications precisely to tell someone to not post to your talk page. Please stop using escalating language and please drop this thread, as you seem very put out and I don't see anything constructive coming from this. Please also stop making bad faith assumptions about my ethical character, or if you do, don't post them. You've made your point repeatedly, so posting it here again would actually be spam. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 15 April 2020 (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.

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Vanished Gardens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roots music

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer

What are you even talking about? The headline was so unnecessary, because I never saw that the original track listing need that before. These albums are not much notable, so everything needs a source, what is hard to understand that? Many albums need this and many have the same thing. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Tobi999tomas, I've shown you sources for this several times: data tables need captions per MOS:TABLECAPTION. Track listings are sourced by the album itself: the album is the source of what is on the album. Per WP:AFFILIATE, we should avoid stores as sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

And when we needed a sales performance? When we needed a headline? I have never see a notable user used it before. And an album itself is not source. So by you meaning you are saying when a vandalizer are adding a non-sense that is reliable too? What kind of argument is that?--Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Tobi999tomas, I sincerely have no clue what you're saying. I have referred you to the relevant resources to explain this. Have you read them? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You still did not answer my questions. These sources that you are referring to? Sure, but I have been always said that these things need reliable sources from another reliable site, for example, when I quoting someone with their criticism. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Tobi999tomas, Yes, and I am saying this is an example of WP:PRIMARY. If you want to know how many pages are in a book, the best place to look is not a bookseller's website but the book itself. There are times that a piece of media can serve as a source about itself. I can't answer your other questions because I do not understand them. Again, did you read the pages I referred you to earlier? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I not gonna argue with you anymore, since this is going nowhere for understanding, cause you can't even answer my questions, when they are understandable as much as it is. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Tobi999tomas, I asked you a very simple yes or no question. "And when we needed a sales performance?" I don't know what this means. "When we needed a headline?" I'm guessing you mean a table caption? We need them for all data tables. "I have never see a notable user used it before." I don't know what this means. "And an album itself is not source." Yes, it is. "So by you meaning you are saying when a vandalizer are adding a non-sense that is reliable too?" What? "What kind of argument is that?" I have no clue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, just let it be, there is nothing to say anymore. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Tobi999tomas, So I'll take that as a "no, I did not read these materials or try to understand them". Please don't make this site more hostile to the blind. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I read them. It's just there is no point to argue anymore. I don't need this conflict. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"See if this works"???

Sigh. Despite having just been called onto the carpet for improper use of the template editor user right, you recently made an edit to Infobox album, a template with 155,000 transclusions, without testing it in the sandbox first. Your edit summary was "See if this works". You introduced an undesirable line break, failed to limit the categorization to main space, and failed to account for the situation in which an infobox lacking a cover could, illogically, be placed in the "lacking alt text" category (see The 13th Warrior). Please use the sandbox and the testcases page, and Special:ExpandTemplates, to test edits to widely used templates. I have cleaned up after you this time, except for the no cover / no alt text logic, which I encourage you to experiment with in the template's sandbox. Feel free to ask for help on the template's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, What line break? Alt text should be for every image in every namespace: why would you limit it to Main:? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The line break that I removed with this edit, and that you can see if you use Special:ExpandTemplates to test the previous version of the template. Tracking categories for infobox errors are almost always limited to main space, and the category's description, which you wrote, describes tracking being limited to mainspace. Template testcases pages and such clutter up maintenance categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, Ah, I didn't see that, tho I did check other pages to see how it displayed. Thanks. Do you know of a way to include multiple namepaces and exclude some others? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, You edited your comment. What on Category:Album articles lacking alt text for covers says that it's only for the main namespace? It says that it "contains non-article pages", which seems like the exact opposite. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Re namespace selection, see {{Namespace and pagename-detecting templates}}. As for the category description, see the plain text that you wrote: Any article using {{Infobox album}} with a blank field for the alt text is classified here for clean up. (emphasis added). It's your test, so set it up how you want, but please ensure that the category description matches the test's logic.

Logically, the infobox should check to see if there is a cover, and apply the "alt text" category only if the cover is populated. It doesn't make sense to track missing alt text if there is no cover image yet; you'll get a lot of noise in the category. You should be able to use ifempty or a similar test instead of a switch to make that test happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, Agreed. Thanks again--very helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Really? You continue to make edits to the template without testing them in the sandbox? Removing a logical test that we are in the process of discussing? Please SLOW DOWN. Again, the template editor right is not to be taken lightly or used with an itchy trigger finger; you were lucky to hold on to it after the latest scuffle that I was unfortunate enough to be dragged into at ANI. You applying what you want to a template, even as others are attempting to engage in discussion with you, is how you ended up at ANI. Please learn from that experience. WP is a consensus-based workplace, and you will have a better chance of getting what you want if you slow down and seek consensus through discussion.

Every time you change this template, you introduce the possibility of breaking 155,000 articles, and you put those 155,000 articles in the job queue. Again, please make changes in the sandbox of widely transcluded templates, and test them prior to deployment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_album&diff=next&oldid=951433915 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that before I posted the above. Slowing down, engaging in discussion, and trying edits in the sandbox first would have prevented both of those edits from loading up the job queue and potentially breaking articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, Yes, thank you again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

I see you're been adding the headline parameter in several articles such as this. While I don't mind that, but why you added "album title track listing"? I don't see any reason to add "track listing" since the section obviously called that. It's kinda pointless, it should just celled the album's title instead. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, A caption should explain what the table below it has in terms of its data. The best caption that I can come up with is "Album track listing", since that is the information that is displayed in the table. If you have better alternatives, I'm open to them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Almost every album-related articles have a section under the name of "Track listing", it's not hard to tell. I think it's better to only add "Album" instead of "Album track listing". For example this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, Yes but the caption needs to stand on its own, irrespective of any L3 headers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but still don't agreed with it but I'm not gonna remove it or do anything about it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, The caption explains what the table is about which in this case is the track listing for the album. Is there something I'm missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It's looks fine to me. I accepted of what you been doing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, Thanks. I appreciate you writing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I actually wanted to ask about this, too, and though I read the above discussion, I'm still not quite understanding the need to put "[album name] track listing" above a listing that is for a single album with no ambiguous delineations. I feel it's a bit redundant, but that is perhaps just me. You're an incredibly experienced user, so I just want to understand. Before undoing your edit on the Say Nothing (album) article (which I apologize for and will not do again), I took a look at the track listing template and the advice given for the headline parameter doesn't seem to stipulate what you've done, so it might be confusing to other or less experienced editors (e.g., me). Is there any way to edit the template page to state something to this effect? I would greatly appreciate your insight/advice on this. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Miss Sarita, That's kind of you to say but I make mistakes and there's plenty that I don't know, so there is no problem at all with undoing what I've done: if you can do something better than I can, please go for it! All data tables need captions, it's not really up to us to pick and choose which tables we feel like the blind don't need captions for. If there were some kind of consensus otherwise, that would be a different story. If you feel like it's necessary to change the language at MOS:TABLECAPTION based on your understanding of accessibility standards, I would recommend starting an RfC. Until the community understanding of this changes, then I don't see any place for us deciding that some tables get captions and others don't. Thanks for the note on the Template:Track listing/doc: is it more clear now? Do you have any better way to ensure that others aren't confused or how to communicate the need for captions? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree that we do not get to judge what gets a caption and what doesn't. No argument from me there...or anywhere really. I'm just the type of editor that gets a lot of her knowledge about tables by what is said in the guidelines within template articles, so I have this linear way of thinking things like, "Well, it didn't state that on the template page. So, why is this editor doing this?" Blah blah blah. LOL! I did look at MOS:TABLECAPTION that you cited when reverting my...revert? I found it helpful, and I really don't think it needs to be changed since that section talks so broadly and I'm only referring to track listing tables. Your edit on the template was wonderful and I think it will greatly help new editors in the future. I really appreciate you doing that. Thank you for your patience with me in explaining this particular process. :-) — Miss Sarita 19:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)