User talk:DjScrawl

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


Lorde ce Sept 2013[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up with this. I just made some final revisions in accordance with Wikipedia policy and for consistency. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your re-edit. Preclusion of adjacent links is news to me, seems good sense, will co'.
"Yelich-O'Connor was 13, …", vis "Yelich-O'Connor was thirteen, …", seems incorrect to me (number not directly quantifying a thing). Perhaps I'm old-fashioned and am bowing to your greater knowledge - However, for future reference, I'd be grateful if you'd point-out a link to a relevant policy page.
Onward and/or upward :) DjScrawl (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Galliano/Acid Jazz Records[edit]

Something you may be able to help clear up. The Acid Jazz article has the label being created in 1987 with Galliano as their first signing and "Frederick lies still" as the first single (which the catalogue number would appear to confirm). However this blog (and us) have Galliano forming in 1988 and releasing "Frederick" in 1989. have the release date of the single as 1987 which would appear to tally with the label creation, but then this makes a nonsense of the group forming in 1988 and leaves a huge gap between that release and the appearance of the singles from In Pursuit. Can you shed any light on the correct timeline? Thanks. danno_uk 22:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that. (Pesky hippies! ;)
For now, I'm plugging some other annoying holes, on the page. DjScrawl (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Right, I dug out my copy of the Acid Jazz sampler The Best of Acid Jazz and the sleeve notes from that put the "Freddie" release as June 1988 so I'm going to go with that. It also has the Chris Bangs/Galliano collaboration "Let the good times roll" from 1989 which I'd forgotten about and which bridges the gap to In Pursuit nicely. danno_uk 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Good work! I've templated the whopper quote, fixed the Dingwalls page (some) and hefted the club out of NW London, on the AJ page. I've searched for the redlink bands across Wikipedias (no joy) - found the tear-down for Janice Graham Band quite curious: Unambiguous copyright infringement of (Things that have one go: mmm).
On my travels, I found there's some comp' Tito Lopez Combo d/l's on Last.FM, which you might fancy.
Also, Acid Jazz Records#Artists who have recorded with Acid Jazz Records include is a mindbendingly long unstructured list. How about making it 1st-release chronological (using Discogs), then sub-sectioned by decade - and/or winnowing by popularity, using an amalgamation of Last.FM/label/Acid+Jazz/artists (from 2.2M listeners) and Last.FM/label/Acid+Jazz+Records/artists (from 1.1M listeners)? DjScrawl (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
That section does need a tidy and breaking it down into decades by first release seems a very sensible way of doing it. In terms of ordering within those sections I'd tend to lean towards alphabetical rather than popularity as sampled by, but I think that does provide a great way of sorting the more notable artists from those who would be on an exhaustive list but probably not a shortlist of associated acts. We can always create a list article or a category of Acid Jazz Records artists later if an exhaustive list is required. danno_uk 19:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for delay (and still busy elsewhere). My immediate reply got bogged down with technicalities of sortable tables and compromises thereof, vis my ideal (would have to be coded), leading to a pragmatic / efficient solution (I hope). Roughly, I'm thinking as follows.
Fundamentally, this is about releases – since its a label page, notwithstanding artist/repertoire/rights buying/development/disposal (hard to cite and less of an issue for indie labels). Thus, I think, each original-release entry wants: rel-day (or at least rel-month), artist name, release name, (maybe) some notoriety measure, (later, maybe) a label-début indicator (b/g colouring, perhaps), (maybe) release type LP/EP and (maybe) cat-number. Thus, rows are about half-page-width.
A release-oriented approach also arrives at less unwieldy sub-section titles, I suppose.
Also, as it stands and for foreseeable, the page is a chronological bio' of the label and, I think, the most useful entries to see at the top of the section are earliest and latest. Thus, I'm thinking:
  • Date all 1st releases from currently listed artists.
  • Order list chronologically and cut in half.
  • Place 1st-half in a left-aligned table.
  • Re-sort 2nd-half reverse-chronologically and place in a right-aligned table, beside 1st-half.
  • As and when: make tables sortable (with default ordering as above) and full-out catalogue.
Overall, forming a chronological U-shape. This seems to cover all initial aims, whist being: best ergonomics, efficient use of page-area, good scalability and reasonable maintainability.
There's quite a hefty, context switching, effort to come-up with the initial new section – I'm thinking of Google Docs spreadsheet (shareable, for other participants), to manage capture of all the data and auto-render initial Wiki table code.
I hope to have time to start at the weekend. Do you have any thoughts / refinements, to the above? –DjScrawl (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
First and foremost, you've moved into a realm beyond my technical skills in relation to wikitables (skills that can be approximated as anything bigger than two or three columns/rows will be appropriated from another article where I've seen the like) and secondly that sounds like quite a lot of work (sidles away quietly...).
In terms of vaguely useful comments, firstly I've never seen a record label article with that degree of detail. Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing, someone has always got to be first and if you're prepared to do it then great, but I think it may be over and above the call of duty! Parlophone and Creation Records both just have bulleted lists (and the latter has a separate discography while the former doesn't have any for some reason). Junior Boy's Own is a great example of how not to do it! I'm also slightly concerned that such a long list type section (whilst clearly important) would dominate the article which has only a fairly short prose section about the label itself. For example nothing about Peterson's departure. Secondly, it sounds like you know a lot more about this than me, but will the formatting even allow for side-by-side tables? And if it does, given what you're planning to include, will that not mean a lot of compromise in terms of wrapping text for longer group/release names? Thirdly, while agreed that the most important releases are both the oldest and first recent, the two column model does increase the work in terms of maintenance going forward as new releases can't simply be appended at the end but will (every other release) displace something else that needs to moved to the first column. Finally (you'll be glad to hear!), do you have this info? I've looked on the Acid Jazz website and while their list is long, it doesn't appear to be comprehensive. At a glance, "Frederick Lies Still" appears only as a re-release. I suspect that's likely not the only omission/change from the original chronology.
As an aside I noted on my last visit to the article the complete absence of Jamiroquai. While they may not be that important in terms of their output on the label, in terms of global recognition they're clearly the biggest act to have had a record released by Acid Jazz, so a bit of a glaring omission!
As I've said, in technical terms I'm not going to be a lot of use in producing this list, but if there's anything that I can do in terms of simple donkey work such as adding releases to a shared spreadsheet then very happy to help (GTA V allowing). Just let me know. danno_uk 23:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Expanded cite template code (re-)formatting[edit]

Can you please not expand cite templates like this? It really clogs up the edit window and it makes it hard to see what you actually changed in the edit. Cheers Adabow (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Adabow - Thank you for talking. Such edits were in good faith that the result was very much and overall improvement (to coded content legibility, cite maintain ability, etc.), out weighing the one-off obscuring of change (which I admit's some problem).
I find it hard to read the edit-page through compressed format, finding this the more obscuring situation - perpetually so. I assumed others were not always using expanded format 'cause they're deft or have an editing client-app - and, thus, found that quick. Possibly, in the case of an editing client, legibility might be as clear (even making the underlying format un-impactful).
Also, I got the impression from template documentation that expanded format was generally preferred / more conformant.
I don't notice a "clogs up the edit window" problem - I wonder what proportion of editors do, with expanded format, and how painfully.
I see a couple+ of compromise edit-policies, between your vis-Team_(song)&oldid=573749759 example and suspension. I am always happy to bow to prevailing Wikipedia policy - Do you know of such documented, on this? Also, do you know of editing client-app's, that might make compressed format more legible for me? (Linux-based and open sourced, ideally - Simple Text Pad style colouring would do it.) —DjScrawl (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
PS: I'm looking at wikEd, other editing client suggestions remain most welcome. —DjScrawl (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hints on context-inferenced disambiguation[edit]

Hello, DjScrawl. If you want to link to an article named "Foo people" but have the link just read "Foo", you should write [[Foo people|Foo]], not the other way around. But, when talking about a cultural phenomenon such as the "British punk rock scene," it seems clear that "British" is referring to a location, not to an ethnic group, so the more appropriate link would be [[United Kingdom|British]]. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Russ :) Thanks for the heads-up! (Call me Ian.) I think, we're on the same page (it seems, 10%+ of my edits involve such disentanglement) – as I clearly remember, the Goth subculture link you've refocused did cause me pause, when editing (not linked prior). As an aspie, I'm all about disambiguation, but have an inference impairment tendency (rarely an issue in technical/encyclopaedic writing). –DjScrawl (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
To the case in point – I hope my 'good faith' was obvious, in attempting to assign culture to people-engaged, rather than place-of-'birth'. You intone, I've misinterpreted British people as being about people on an island, rather than people whose genetics are substantially within an island. I shall review – If this is the case, it has substantial bearing on British music pages (which I edit a lot and where I picked-up the habit) and, moreover, on pages about British, et al, cultural produce. (Being the greatest cultural melting pot on the planet, IMO ;) –DjScrawl (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, what I inherently want to ideally link is the noun phrase, rather than a component thereof – in our case that's "British scene" (or more pedantically, "contemporaneous British scene %). –DjScrawl (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, more to the point, I returned to the goth rock page and, within the goth subculture#Origins and development context, "British scene" seems most appropriate – How'd you like that linkage? Thanks again, and in anticipation. –DjScrawl (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Début by English dialect[edit]

Why you keep changing [1] it from debut to début? Who says that the latter is correct? Here is also Category:Debut albums. --Stryn (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stryn - I'm Ian.
I don't genially 'keep' changing that spelling, only on pages using English dialects where that is the spelling, e.g. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Birdy (musician) is a page on an British subject.
  2. It's headed Template:Use British English.
  3. The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for the word "début" and not the word "debut". –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
NB1: I've just checked point-3, above, by (searching for "debut", on (membership required) which returns no exact match, and suggests two results for "début". – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
BTW: My Google Chrome spell-checker is set for British English and shows "debut" as a misspelling. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thus, an answer to the 'Who says' question includes OED and Google. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
NB2: For example, I have never knowingly made this change on an designated/obviously U.S. English page. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I have been gathering info' on dialect variants of this spelling, to propose a new row on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#English spelling comparison chart, but not with great urgency. Thus, so far, I only know UK, U.S. and New Zealand English. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
What're your thoughts, in light of the above, please? –DjScrawl (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Ian. I'm not so familiar with English Wikipedia rules, and I didn't know that debut is written in British English as début. And my English is not so good that I could argue more about this. So I'm ok with that. --Stryn (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Los Campesinos! (or general) artist-page rel-date precision[edit]

Hello Doc - First time caller, long time listener. ;)

About your recent Los Campesinos! single release-date/format submergence - I have a vague recollection of aWikipedia:Manual of Style, or thereabouts, specification of minimum precision for release-dates, but not a maximum. Are day/month-precise rel-dates positively contra-MoS? If so, I'd be grateful if you could point-out where that's written (I've failed to re-find such).

NB: I dislike the date part of the edit, but don't want to unnecessarily hassle a follow for simply following the rules. – Best, Ian DjScrawl(talk) 12:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Doc Strange#Los Campesinos! (or general) artist-page rel-date precision

I don't recall where exactly it is. I was taking the lead of practically every other singles table in a discography section or page, especially ones that have received "good" or higher status, most notably the FA-status Radiohead discography. Very few other discographies have things like specific release dates for singles and especially not formats. If the song has a page, format and release date can be included there (and single release dates can be included in the album template on the album page, too). Things like that can make the LC! singles discography confusing to read. Removing the extemporaneous information makes it a considerably easier read and in line with other discographies of the same type. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I hope dragging over my orig' is OK. Trying to preclude discontinuity madness.
Extemporaneous is a PoV. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to know the sequence/spread between a number of similar things, especially when they occur within the same year. Obviously difficult when acts are in the common big three production cycle, harder for young/leftfield acts who release nothing but singles/EPs for years (often indefinitely in the case of dance/reggae/etc. producer-centric realms) and progressively so, for both, with the rise of music downloads. –DjScrawl (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, following the lead of the majors' cookie-cutter is not the route to engendering creativity, and the documentation thereof, IMO. –DjScrawl (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I expect I've wikied 10,000s of release dates, over at Last.FM where the common month codification's inherited from C language (three letter names, as Ordinal date#Table). Most of the time I've been able to source a release month and wikied as such, many others also do that, and I don't remember a single revert (on that basis). Last.FM lacks much of the abstraction/management tech' that Wikimedia has, so I expect everything to be better here. –DjScrawl (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't plan to rock-the-boat until I've sight of the Wikipedia:Manual/Project guidance (please let me know if you come across it), but I get the feeling there's a lowest-common-denominator obfuscation going on, which is partly a WP:CSB(-like) issue. –DjScrawl (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I've actually reverted my own edits because I don't seem to recall any actual style rules agreed upon for discography tables. The one thing that i'm keeping from my edit is the excising of "I Love You (But You're Boring)" from the singles table - that Beautiful South cover was never issued as a single (it was a Heat Rash b-side that somehow found its way to Pitchfork as a free download, and they were the only ones to host it - The band hasn't ever made anything of that.) That's hardly even an official release on the scale of their free download Christmas singles (I did add a list of the four Heat Rash singles though). Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Fun for all the family! To wit, I was wondering how well a month-granularity release dates might satisfy all-people/all-time – then, were I sit on the spectrum of wanting detail – and 78 rpm jass/jazz collectors occurred to me. For 78 rpm collectors there's a prevailing culture of completeness meaning: one from every pressing – thus, those folk are keen catalogue numbers. I'm not about to start fighting their corner, by proxy – However as I recall, the mainstream changeover to vinyl spanned 40 years (1930s–70s), for about half the duration of recorded music history (1857–present), an LP/EP has been impossible. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I Love You (but You're Boring) Insofar as there's no such thing as bad [beyond redemption] publicity, for official release (NB: official release and Wiktionary's are red), I generally read "Any music release sanctioned by the copyright holder (s, or their duly authorised agents) – which is not a reissue or rerelease – faux leeks, included. (Others are reissues, rereleases, bootlegs, samples or mash-ups.)" Then there's: When does a previous B-side qualify as stand-alone release, rather than a rerelease? Time-wise, e.g. I think, there's a period where a rerelease is indistinguishable, as in, part of the wake of its originator. In which case, a soon-after rerelease seems not to qualify as a release, let alone an official release. However, goliaths like Pitchfork (like TV ad's and film soundtracks), are capable adding sufficient splash that a rereleased B-side might historically be of release stature. %) What an interesting quandary! – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
There's similar fun around Lorde's "Royals", which asks a what's an 'official release' question (with rerelease proviso), then germane to: Can a track be originally complimentary released, offered-for-sale i/on an EP (download bundle), re-included on a subsequent album (ten months after the original) – with all these being début-events (i.e. an album would not've ordinarily been firmly planned at the time of original release) – then billed as the lead single, for said album? Whatever the answer, or qualification hedging, these seems a situation where there's commercial-imperative to subsume historical detail. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
NB: I looked-up "the skinny" at the top of that and was surprised to find gossip played above succinctness, in its definition (a more succinctness take might be in British et al usage, or succinct's been lost in tacit) – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Lorde ce and dup'e sources/tools[edit]

You are welcome. I think that I just added some duplicate sources; do you know of a script or other tool to help find and consolidate dups? BollyJeff | talk 16:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You'd done a couple of nitty-gritty bits of Lorde ce, which many overlook, effectively saving me work – I tend to thank such when I see it. :) – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Redundant citations[edit]

A dup'e cite consolidation tool sounds useful – esp' one to find them (not necessarily fix them), as an aid and to provide a clean-bill-of-health button. Unfortunately, I don't know of such. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
In case you're generally interested in the problem, the richest seam of redundant citations, I know of, is List of 2013 albums#References - currently, 313 sources, most of which are redundant, notwithstanding submergence/coalescence of any payload with the corresponding album page (or for oldies – where that's not present – the act's page). It'd be quite some tool to (semi-)auto-fix that! NB: It seems like I'm working-up a monthly clean-up schedule proposal – e.g. with the aim of redundant-removal of the whole Ref. column (perhaps reusing real-estate with tiny-thumbnail cover-art, between Album and Genre), for months prior to the previous – Such'd be a significant step toward good article for the page, IMO (with an annual stability point soon after January – where an application point might, with work, be prudent). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought that I had seen a tool in the past. Oh well, will have to do it manually then. BollyJeff | talk 12:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I naturally came into the practice of pushing Infobox source-references into the article-body (or, in the case of secondary/subsequent referencings, simple deletion as redundancy). It seems, along these lines, some of your recent Lorde lead edits have been pursuant of this trajectory, pushing source-references from lead to subsequent sections. My tech-writing sensibilities baulked (as, all non-dictionary words / phrases / assertions grounded/explained at 1st instance), I found/read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which is ambiguous by-way-of not positively distinguishing between cites (as the template(s)) and references (instantiations of cites, as refs). Do you know of a more direct/unequivocal page on the subject? - DjScrawl (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
From WP:WHYCITE: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." BollyJeff | talk 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, there's some spirit of some law(s). I think, that's elaboration might benefit from a – with liberal use of anchored/deep-wikilinks into the page ([[#...|...]]), to the points where the summaries are expanded/cited. – post-amble, of the like. Thus, to a good extent satisfying all jargon/assertions grounded at 1st instance, while conformant to WP:WHYCITE logic (which also makes life easy for some secondary users of the Lead, who often seem to pick-up "[1]"s). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
NB: I've long been thinking of a Infobox-in-Lead checking tool (indicates Infobox fields mention on the Lead and fields not mentioned) – much of the code from which could be re-purposed to summaries non-mentioned fields in formalised prose, for secondary-users. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
That could get pretty messy, as noted in Wikipedia:Wikilinks#Section_links where they want notes in the subsections, and changing a subsection name will break it. You don't want blue links for every sentence in the lead pointing to elsewhere in the article. Blue links should be reserved for off-page info. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so there should be very little (or no) info that appears only in the lead. BollyJeff | talk 17:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
'Pretty messy' is a show-stopper. A tiny bit might be a small cost. Thanks for the guidance-link. Subsection linkage can be future-proofed Template:Anchors. (a little more mess, backstage) Yes, naturally the process must support 'leads' in becoming summary-only (might skew some infoboxed articles, where some fields fit best in the lead and its preferable to cite in the body, rather than the infobox). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I can envisage something working for stock pages like most on music, e.g. for an artist: lead = opening (infobox summary + basics of: début-release + latest-release + coming/current tour, if any) + sentence/block(s) summarising each following sections, each block with onward navigation. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I pondered differently. I think, the far superior solution would be a new Wikipedia view-mode: with infobox/lead ref's and without. Where without's the default (and the view exposed to Google). Editors would (over-)ref the lead and opt-in-readers/verifiers could see them ... aaannd, inc' the simplified Google view, it would bring in droves of external-linkee 'fans', to do all the work for us! (This comment is ironic.) >:) – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Lorde's sub-Croatian ancestry[edit]

Good morning DjScrawl! (Great username)
You may be interested to read this thread on my Talk
Thank you for the "thanks"
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 06:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads-up. A place named-in-antiquity after a people, which then names subsequent people(s) - That's history folks! :D Meanwhile, I'm gathering sources for how Westbourne Grove et al are named after a place (Westbourne Manor/hamlet), which some think was named geographically (from "west of the bourne"), then subsequently gave the stream its orthodox name, River Westbourne. %)
I have put it on my watchlist ... no changes since September 1st. Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse: "début" or "debut"[edit]

Your spelling of debut is wrong, per I'm trying to get rid of the hidden tag for French spellings in this article. Please don't do this again.--Aichik (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary and Oxford Dictionaries Online (excerpt)
This site ( is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). You’ll find the OED at You’ll need a subscription to use the OED fully. You may be able to use the OED at home through your local public library ...

  – "The Oxford English Dictionary and Oxford Dictionaries Online". Retrieved 24 October 2013. 

The word "début" has entries in both the OED and the Google Chrome spell-checker's British English lexicon – "debut" has no entry in either. For details and more info', see Début by English dialect (above). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but here it is at It says US-Eng, whereas the other one is listed as Fr-Eng. Also, your link début, says see also debut, where it says it is "From French début". So it seems the version with the funny character is quite French. BollyJeff | talk 02:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The more the merrier :) However, that's the same link and, again, not OED (see website clarification, in the above quote-box). Please change the misleading display-text for the link. Meanwhile, a broader chat's materialised at Talk:Amy_Winehouse#debut v. début. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Changed link, however, on the OED site, at [2], it says "Some regional slang words making their debut in OED Online are..." so they think it is a proper word to be using it. Anyway, it's not that important to me to argue any further. I just know that there are not many English words with those marks. We usually remove them. BollyJeff | talk 02:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

On-Demand-Songs ≠ 'Charts'‽[edit]

Is it customary to add On Demand charts to song articles? "Royals" is #1 onUS ODS. BollyJeff | talk 14:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not whilst I kick, and/or scream! :P   – Ian, DjScrawl(talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
An on-demand-'registry' is contra-etymological, vis 'charts', if I remember correctly – and, therefore, evil! As I recall, charts has as much to do with the the compilation process, as it does resultant rankings. Also, charts have a heap of qualification/verification law built around them – a basis upon which we give any credence – which on-demand-(thing) don't have.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Such is as notable as a big YouTube view-count, IMO, i.e. tokenistic when extraordinary, but not a reliable measure of fluctuations in the mundane ... Somewhere in noteworthy / anecdote / trivia territory, I'd say. Worth a mention when extreme, but then only with an exhaustive explanation of provenance to hand/referenced.   – Ian,DjScrawl (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought it would be okay since it is on the official Billboard website, and listed right next to the other charts. But it it's just not done as a rule, then I understand; that's why I asked. BollyJeff | talk 17:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Please forgive the delay. I was mobile-editing at you, while on my way to Värttinä at LIFEM 2013 Värttinä at LIFEM 2013, e.g. YouTube of their "Riena" (about witches) and have just landed from the ensuing social whirl.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It's only to be expected that Billboard will 'big-up' their offerings – it's their job to do so! However, I'm not saying US ODS and the like (e.g. I think every musical item on WP should have a link like Last.FM/music/Lorde/_/Royals, at least to direct readers to the 'Listening Trend' – aggregating 1.66 million plays from 213K accounts, that is saying something and it's CC BY-SA!).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
So long as US ODS gives reasonable attribution of its derivation – rather than emerging from then a miracle occurs then a miracle occurs – I think it deserves to be in, just _not_ as a 'chart' (more like a YouTube view-count).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
NB: It's not a showstopper, but ! don't think it would take many Bitcoins, on the Tor network, to hire a botnet crew to near-undetectably hype any given track to the top of US ODS (Last.FM would be harder).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
BTW: As Last.FM are known to be both most responsive and accurate, in the field of market tracking music-metrics, one'd expect their /tracks/top/place/United+States to lead Billboard US ODS, and it did: "Royals" ousted Washed Out's "It All Feels Right" from the top spot, in the week ending 25 August 2013 and has been glued there ever since (10 weeks and counting).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

ARIA streaming tracks weekly ranking (and other on-demand music 'charts')[edit]

The ARIA Streaming Tracks Chart details were removed from the Royals (song) page. According to the definition of Wikipedia's Record chart page, it states 'a record chart is a ranking of recorded music according to popularity during a given period of time'. The ARIA Streaming Tracks Chart ranks the songs according to how much they've been streamed online on sites such as Spotify and JB Hi Fi Now. I have also seen other Wikipedia pages that are about singles, they too list streaming charts under their 'Charts' section they list charts such as the UK Streaming Chart or the US Streaming Songs chart. ( (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for talking :D Along streaming lines, across the three countries, we have sources including:
  1. UK OCC Weekly Streaming Track Ranking @
  2. UK Last.FM Weekly Top Tracks @ Last.FM/charts/tracks/top/place/United+Kingdom
  3. US Billboard Weekly Streaming Track Ranking @
  4. US Last.FM Weekly Top Tracks @ Last.FM/charts/tracks/top/place/United+States
  5. Au ARIA Weekly Streaming Track Ranking @
  6. Au Last.FM Weekly Top Tracks @ Last.FM/charts/tracks/top/place/Australia
NB 1: Last.FM also segments another 50+ countries, and cities within (plus global).
NB 2: There are other more industry-centric aggregation companies, e.g. and Next Big Sound.
I have no problem with these sources per se. They're in a similar ballpark to global YouTube views (often quoted), except generally usually more representative of real-world trends and some may be less susceptible to artifice. However, the word 'chart' comes from 'charting', i.e. the process of compilation. Music charts as we know them are made under strict published constraints and this underpins notoriety / public trust/expectation. Thus, I think it's misleading to juxtapose 'streaming ranking' with 'sales ranking' (or 'radio play ranking'), without a clear distinction and a definition of how the newbies are compiled/constrained/de-spammed/etc.
In terms of the above six, the UK OCC seems close to such a definition and Last.FM's mechanisms are well known (and reviewed as most sales-predictive by MusicMetric via Fortune/CNN). Meanwhile, US Billboard has a vague page and Au ARIA has no page (vague info' on site).
Rigging/artifice by botting/etc. is an issue (see YouTube link). I'm sure a few Bitcoins and a quick trip to find some shady-Tor-types, would be enough to engage enough botnet-muscle to create sources, that WP might judge notable, via streaming services collating from unregistered-users (e.g. YouTube) – almost undetectably, too!
Thus, I think these 'weekly streaming track ranking' are properly partitioned into two subtypes, those purely from registered-user plays (e.g. Last.FM) and the rest. IMO, this distinction should also be clear, when juxtaposing with other 'chart' types.
In conclusion, notwithstanding unregistered-user play/verifiability concerns, with the above definitions/clarifications made, my objections go away (but not before), e.g. a definitive page on each source, plus a (new) classification column in a chart table (sales, radio-play, pure-registered-streamers, etc.).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Your welcome, I kind-of understand what you are trying to say but thanks for replying anyway. :D ( (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC))

Shannon Leto[edit]

The article for Shannon Leto has been restored, since he meets WP:MUSICBIO. You should undo your edit. Thanks.--Earthh (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks! Let's thrash, or as the 3 Mustaphas 3 used to say ¡Forward in all directions!.
With all the coverage on other wikis (I'd picked French as best of many), I'm amazed there was any doubt. Thanks again for the guidance.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

About Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album)[edit]

The reason why I relinked them back to Universal Music Group is because the Nayutawave Records articles on the Japanese wikipedia all redirect to the Japanese article for Universal Music Japan. It would be kind of pointless and linking to Universal Music Group on the English wiki serves the same purpose. (Nayutawave is listed on List of Universal Music Group labels#Under the Universal Music branding under Universal Music Japan) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Black Elk Speaks quote[edit]

You recently reverted my change to a quotation in the Wounded Knee Massacre article. The quotation was sourced from Black Elk Speaks, and I noticed that it did not match the original text: it used the word "hope" instead of "hoop". I made the small change to fix this discrepancy. I understand and agree that in the article, the word "hope" probably makes more sense, but it is not the word Black Elk used. In the context of what he was saying (you should read the entire excerpt from the original text, as the article omits a sentence or two) he is speaking about his community being broken, and refers to a metaphorical hoop. Anyway, the point is that the simple fix here is to change "hope" to "hoop." If you think that's too confusing for the reader, then we'll have to work out a more complex solution; I'd suggest leaving out the last sentence altogether. —Rutebega (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed and thank you for coming. I hope my annotation was clear in its presumption of good faith. I see your points, describing an interesting enough problem-domain, in them selves. However, there seems to be more to this rabbit-hole.
Looking at the cite:
  1. leading the portion quoted in the article, at the end of page 217, we have "[...] Red Cloud made a speech to us something like this: [...]"
  2. then, at the end of the quoted portion, there's a side-note about paraphrasing: "The last two paragraphs are Neihardt's summary."
  3. and the hoop/hop dichotomy is at the end of those two paragraphs.
  4. thus, this is not Black Elk's words verbatim, as the article shows (something else to fix)
  5. it's not Elk's words at all!
We're chatting about co-author John Neihardt's paraphrasing of Cloud!
Thus, in paraphrasing, Neihardt will have faced the same duty of intelligibility which we're tackling now. I do see the possibility of a poetic slant on "hoop" to mean totality / cohesion / connectedness / etc. However, if Neihardt were to use this word, with this meaning, without clarification they would be failing in that paraphrasing duty, i.e. I'm convinced it's a typo!
However, the passage has important historical gravitas (including the 'hoop sentence'). So, I'm loath to kick it out, for the sake of a single character in error. I suggest we:
a. change our "Black Elk [...]" to "Red Cloud [...] paraphrased by John Neihardt [...]" (as 1 & 2, above)
b. seek WP guidance in identification/handling of assumed typos in sources
c. seek a typo-verification cite or later corrected edition
If b and/or c do not resolve the problem, such that the passage may stay. I have an email contact within the Spotted Elk Family Foundation who may have verifiable insight.
Do you agree with that logic/plan and/or have other ideas?   – Best, Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
That is an interesting point. In regards to option C, I do have a copy of Black Elk Speaks somewhere, though I need to locate it first.
Failing that, I think the other solutions you provided are acceptable well. I will note that if the typo cannot be confirmed or denied, I'd be most comfortable with defaulting to the spelling used in the cited source if necessary, until better information can be found. Regards, Rutebega (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm still open to the idea of there being an error in Neihardt's skill in making a summary (I've found, he has been widely criticised for, the like of, lack of scientific rigour), i.e. that "hoop" is a literal quote/translation, but he failed to give an explanatory note. Given that hoops had then been engrained in Native American culture since before oral record: weaving, toy, architectural assembly, jewellery, etc. (e.g. the origins of the hoop dance are mystical).
Also, I've found the original notes are published (but rare) and the have been other interpretations (also yet to find relevant). Furthermore, I've seen another Neihardt re-quote text which includes "hoop" and infers it's metaphorical, as above.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Love & Girls "Linguafranca" citation[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Love & Girls, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Adding an excessive amount of citation needed tags is unnecessary. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your belated welcome (only 2.5K+ days after the fact) :/
You reverted two of my edits as Once again, removing the unnecessary and excessive cn tags., they were:
  1. rv unsatisfied {{Citation needed}} rm + unexplained info' removal
    where I was simply reverting your removal, as stated, I added nothing.
  2. Infobox: fixed Andreas Öberg + ce as Template:Infobox_single (except additional use of between tracks) + eliminated HTML + WP:NOPIPE + moderated dictatorial comment
"[...] excessive amount [...] unnecessary [...]". Unnecessary is tautologous, here, and not a constructive word anyhow, since Wikipedia operates on the basis of useful / relevant / verifiable / quality-improving, not necessity.
I happen to agree that all but the first cn-tag are excessive, but I was not the one claiming to have attended to that, you were (I merely revered).
"Linguafranc" is an esoteric (and contentious) purported-fact – thus; by WP:WHYCITE, etc.; it must be verified by citation; may have a cn-tag until a citation is found and that cn-tag may not be removed prior; unless the purported-fact is consensual agreed to be non-esoteric and non-contentious (you have made no material preposition, as such). It seems, you have removed a valid cn-tag without providing a citation (as stated in my annotation, above) and reverted a heap of my positive improvements (2, above) without any comment. This is both, contrary to my understanding of cn-tag consensus and far away from good faith.
I shall do a partial-revert, this time, removing the cn-tags that I think are excessive.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Citation needed tags are unnecessary for every single mention of "Linguafranc" on the page. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I've never disputed that and last positivity said as much four paragraphs above (beginning "I happen to agree [...]"), then two paragraphs later proposing to remove "excessive", which I did.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It is already shown on several retailers that it appears on the tracklist. I've already added a link to iTunes for the spelling. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
You placed an iTunes URL in comments. That is not a link, nor does it "[...] enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources [...]" as the 1st sentence of WP:WHYCITE.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no need to add links to every single entry there. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
As above. You seem the be mistaking me for someone else. Also, needs or lack thereof have got little to do with the matter.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Now, please refrain from editing Love & Girls and Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album) if all you are going to do is engage in unconstructive editing--adding cn tags and such. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
By virtue of the fact that I've made several prevailing improvements to both those pages, your WP:CANVASing is without foundation.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Good faith is long gone since you seem hellbent on having it as "Lingua Franca", which is not how it should be stated on the English Wikipedia (WP:MJ). You have yet to point me to a policy stating that we are to ignore what the English-sources are saying and embrace the fan translations. Try proposing that at the Anime and Manga wikiproject first, see how they will react. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hellbent is a huge exaggeration. I've seen at least four other editors challenge "Linguafranca" over the last few days – there's nothing unusual about that. I am one of those who have not made uncited edits on the articles. All I've done is once flag for a "Linguafranca" citation, consolidate consensus from Talk:Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album)#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca to Talk:Love & Girls#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca, talk at the later (where I have not proposed the removal of "Linguafranca") and defended others' flagging for citation.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I will resist going into Talk:Love & Girls#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca matters here, such is likely to be more fruitful / consensual on the article-talk. Wikipedia:MJ#Romanization looks good, if not added already, I will do when I next post on the article-talk.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
And still, we have no citation! *sigh*   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It is completely optional to add links for tracklists. Really, I'm mistaking you for someone else? Then what is this and this? What exactly do you mean by canvassing? I have not posted on anyone's talk page about this. <span\ style="color:blue">Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Really? The word I used was "seem".
Your first link, Track listing: {{fact@Linguafranc}}, is the "once flag for a "Linguafranca" citation" I mentioned above (like it says in the annotation). Your second link, partial-rv (Raykyogrou0's prior rv) + rm all but first "Linguafranc"{{Citation needed}} + moderated dictatorial 'Track listing' comment, is a revert with an edit to remove (like it says in the annotation) several redundant cn-tags inserted by someone else. With the addition of "moderated dictatorial 'Track listing' comment", this is precisely the edit I proposed in the last sentence of my first comment in this topic.
By canvassing, in the context of Wikipedia editing, I mean: one person advising another person how to edit, beyond what is specified in MOS, WP and/or article-talk consensus.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again, citation for this is completely unnecessary. <span\ style="color:blue">Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia operates on the basis of useful / relevant / verifiable / quality-improving, not necessity.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Here you put in the first cn tag and here you are putting back the cn tags I removed; I don't think I have mistaken you for anybody else. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The first of your links is a repetition of Track listing: {{fact@Linguafranc}} referenced in article talk; then 2, 3 and 4 posts back – If you're trying to say something new about it, please elaborate (on article talk, if more appropriate there).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The following article edit was yours revise hidden note, reformat oricon table. Not a technical reversion and yet my prior article edit was undone, without mention.
  • Then I contributed to article talk, elaborating how contentious "Linguafranc" is (and proving "Lingua Franca" is a de facto common-usage name). Since it was not an edited undo, not a revert, and because I'm not "hellbent" – at the time of writing I was not aware of your undoing my cn-tag.
Thus, at the time I discovered your undo, it was a matter of record that I think a citation's warranted and the only opinion(s) you've stated is that reliable sources are involved. Suggesting the article's then lack of an Linguafranc cn-tag was a typo, on your behalf (re-enforced by the lack of a revert). I partially reverted the undo of your edit rv unsatisfied {{fact}}rm (preserving your reformat oricon table), I also change the dictatorial "Don't change this. On English-language iTunes it appears as this, so per [[WP:MJ]]" comments to "Please see talk page for consensus on valid names for this track." – Since, (a) I understand it's bad form to tell other editor(s) what, and what not, to do. (b) There's a dedicated talk section on the issue.
Then, not for the first time, someone edits in the name "Lingua Franca", a long-serving apprentice editor.
  • Then you contributed to article talk, expressing various opinions, again mentioning an iTunes source and confusingly WP:CANVASsing (or however you'd like to describe it): "don't add citationneeded tags to the page".
Then you seemed to have a bit of finger trouble, splitting an article edit over two Reverted to revision 585737424 by DjScrawl (talk): Restoring hidden note. (TW) + Reverted to revision 585733784 by Raykyogrou0 (talk): Correct revision. (TW). Indeed, you had reverted to the dictatorially worded comments plus, without mention, reverted my cn-tag and the apprentice editor's "Lingua Franca" edit. (At this point, the article has no Linguafranc cn-tag.)
Then there's a sequence of edits by others, during which the apprentice editor re-inserts the name "Lingua Franca", another inserts undated cn-tags against every "Linguafranc" instance and a veteran editor then dated the cn-tags.
Then you edit Rm excessive cn tags, in which you remove all the cn-tags and, unmentioned, apprentice editor's "Lingua Franca".
Thus; at this point; it's a matter of record that a veteran editor (implied), one other and I; think a citation's warranted and the only opinion(s) you've stated remain that reliable sources are involved (excluding 'canvassing' and the other editor's Linguafranc cn-tag has been undone).
Summarising: in the 27 hours since my Track listing: {{fact@Linguafranc}} edit, consensus seemed that three editors (including myself) wanted a cn-tag and you were giving mixed messages on the subject. So, we get to my consensual rv unsatisfied {{Citation needed}} rm + unexplained info' removal edit (1, above, in my first comment in this topic, and the second of your links). During the period, you made four (or five) edits, at least four of which involved cn-tags, yet at no point did you clearly express your opinion on how a Linguafranc citation warranted, or a basis upon which it's excused. Meanwhile, I've been clear, communicative, positive about my opinions and, insofar as opinion was expressed, consensual in my actions.
Thus, assuming you can see my good faith evidenced above, I'll swap you my "You seem the be mistaking me for someone else" for a "Please, don't shoot the messenger".   –Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Canvassing does not mean what you think it means. Canvassing is like posting on a talk page and telling someone about an RM or an AfD and explicitly saying to vote Support without telling them about the other side of the conversation; i.e. no neutrality. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Mmm, seems similar logic – I thought of saying reverse-Wikipedia:Canvassing, but that seemed silly, since canvassing can be pro and contra.   –Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is such a thing as not having to cite obvious things, you know. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I'm aware of WP:BLUE. Obviously, me an many others (the above is only a ~one day sample of Love & Girls contention on the matter and there's more to be found on Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album), not to mention other heaps of contention I pointed-out on article talk), think that it is not applicable to "Linguafranc ".   –Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done with this. (Ps. don't put your reply/comments in between other people's comments, it makes it harder to read and is just plain annoying) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Except where consensual, I will continue to reserve reply-interweaving for exceptional circumstances (less than 1:100 threads, I guess). If you look back at how disparate your post was, where I started interweaving, you might understand. (Repetitious unopposed argument, obvious restatement with factual error, 1st non-argument repetition, some 'canvassing', a false accusation and ensuing rant, all in one paragraph – That's disparate!) Thus, it sometimes serves a purpose – you may sometimes find it annoying, as might I, but it is not "just plain annoying". Meditation is good.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Simply for having common sense! ONITOPIA (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, ONITOPIA, that's much appreciated! :D   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Love & Girls (Linguafranc) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Love & Girls (Linguafranc). Since you had some involvement with the Love & Girls (Linguafranc) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary of o/p, for information only: "The redirect's destination article is a single which contains the original release of two tracks, named: "Love & Girls" and "Linguafranc". Therefore, that article is the most appropriate place to wikilink to for each tack. The redirect allows each track to be wikilinked from the same source article, while both minimising hidden WP:OVERLINKing (by supporting adherence to visited-link colouration) and allowing maximal adherence to WP:NOPIPE."   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Love & Girls 17 Dec 2013-ish edit[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Love & Girls, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Enough with the repeated Welcomes, already! I've been wikiing since 2004, been here significantly longer than you and made many more live edits.
Your comment specifies Love & Girls, which I'd not edited for more than two days, at your time of posting. Please elaborate.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
"Being here longer than me" does not always mean more experience and/or superiority, we are all equal here as editors. I must have linked to the wrong article when I brought up twinkle; also the basic template seems to say Welcome at the start, even if you have already been welcomed. I'll be sure to preview it next time and make sure it doesn't say "Welcome", okay?Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing. Experience is complex to quantify and a variety of experience is vital to the whole being greater than the sum of the parts, core to all wikis. I'm by no means attempting to pull-rank. BTW: I do like most of your edits and would not be surprised if there were thank(s) from me, on your logs.
Your first 'welcome' post here seemed offhandedly disrespectful, I took it as a knee-jerk artefact and made a joke of it, expecting you to take a hint. With repetition the implication of disrespect increases – so, yes, I think you'd do well to review use of this template against the longevity of the intended recipient (or pick different/sans template), reducing slap-in-the-face-ishness for your discussion openings.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

rv User:Raykyogrou0's talk wipe. No content was _moved_ to Talk:Love & Girls![edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. It was already moved to Talk:Love & Girls by you. It would be unproductive to have two separate discussion about the same topic. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That is false! Again - No content was _moved_ to Talk:Love & Girls! I moved nothing!
I wrote a note on 12 December 2013, which attempted to discourage duplicate discussion, by directing folk to Talk:Love & Girls#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca, nearest the origin. Subsequently, after ONITOPIA posted, I wrote them a specific note, to the same effect, and asking about article specific issues.
Assuming no article specific issues, one might've requested that ONITOPIA strike or delete their comment. Unless its both defamatory and thoroughly non-constructive/uninformative, I would consider deleting another's 'talk' (except by way of archiving) to be a violation.
You have removed my constructive/informative direction note (thus, undermining consensus), plus removed the other posts by ONITOPIA and I (violation, IMO).
Thus, it seems you have been anti-constructive and I've been constructive! Please revert your revert.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, the anon user started discussion on both pages and you suggested that the discussion be moved to one page, which it did. It makes no sense to have the same discussion on two pages regardless so I will move your (later-added) comment (which I did not notice, sorry about that) to Talk:Love & Girls. (Also, the unconstructive part here referring to you re-adding the already-moved discussion) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Article talk is only slightly more WP:OWNy than articles themselves, then increasing less so as more editors contribute. Including yourself, the topic has had five editors and, IMO (I suppose with WP/MOS backing), it's with those people one should seek consensus, prior to anywhere near blanking talk.
I suggested a focus – I did not move anything or suggest any such (I don't mistake WP:BOLD for an excuse to act like a dictator).
As I remember it, my latest Talk:Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album)#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca post's only payload (beyond encouraging focus), was enquiring about specifics vis the Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album) article itself. Moving that to another article's talk seems like a mad contrivance, to me.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I really don't see what the big deal is. The exact same discussion was started on two different talk pages. Discussion eventually continued on the other talk page, so there was no need for another discussion thread on Talk:Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album)--since it's the same one. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
One of the big deals, for me, is the blanking of others' talk, per se.
Again, lack of need is no justification for a confiscation and, again, a common outcome of this kind of double-negative path is false dichotomy i.e. anti-constructive.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
As I thought, WP:TPO says: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." Thus, I'll revert, your rv of my rv of, your WP:BLANKing.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It is perfectly fine to move someone else's comment to the right talk page when the discussion has moved; I did not edit your comment in any way. Moving the discussion to the other page is not blanking. (Also, the talk page you're referring to is an article's not "other's") Did you even read the policies you pointed to? (WP:BLANK and WP:TPO) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Where's words to the effect of, your: "perfectly fine to move someone else's comment to the right talk page"? If you're referring to WP:MULTI  – throughout I've been going for such, starting with my Set Phrase: Lingua Franca: central discussion @ Talk:Love & Girls#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca edit  – that's an edit, "Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why." (like my 'central discussion' post, plus a few words on each of the other posts), not a WP:BLANK. Currently, the discussion has not moved, by that definition, part of it has merely been censured censored.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean "censored"? Exactly what part has been censored here, hm? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, censored is closer to my intended meaning. Thanks for pointing out my typo. Having fixed that, if I'm missing any meaning by subsequently ignoring your "hm?", please elaborate.

Writing to a jet setting friend a couple of days ago, I made a pun based in the lyrics of Frank Chickens' "We Are Ninja (Not Geisha)". She wrote back to say how much she was looking forward to laughing, when she returned to this side of the Chinese Wall. ... Not my finest comedy moment. :/

More precisely, what's been censored includes my 12 December 2013 discussion centralisation canvassing note.

As a result Talk:Love & Peace#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca became to Talk:Love & Girls#Set Phrase: Lingua Franca, as the Life and Times of Jang Sung-taek (North Korean version) is to the Life and Times of Jang Sung-taek (South Korean version).

Notwithstanding my being aspie (congenitally/inherently literal vis language interpretation), to me Exact is a superlative, meaning verifiably and exhaustively precise. However, pending at least a doubling of remuneration, around these parts, I shall assume you're illiterating a comparative "more exact" and rain check the feintted exhaustive aspect of your demand.

BTW: You may have insight on Talk:K-pop#Criticism esp' WP:NPOV vis stunt/controversy coverage, in which case Double Nickels on the Dime's "Shit From An Old Notebook" might provide a soundtrack.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Your point being...? I don't know what you're trying to say here. Your comment was moved to Talk:Love & Girls, I left a note pointing to that talk page. I really don't know what your problem is. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer if you were to tell the truth!   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Now, stop reverting Talk:Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album), I've already moved the discussion and left a note. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Some recent history:
  1. Raykyogrou0: "Exactly what part has been censored here, hm?"
  2. DjScrawl: "More precisely, what's been censored includes my December 2013 discussion centralisation canvassing note. [...]"
  3. DjScrawl: Exact is a superlative, meaning verifiably and exhaustively precise.
  4. Raykyogrou0: "Your comment was moved to Talk:Love & Girls, [...]"
  5. DjScrawl: I would prefer if you were to tell the truth!
3 is inconsistent with 2, therefore 4+, i.e. you did not move the comment (nor would that be appropriate), you deleted it. That is what on earth I'm talking about.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest you quit non-good-faith trying to tell me what and/or what not to do. You do not have such authority, it's a counter-productive and – again, as also pointed out to you three times by WilyD, 10:17 – 15:29 18 Dec, here – it's part of a negative stance (attempting to argue on the grounds of what isn't), which inherently leads to false dichotomy – as such, usually unconstructive and, without constraint, often anti-constructive.
Karl Popper and Martin Heidegger wrote some extremely good books.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013 – Revert of: rv WP:BLANKing (proof) was contra-WP:TPO[edit]

History to 06:25, 20 Dec 2013[edit]

05:56, 20 December 2013 DjScrawl: "rv WP:BLANKing (proof) was contra-WP:TPO - 586899874 by Raykyogrou0"
06:25, 20 December 2013 Raykyogrou0: "Reverted good faith edits by DjScrawl (talk): For the umpteenth time, the discussion was already moved to Talk:Love & Girls. "

Threaded discussion from 06:28, 20 Dec 2013[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Since you seem to be deaf towards my requests for you to stop reverting this talk page, (your comments have already been moved to Talk:Love & Girls) I'll just post this template instead. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I did not delete anything; your comments we're moved to Talk:Love & Girls. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
NB: at 05:40 my proof was re-written (various wording since 06:38, 17 Dec 2013), at 05:56 my Talk:Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album) was edit made, at 06:25 you reverted that edit, describing is as good faith, and at 06:36 you posed your contradictory o/p accusation. Thus, it's now more than three hours since you saw my edit-summary proof link. During that period you've made the reversion and two edits here (on same edit/revert), yet my linked-proof which you acknowledged as good faith remains unrefuted (possibly not even read) – a further contradiction of good faith!
  • Alternatively, if your cut and paste assertion were true, you might prove is by:
When one finds oneself at the bottom of a hole, sometimes the choice seems to be between stopping digging, and more being hit on the head lessons(YouTube).
Also, -teenth means 13+.  –Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:CENT, it is about creating a centralized talk page for i.e. a list that has become too long and been split. This would result in redirecting the extra talk pages to the central one.
I did not edit your comment(s) to change the meaning; I moved it and did not remove anything. Also, WP:MULTI more than justifies my actions. Now, please just drop it; I'm getting tired of this.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I remember WP:CENT quite well enough. I said "in the spirit of" and you don't seem to dispute the tenet/principles of etiquette / workflow cohesion, therein.
Your proof is incomplete!
WP:MULTI: "it may be desirable to move all posts to one location". I what regard(s) was it consensually desirable to cut the post in my proof, without my consent and contravening the normal etiquette of WP:TPO?
"Now, please ... just drop ...". Without achieving the 299,792,458 metres per second synchronous with an object one wants to do, it is theoretically impossible to do anything, to said object, now. Notwithstanding that impossibility, what is the meaning on your just? It seems to, dismissively, contradict your please. Which one of these two, or both, is/are at fault?   – , Ian DjScrawl (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

21 Dec 2013: Raykyogrou0 alleges unspecified disruptive Love & Girls editing[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Love & Girls. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Seriously now. I'm tired of repeating myself. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry, BracketBot obscured this one. What're you blathering about, here?   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

21 Dec 2013: Raykyogrou0 & DjScrawl accuse one-another of disruptive editing[edit]

Threaded discussion: 09:37, 21 Dec – 16:37, 23 Dec 2013[edit]

Unconstructive + good faith = contra-WP:BOLD destructive weasel wording

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Love & Girls. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Raykyogrou0, you are the disruptive editor and I have made more constructive edits on there today (all WP/MOS backed and annotated as such), than you (mostly disruptive, undoing WP/MOS). Then often failing to type, even, half an argument/solid-justification!
NB: You'd do well to do a dictionary look-up the prefixes: con-, un-, dis-. For example, "not needed", "unnecessary", "unconstructive", "un-<most things>" are little more than near meaning less, passive aggressive, bleating! Furthermore, I'm Buddhist, such that, I disbelieve in needs, thus not needed is meaningless, to me, and I believe any meaning ascribed is delusion.
I'm acting WP/MOS, you're acting mostly contra-WP/MOS and you suggest "blocked from editing" is a possibility, for me‽ I think, most people know funnier jokes!
I refer you to my earlier advice about holes.
Please get on with repairing your proven vandalism of my work and quit disrupting my consensus efforts improve quality.   – Ian DjScrawl (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Unconstructive means not constructive, so not useful or helpful to the article. You decided to change it back after I reverted that random editor who added allcaps and changed it to "Linguafranc". If you want to change the manual of style, then I suggest you open up a discussion on the relevant talk page first. Religion is irrelevant on Wikipedia (I, for example, think that all religions are bullshit but that has no effect here) and has nothing to with whether or not an editor's actions are considered unconstructive. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Constructiveness = concordant benefit
    Destructive = detrimental constructiveness (including adding redundant repetition, clutter and confusion)
    Unconstructive = destructive and/or neutral/indeterminate constructiveness.
Thus, "unconstructive" is weasel wording (and contra-WP:BOLD)
and when combined with good faith is a self-contradiction (i.e.) confusing. Therefore ...
Combining "unconstructive" and "good faith" is contra-WP:BOLD destructive weasel wording.
I refer you to my earlier advice about holes.
"Random" = non predictable, not unexpected. Again, weasel wording.
The IP-editor added an extremely common stylisation, similar to that used on ja:LOVE&GIRLS, etc., which happened to be all-cap's, i.e. WP:CAPS conformant.
Again, I refer you to my earlier advice about holes.
Unless one has exhaustive information on a thing, it is bigoted to exhaustively decry a thing. I did not suggest any religion was relevant to the ascertainment of constructiveness, or lack thereof. (WP is religion neutral, not religion ignorant.) So, please confine irrelevant statements to your own talk page, if on WP at all.
I wonder if you're making any better progress with repairing your proven vandalism of my work, than you are with quitting disruption of my consensus efforts improve quality.   – Ian DjScrawl (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Weasel words, aka. adjectives. But for your information, weasel words on wikipedia refers to adding words to articles that seem to alter the intended meaning of the sources--thus has nothing to do with concluding an edit as unconstructive. You seem to lack understanding of WP:OVERLINK, WP:AGF and WP:NOPIPE. Overlink is about not linking to common words like this on an article. Assuming good faith means one must always assume good faith is intended when another edits on Wikipedia, which is what I've been trying to do with your edits. (Which is also why my reverts are often marked as "Reverting good faith edit..." by the automated process) Nopipe is about, among others, not piping just to avoid redirects because some redirects might potentially become articles one day (which is why Linguafranc (song) is more appropriate than Love & Girls, Linguafranc or Love & Girls (Linguafranc) or why Nayutawave Records is more appropriate than Nayutawave, Universal Music or Nayutawave (UMG)—because the latter redirects can never become potential articles because of their titles) And about the all caps on titles, on the English Wikipedia we never attempt to imitate the stylization of the title of a work. (WP:ALLCAPS, WP:MJ#Titles of Media) It is only appropriate to include the Japanese-used styling once, in the lead of an article. Cheers. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice! Notwithstanding disagreement, the improvement in immediately-apparent clarity / positivity / logical-integrity in ^^that post is a delight! Thank you.
I'll now be off WP for a bit and get back on that later.   – Best, Ian DjScrawl (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally, weasel words means, as linked: "[...] for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.". I'm sorry if there was any confusion with WP:WEASEL, but was as linked.
  • As stated by me elsewhere (and unchallenged by you), my understanding of WP:OVERLINK's precepts includes: excessive reuse of links to the same page: "[...] a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in [...]" (WP:OVERLINK:RPT) – Plus the link equiv' of WP:BLUE you're referring to, plus other stuff.
NB: I thought abutting links were advised against in WP:OVERLINK, but that's WP:SEAOFBLUE.
Meanwhile, sometimes (mostly) article A is WP's primary entry for more than one item of info, within the same anchored block: a1, a2, ... – and article B's to link to individually to each. This is the situation with Love & Girls (L&G) being linked from Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album) (L&P), with each linked about 3 times (will assume this here). I've little concern with the per-item repetition (don't think I've ever attempted refinement of that). On that basis, the L&P article displays 6 linkages to L&G – a reasonable bending of WP:OVERLINK:RPT, so far. Analysing the experience of a typical reader, a 1st time visit of either A (L&G) or B (L&P) ...
Step Reader activity a1 links show visited after activity? a2 links show visited after activity?
1 Arrives B No No
2 Visits a1 and returns to B Yes Yes if Love & Girls, Linguafranc redirects.
No if per-(song) redirects.
3 Visits b1 and returns to B Yes Yes
... we see the part in bold is more bending of WP:OVERLINK:RPT that optimal, as for the duration of 2, 3 linkages of b1 show the they're unvisited, which is misleading baiting.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Love & Girls, Linguafranc: Revert history: 14:14, 23 Dec – 14:50, 24 Dec 2013[edit]

02:14, 24 Dec 2013 DjScrawl: "partial-rv: as User_talk:Raykyogrou0#22 December 2013 - Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album): Destructive editing"
Revision as of 02:50, 24 Dec 2013 Raykyogrou0: "Once again "Love & Girls" should definitely not be linked to Love & Girls, Linguafranc and "Linguafranc" can be only be linked to Linguafranc (song)"

Threaded discussion: 03:00, 24 Dec 2013 – present[edit]

Please stop Ambox warning pn.svg continuously readdingLove & Girls, Linguafranc as the redirect for "Love & Girls" or "Linguafranc". "Love & Girls" should like to Love & Girls and "Linguafranc" may be linked to Linguafranc (song). Is WP:NOTBROKEN so hard to understand for you?
Oh, good I see you have finally read WP:OVERLINK. How exactly does that apply to your reasoning of using Love & Girls, Linguafranc instead of the normal links?Raykyogrou0(Talk) 03:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
On your 02:50, 24 Dec revert annotation: "Once again "Love & Girls" should definitely not be linked to Love & Girls, Linguafranc and "Linguafranc" can be only be linked to Linguafranc (song)" – You seem to have forgotten the meaning of define: "To determine with precision; to mark out with distinctness; to ascertain or exhibit clearly." – Where is this clear and grounded rationale you seem to claim you've been repeating? Once again, I await your response to my prior post, an example of definiteness.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


  • WP:NOPIPE is more crucially about display text being a verbatim portion of it's link than it is about redirects might potentially become articles one day. The second somewhat depends on the first and is only especially relevant for disambiguation redirects. The key issue here, for spawning a new article, is that WP:NOPIPE has gathered relevant referring articles onto a sub-set of those redirects going to the parent article and the names of those redirects can then inform optimum naming of the new article (and sometimes its sectioning).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • In an Infobox/table, I prefer Nayutawave (UMG) to Nayutawave to Nayutawave, because the first two support dual naming within the same article (without the WP:OVERLINK visited-colour WP:EASTEREGGing shown above) and are a slightly more WP:NOPIPE-conformant edit of the link-name to form the display-text. Meanwhile the first one specifies label ownership, which is good value for five characters, I think, and it might potentially be anchored on an article section, one day (a section covering the activities of Nayutawave Records while it was owned by UMG, after ownership has changed). However, any change along these lines was accidental and I'll take-up Nayutawave (UMG) on article talk, separately.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Lamb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roots (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Got7/GOT7 WP:PRIMARY at List of JYP Entertainment labels, etc.[edit]

Hello! This is about the recent editing on GOT7. Since GOT7 is constantly capitalized, following MOS:CAPS leads to stylizing the name as GOT7. Here are some secondary sources that capitalizes the name as such: [3] [4] [5] [6] Official Twitter Page Naver search result Should I add those sources? If there's anything I missed, please reply. Thanks! Kkj11210 (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely, as (wannabe-)creators of the article at Got7 (band), thank you for your edits! I assume many of you are adventurers who're more active on ko:Wikipedia (where I correspondingly adventurer), a behaviour that I should be encouraged, IMO. (I trust I may ask you for ko:WP guidance another time.)
NB: I've been a Hallyu fan since 2010 – blame E.via and her "쉐이크 (Shake)!" (Last.FM), then The Hair Kid (Last.FM) and his E.Via (이비아) - Shake! (쉐이크!) (The Hair Kid Booty-Leg Remix) on YouTube, which I consider to be near as seminal, in recent times, as "Mr. Taxi (Japanese dance version)" (just not with UMG backing).
@재즈리: If my English is especially difficult for you, pls ask for clarification – I'll write in a plain yet precise/unambiguous style, with plenty of wikilinks, which I trust will Google Translate, etc. better than a dumbed-down style.
If it's GOT7 according to WP:CAPS, et al, that is the way I want it!
However, notwithstanding more prescribed language domains (e.g. I suppose, fr:Wikipedia), en:Wikipedia is the School of Hard Knocks for contra-grammatic stylisations (commonly: ad hoc romanised for many K-pops, and prior romanised for many Hallyus). And, the CAPS acceptance threshold is more than verifiably majority-usage (vis brand image) and more towards overwhelmingly common-usage (i.e. readers who would prefer grammatical stylisation are given the benefit of the doubt), rightsholder/agent-usage is a CAPS consideration (vis brand identity), but less so if it: flies against layperson-common-usage or rightsholder/agent-adherence is itself compromised significantly by common deviation(s) (vis brand dilution).
Yes indeed! – The usage/rightsholder-endorsement, I describe, should be WP:RS cited. No doubt :D your ref's embody, at least, some of that (I'm currently too busy elsewhere to check/insert them).
@John:'s recent move to Kukl (band) illustrates that that prowess is relatively irrelevant (and, I trust, he will correct me where this generalised/basic-principles explanation is contra-consensus, vis WP/MOS).
I think, a more useful example's my recent move to Sir Reg – this illustrates a relatively mature article loosing it's all-caps name, but shows the RS being found/placed (also see CAPS, PRIMARY and WP:COMMONNAME, and surrounds, for analysis techniques commonly used). Also, see:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles (MOS:KO)
Note: I did not cite the Got7 stylisation as such, cause en:WP lacked ref's for the band, seemingly, any place and it was created only yesterday (embryonic). However, I did WP:AGF+WP:BLUESKY it as an alias (your cites should at least back that up).
In short, I think, your best next more is to place RS citations on the GOT7 stylisation at the Got7 article (as I did for Sir Reg). Then check the links above to ascertain that your proof is complete, un-refutable (or unsupportable) and for other techniques, which my help lead to one of those ends.
By the way: This topic can be expected to receive best consensus at Talk:Got7. Feel free to copy/paste (not delete, pls) this to a eponymous topic there, plus a breadcrumb wikilink back to here (to attribute the original). If this seem beyond your expertise, pls let my know.
I trust that's all clear (pls WP:BOLD if not). Huzzah!   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 DoneThe primary residence of this discussion is now Talk:Got7#Common usage of the name Got7   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

External Links: Evaders99 queries his abilities vis, and some other vague stuff[edit]

Can I recommend you read Wikipedia's policies on External Links? WP:EL - social networking (especially obvious fake Twitter accounts), search engine results, and open wikis are generally not allowed. One official site link is usually enough. Let's discuss it on a case-by-case basis on the article talk page. Evaders99 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • @Evaders99: I suppose that such a recommendation is well within you abilities, yet wonder about the cause of such tentativeness! – Please clarify.
Please elaborate on your meaning of he words/phrases:
  1. open wikis
  2. official
  3. (a) usually enough – and since this is a vague and negative phraseology (b) in what regard this in not weasel wording and/or (c) the antitheses, or better still, a positive/definitive/explicit and precise/bounded explaination of what you're referring to.
  4. article talk page
Am I acquainted with you under another user-name? – Asking me about your abilities, the presence of such manifold ambiguity and reference to an unspecified "talk page", suggests you think I'm a mind-reader or your revering to some highly detailed, yet unspecified, context.
If we are not acquainted, please desist in me querying your own abilities, etc. – and/or indicate where/how you came by the impression that I am clairvoyant or similar.
Also, in regard to gaining attention of other editors on talk pages, other than their own, I can recommend Template:Ping (example of usage ^^above).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ALIAE: Love & Girls, Linguafranc listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ALIAE: Love & Girls, Linguafranc. Since you had some involvement with the ALIAE: Love & Girls, Linguafranc redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DjScrawl. You have new messages at Matthewrbowker's talk page.
Message added 21:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 21:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And again, sorry about the delay. ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 22:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Official Streaming Chart[edit]

Hi Ian.
I am a little confused/uncomfortable with some of your recent changes to the Official Streaming Chart article. I don't see the benefit of having one long, unwieldy redirect being linked by two completely separate things (i.e. ALIAE: UK's Official Charts Company (OCC), – how is this an improvement over what was there before? Some of the changes don't make any grammatical sense, e.g. "in the magazine Music Week" has now become "in Music Week magazine". "The Official UK Charts Company" is used a couple of times, when the company's name is currently Official Charts Company.
I really didn't understand your revision summary about Martin Talbot being God and issuing trademarks, especially when all you've changed from that sentence is to remove the word "true" from the quotation and change "in" to "[to]". Per MOS:QUOTE, the original wording of quoted text needs to be faithfully reproduced, wherever possible.
Finally, I'm not sure why note a no longer links to Gotye, but instead links to a redirect that includes the original release date of the song and its record label – this seems a little unnecessary to me. Per WP:BRD, I have reverted the article to its last stable revision, but I am happy to discuss the changes further on the talk page, if you don't agree with my decision. Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ALIAE: UK's Official Charts Company (OCC), listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ALIAE: UK's Official Charts Company (OCC), Since you had some involvement with the ALIAE: UK's Official Charts Company (OCC), redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Start (WP:biography article class) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Start (WP:biography article class). Since you had some involvement with the Start (WP:biography article class) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 06:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Complimentary SoundCloud set listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Complimentary SoundCloud set. Since you had some involvement with the Complimentary SoundCloud set redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Adabow (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Complimentary SoundCloud (complimentary SoundCloud download) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Complimentary SoundCloud (complimentary SoundCloud download). Since you had some involvement with the Complimentary SoundCloud (complimentary SoundCloud download) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Adabow (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Peroxide (album)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Peroxide (album), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this should be used for the Nina Nesbitt album "Peroxide"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. --Nahnah4 Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! 04:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Björk may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • already...| date= 7 October 2014| publisher= [[Facebook]]| accessdate= 7 October 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=| title=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing whitespace is counterproductive[edit]

Could you please explain why it is counterproductive? Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the approach. "Why?" Nope! - It's not a philosophical matter.
How? It improves cursor movement, readability and code's line-wrapping, for hand editing. I understand there's an option on your tool to turn off auto-removal of such. DjScrawl (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Really? I thought it made no visible change whatsoever. Is there a page where it says this? Melonkelon (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Really, really, but not a rendering issue, like I said: "code ... for hand editing".
Yes, there is policy, someplace. Only other time I've 'talk'ed on the issue, my tool-user correspondent found something and concluded that it was a bug in the tool to have w/s auto-removal optioned-on, by default, and they went away with it turned-off ... I'm not sure of the details, but part of what he discovered was, like, "if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix prevails strongly on tools in editing code.". DjScrawl (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing dab pages[edit]

I advise that you read WP:MOSDAB BEFORE you attempt to edit a dab page. Your edit to Cf had numerous problems, not just limited to:

  • more than one blue link
  • no page to disambiguate
  • the term "Cf" does not appear on the blue link page. (In your case - on ANY of the blue link pages).
  • Etc.

I'm happy to help if you want to ask questions on my talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thus, unless you have a conformant smart idea, getting the term defined on en.Wiki seems a substantial task. – DjScrawl (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
First reaction: LOL!
(I'm not quite sure I understand your point(s), but I most certainly understand how "the system" gets in the way of achieving things, and the associated frustration!)
Continuing (although acknowledging I've probably missed your point), I think you may have missed the point of disambiguation pages.
i.e. I think that by using a dab page, you are trying to use the wrong tool for the job. (And no, I don't know what the right tool is, and yes, you may well be correct when you say WP is remiss - I'm afraid you want to address a class of issue(s) of which I have no experience.)
Perhaps if you explain what is it that you want to achieve, it is not impossible that I just might have "a conformant smart idea".
As I said, I'm happy to help. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure that using a dab page is the way to go.
Why not first create Commercial film? e.g.

Commercial film is both a Japanese and South Korean term for a television advertisement.
Then add some "stuff", with some associated references, and at the bottom put {{stub}}

That doesn't sound like a particularly "substantial task" to me. However, I acknowledge that "I may be missing something".
Anyway, it's (past) bedtime here. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Commercial film (Asian media) would be a way ahead. It's used in at least Japan and South Korea - China too, I think. Also, the concept seems to span cross-branded/sponsored AV (media) in general (beyond only television advertisements). I'll put such on my to-do list – at least having about a thousand pages wanting to link to it suggests that notoriety will not be a problem. It's just the sort of job I like, but I do expect that'll be several hours work (v'busy elsewhere), i.e. 'substantial task'.
IMO, MOS:DABENTRY would be improved by having some allowance for: making a #REDIRECT of ja:Commercial film (that's currently a red-link) to ja:コマーシャルメッセージ, then using the inter-wiki REDIRECT as the 1st term in DABENTRY. Much less impetus, much more encouragement of WP:BOLD and WP:CSB. (Likely to be a lengthy discussion.) *le sigh*  – DjScrawl (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
<chuckle> ... <pause> ... <chuckle> ... <pause> ... <pause> ... <chuckle>
It doesn't look like I can tell you anything you don't already know. Ummm. Errrr. Enjoy the journey? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I was aware that I was breaking/bending some MOS:DABENTRY (had forgotten the 'more than one blue link' bit), but was hoping an objector would come along who saw the utility of my entry and had that Grail-like 'a conformant smart idea' to hand, for a repair. You've done a great job in helping me come to the realisation that I was in 'vain hope', thanks! I plan to follow both the above courses, given time. Commercial film (Asian media) for expediency, and content interest. Nudging MOS:DABENTRY for better WP:CSB (sure there's a contention between them here, not sure how pandemic such might be).
NB: You might be interested pitching-in / listening-to this FB/Adelaide-based weekly collaborative radio show Mixtape of the Masses on WoW fm, I occasionally contribute/listen to. – Best, DjScrawl (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! (Have copied it to my talk page so I don't forget.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Big Hit Entertainment[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Big Hit Entertainment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced Article which does not seem to meet WP:Corp

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Big Hit Entertainment[edit]

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 Big Hit Entertainment requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Flockaveli 2 concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Flockaveli 2, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jasmine Van den Bogaerde, commonly known as Birdy listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jasmine Van den Bogaerde, commonly known as Birdy. Since you had some involvement with the Jasmine Van den Bogaerde, commonly known as Birdy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈ 10:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jasmine van den Bogaerde, best known as Birdy listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jasmine van den Bogaerde, best known as Birdy. Since you had some involvement with the Jasmine van den Bogaerde, best known as Birdy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈ 10:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Singer Selena Gomez listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Singer Selena Gomez. Since you had some involvement with the Singer Selena Gomez redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

EastEnders character Dot Cotton listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect EastEnders character Dot Cotton. Since you had some involvement with the EastEnders character Dot Cotton redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –Davey2010Talk 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi DjScrawl,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FaoPFC sockery listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:FaoPFC sockery. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:FaoPFC sockery redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

BCG-matrix: problem child or star phase listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BCG-matrix: problem child or star phase. Since you had some involvement with the BCG-matrix: problem child or star phase redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)