User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars/Archive 1

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



Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars! I am RoadieRich and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Parsing name

I hope some day you'll see fit to explain your name on your user page. Lol. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Fahl category (and parsing name 2: further analysis)

Should the Mary Fahl category be tagged for speedy deletion by me (as author) or nominated for AfD? Or just leave it as is... Most of this category business escapes me, I'll admit. Now then, to business... your name must be a mashup of interests? I see "star wars" bookending four keywords, including the TV show Lost. Cheer Speak News could mean you're into cheerleading (assuming you're a girl... or a guy), debate, and ... the news? –Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


If you are going to delete the chart info from the infoboxes where it's deprecated and not visible, why not move it to the article proper if it's not there already? You can leave it as a simple list, a very easy edit. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been clearing a whole bunch of those the past couple days and, for the most part, I've been only removing chart information from the infobox when it is also presented in the text. In a few, I have added in the chart info, either into the prose or as a chart table. If there was an instance or two where I did what you said, either it wasn't sourced and I couldn't find any for it or it might have been listed on bad chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I just checked the article that prompted my edit here, and the chart position was in the prose already, so my bad! Sorry! — John Cardinal (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Fahl category Part 2

I'm probably going to reinstate the Mary Fahl category at some point in the future because evidently I was following directions (I'd forgotten I was going through the WP:ALBUM page step-by-step). From Wikipedia:Album#Categories:

Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future).

I think your previous point was the irrelevancy of these—for example, why not just go to Mary Fahl#Discography for a list of her albums. But evidently discussions were held! Would I be wrong to re-add it? (Btw, I'm watching your page for now, feel free to respond here.) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened. You deleted Category:Mary Fahl albums, but the category I emptied was Category:Mary Fahl. It is the eponymous category that I felt was unnecessary. Feel free to recreate the album category per WP:ALBUMS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ooookay, I get it now. Thank you once again! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


What did you mean by PROD in your edit summary for putting the deletion template on the I Get Paper page. (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Announcement (Dire Straits)

Thanks for interest to theme Dire Straits Tours. I remind that else there are some questions in which your help is necessary:

Article Necessary to make
Lafayette club Improve English
JB's Dudley Improve English
Fforde Green Hotel Improve English
Arena club Improve English
76 Club Improve English
Workingman's Institute and Memorial Hall Improve English
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Dire Straits tineline To be defined with a kind and the template maintenance
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany's, dancehall To answer five questions

--Andrey! 08:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Sur redirect

Hey. W/R/T California Saga: Big Sur, I will expand it soon (I've been stuck away from my house and books for like a month now), but in deference to you, I will not be removing the redirect again until I do. I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:N in this regard, but I don't think it's worth arguing about. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Superman (Brown Boy song)

I have removed the "hangon" tag that was applied by another editor to this article, since (as I'm sure you're aware) it's not appropriate for articles with a PROD tag. I have declined to make the logical leap and assume that this IP user wants to remove the PROD tag, but you may want to be prepared for that to happen; I've left instructional material for the user. (See the talk page of this article.) I will say that I think there is a fairly good argument to be made that this meets WP:MUSIC, however barely -- the best alternative for this article may be a discussion at articles for deletion, if you are convinced that it must be removed. You may wish to do nothing if and when the PROD tag is removed; that's of course entirely up to you. If I can be of assistance, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Jazz albums

Hi. Why are you depopulating this category? I see nothing at Category talk:Jazz albums to indicate a consensus for this; has a discussion been held elsewhere? I'd be interested in seeing the rationale. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not depopulated any category. Every article in which I removed Category:Jazz albums was already categorized as such under foo artist's Foo albums category. I have also created the genre by nationality category, Category:American jazz albums, placing it under Category:Jazz albums by nationality and have thus recategorized many Foo albums by replacing Category:American albums and Category:Jazz albums with the new category. That is how I've seen it work with, for example, Category:American rock albums. Based on the categorization scheme, I have not removed one album from the Jazz albums category. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. It's a shame that the tool you are using doesn't allow for more descriptive edit summaries, because I would imagine I won't be the only person confused. Edits such as this can be baffling. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
When I continue on the "project", I will try to do a few manual entries with a edit description. That way, if I don't do each one, someone looking at my edit history will hopefully see the explanation within there a few times. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, as long as this section is at the bottom, that may help, too. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Category introductions

Hello Categories are supposed to have introductions per Wikipedia:Categorization#Content_of_category_pages. Cf. this. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 23:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


I don't understand what you meant by "non-notable" album. I've been trying to improve the compilation album articles with sources from their respective sources and weblinks. What am I missing and what can be done to improve several articles before deletion? I've improved them with sources (I hardly have time to come on here but I do what I have to), and as of recent some articles don't have the AFD tag while others have the tag brought back -- even after the improvements. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. GETONERD84 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully if it is possible that the AFD template could be downgraded to the "citation needed source" warning template just as a compromise, only because I may need more time to dig deeper for more notable sources beyond what's just advertised (although Amazon may or may not count). GETONERD84 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lud (rapper)

Hello Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lud (rapper), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Signed to a label with an article is a credible assertion of notability sufficient for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted source

I tried to add a source for one of the articles I've created but it was blocked. How can it be unblocked? GETONERD84 (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Charts

A new idea has been suggested. Please tell us what you think. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As per consensus at WP:record charts there is a new guide to using Billboard Charts available at Billboard charts guide. Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) (formerly known just as Pop Songs) is no longer deemed a component chart - there is no evidence to support this motion. I have stopped persuing a change in the names for reasons given at the dicussion page. :) Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
already been done. :) Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Its ok. i take it you've seen why im dropping the argument for a change in chart names?Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pop Sampler (Selena single)

Hi! Thanks for your concern but, the single was sold in stores as "sampler" as it's given name, the album/single is notable even though there aren't any sales of this EP. AJona1992 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Serbian heavy metal albums

I returned Category:Serbian albums to the categories that contain albums by the bands which are not strictly heavy metal (Karizma, Kerber, Kraljevski APartman, Osvajaci, and Rok Masina). Ostalocutanje (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I checked and saw that all AC/DC, Deep Purple, Rainbow, Blue Öyster Cult (these are only the first few hard rock/heavy metal bands that I could think of) albums, which are all predominately hard rock artists, are in the category:metal albums. Of course, it's like that because it's easier and more practical to put a whole category into another category that to put separate albums, and it is incorrect, but I don't see why Kerber (and other less known bands) should be an exception. After all, Kerber had only one album with no heavy metal influences, Zapis (Ljudi i bogovi is also defined as a hard rock album only, but it could be because it is too melodic to be defined as heavy metal, and it's impossible to define it as glam metal). Ostalocutanje (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hm, ok, that lets make them heavy metal albums only, that's more logical... Ostalocutanje (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Anika Moa

If you think that a category is redundant, instead of removing the pages in the category (as you did with Category:Anika Moa), please list it as WP:CFD, so that people can discuss the category and its fate. If you feel this way, please carry out said action. In the meantime, I will re-add the pages you removed. Thanks, Adabow (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being co-operative, and agreeing to disagree! Adabow (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pierceybrian22/Archive

Hi. Please be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pierceybrian22/Archive. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 01:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting categories

Procedure If you want to delete a category and replace it with another--e.g. Category:R.E.M. soundtracks and Category:R.E.M. soundtrack albums--please follow the proper procedure for this. I have no problem at all with your idea and I think it's the right one, but I know that I have gotten into hot water before by emptying categories and populating new ones that are renamed versions of the old category. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 13:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Do you have one? I wanted to send you something. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. "This user has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users" per Special:EmailUser/Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Songs categories

Good question First off, you're clearly correct about Category:Dance music by sub-genre, but it's probably not speedy-able; the criteria there are pretty strict. If you have any doubt, it's best to nominate it for full CfD and if someone else thinks it's speedy-able, it can be closed there. I would personally be in favor of "X songs by genre" because what exactly constitutes a "subgenre?" Aren't heavy metal and alternative rock themselves a subgenre of rock? Aren't rock and pop subgenres of popular music? Virtually any genre of music other than the broadest categories of sacred, folk/popular, and art/classical music could be considered subgenres, so it basically opens up a can of worms that simply doesn't need to be addressed if all of these categories are "X songs by genre." Thanks for cleaning up these categories--e.g. Category:Power pop songs, which I screwed up as I made. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 17:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Do what you will. Ostalocutanje (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Please explain I don't understand this edit. Category:Motörhead compilation albums is in Category:Compilation albums by artist, just like how Category:Motörhead albums is in Category:Albums by artist. As you might understand, I reverted. Please respond on my talk at your earliest convenience. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah It appears that you might be mistaken about the wording of WP:ALBUM#Categories--as the example they give of Category:Slayer albums is categorized in a scheme by artist, nationality, and genre. You are correct that Category:Motörhead compilation albums is subcategorized under Category:Albums by artist, but it is also subcategorized under Category:Albums by British artists and Category:New Wave of British heavy metal albums, so it seems like your argument would be just as applicable to delete Category:Compilation albums by British artists and Category:New Wave of British heavy metal compilation albums as well. Unless there's something I'm missing here. Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Intersections Why should Category:Motörhead compilation albums by under Category:New Wave of British heavy metal compilation albums alone, but not under Category:Compilation albums by British artists alone? Either way, it will be under Category:Compilation albums. I don't see why one intersection category should be used but not another... —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 16:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Show Ya albums

You just added this category to the larger Category:Heavy metal albums by Japanese artists. I don't think that this is correct, because most of the albums by Show-Ya are pop rock or rock, but not heavy metal. However, their most successful ones (Outerlimits, Hard Way, Hard Way Tour 1991) can fall in the heavy metal genre, as was indicated in the articles for each one of them. To generalize such genre attribution for all Show-Ya's albums is not indicative of the evolution of their music and not very informative for the casual reader. Please, think about coming back on your changes to the articles. Lewismaster (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Van der Graaf Generator, not Van Der Graaf Generator

Hi there! Would you please explain to me why Van der Graaf Generator (with a small d) would sort differently from Van Der Graaf Generator (with a capital D)? The latter is an incorrect spelling. I don't understand why for sorting purposes one would use the incorrect spelling of the name of the band. I think it just confuses people. Mark in wiki (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with Categories

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

Thanks for comments on categories - palm to head - I get it now!

Best wishes, --Diane (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for VdGG

Hi there, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars! I see you've removed the category Progressive rock albums from all or almost all of Van der Graaf Generator's album pages. Just out of curiosity: did you do that because you feel VdGG is not progressive rock or is there another reason for this? Thanks. Mark in wiki (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Stone Temple Pilots (album)

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, nice to run into you again. Thanks for your help on the charts on this article; it's no secret that I'm the lousiest person on the planet when it comes to charts, charts and I just don't gel. So in your edit summary, you mentioned there may be too many as is; I just threw in all the ones I could even find, though someone else on WT:CHARTS, iirc, told me the Digital charts was probably unnecessary. That's all beyond me. So if you feel some charts should be removed, by all means, do so, or can you at least tell me which one(s) you would recommend losing? Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have additional questions at User_talk:Keraunoscopia#Stone Temple Pilots's talk page.

Billboard country chart No. 1 songs tables — notes fields

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars — I have posted a reply to your recent comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Country Music, regarding the ongoing discussions on what should and should not be included in the notes fields for our country music list of No. 1 songs tables. (Sorry if that's worded poorly, but I hope you get the idea; haven't had all my morning Mountain Dew yet! ;)) [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)]]

Forse le lucciole non si amano più

If your are ignorant of Italian prog, maybe it's best for you not to deal with articles such as Forse le lucciole non si amano più. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. For a second, you looked like a crazy horse aiming to delete a respectable article for hatred against Italian prog! Ciao and good work!!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


I just learned that you listed for speedy deletion the article D'Link, which featured Flexx from the group T.O.K., a notable group on their own. As the group is notable, I believe D'Link deserves its place. I learned that the deletion occurred today after seven days uncontested, but I never had the chance to do so myself and only found out today because I got an alert that the image, which I placed in the article, was orphaned! Evidently I did not create the article, but I supported its inclusion in Wikipedia by adding that image; I think the article was just fine. Other than notability, did you have any other concerns regarding the article? CycloneGU (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the concerns are primarily regarding notability. The artist is not notable enough for his own article thus why should the album? It's not a T.O.K. album, so it does not satisfy "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". I'd like to see something else that truly establishes its notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering why they released it that way...I think T.O.K. might have meant it as a T.O.K. release, but what do I know? In any case, would Flexx not be considered notable simply because he was in T.O.K.? I'm sure an article can be written for him, I just don't know where to find information regarding him. CycloneGU (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:BAND, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Now, I don't think the album is particularly notable in its own right, but since there may be little info on both the artist and album and the information can be combined. Per WP:NALBUMS, "album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen this done and I have to admit, such a listing looks generally ugly and very unencyclopedic. I actually made a bunch of fixes to the T.O.K. page after heading there to check information on a track I picked up from my ex, which is around the time I found the Flexx album as well, and I determined a unique page was a better layout since the page is supposed to be merely a discography, not five album listings one after another, or a combination thereof (which, again, looks uniquely ugly). I may be mistaken and would have to check, but the album might originally have been placed in that discography; if not, then another T.O.K. album was there, as I remember creating a page for one there or on another artist around that time.
Generally, I find that more AfD and Speedy concern is given to compilation albums, especially ones that are non-notable. In most cases, unless it's released by the actual label, it generally would not be included unless it's under a certain brand (such as the 20th Century Masters series). AllMusic lists a load of albums that will never be in Wikipedia, but this is a label-released album by a member of a notable band, and the only problem I have is that no one else has added any new information to the article (meaning nothing else has evidently been found). I may peruse the T.O.K. site to find any additional information I can, I've just been a bit preoccupied these days. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusing edits

Please assist I saw that a couple of your edits came up in my watchlist and what you were doing in general makes sense—replacing Category:Redirects from albums with {{R from album}}, e.g.—but some of the individual edits are a little off to me (e.g.) Also, if you make a page a redirect, you can (and should) retain (some?) of the categories of the article. So, The She is still a 2002 single, Breeders song, and a song written by Kim Deal, so it should remain in those categories. I know that there is extensive consensus to do this for albums (and even entire categories made up of redirects, such as Category:The Balham Alligators albums per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_10#Category:The_Balham_Alligators_albums.) So, please do not remove the categories from these redirects as they are valuable and there is consensus to keep them in at least some sets of articles. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 17:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah Thanks for the heads-up on The She not being a single. Otherwise, I guess it belongs in Category:B-side songs; that was sloppy of me. I don't know of a precedent to create redirects for every song by an artist, but I know that some of them have a lot of redirects (e.g. Category:U2 songs and Category:R.E.M. songs.) If you want to keep on making redirects of that sort, I suppose it's entirely warranted. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


Then I would think you should create the category first and don't remove a certain existing category yet. Sorry for the intrusion though. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention it. But I don't know why you removed or replaced the other existing categories. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok I get it. When doing certain edits like that you might want to explain in your edit summary though. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Category removal

Please explain this edit on my talk. I don't understand why you would remove this category. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 16:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Rock Songs

Singles charts published by Billboard are considered individually notable by precedent; in a sense, pages on each chart function as subpages of Billboard (magazine)'s main article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • It wouldn't make sense to have the #1 hits in their own subpage if the main page for the chart were only a redirect. Also, merging the charts would be a major hassle and make for far too large of an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Peniston discography

Hi, I just wanted to send Thanks for cleaning some of my songs submitted yesterday. Do you think that they are going to survive at Wikipedia, or soon to be removed, as in some cases there are only few souces I can put to an "extended" use here. Benuliak 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am doing my best to put as much information as I can, I have just started with entering reference sources (see e.g. Thank you heaps and stay tuned ,-) benuliak (talk) Benuliak 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Songs sampling previously recorded songs

Info talk.png

Category:Songs sampling previously recorded songs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Plan B Fixing Thank's

Oh hey there thank's for clearing them up Like Image, P.R, Track Listing, Catagories Plus you moved house of pleasure etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talkcontribs) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Album cover's for Plan B

Thank you for adding the cover I could't find any were they hard to find expect for El mundo del Plan B & House of pleasure nice work they should Vote you for songwiki or something

Sorry About that

I didn't now I checked history today your right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talkcontribs) 12:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Album help User:Marioluigi98

Hey their I need help on an album called Guatauba XXX or do you think it's Guatauba University album im not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talkcontribs) 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Eponymous categories

Please refrain from creating categories named after individual people, as all articles directly related to the subject are already linked in the eponymous article in question. See WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Thank you. AnemoneProjectors 17:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Album Help

Oh hey there i wanted to know about albums because user:Korruski says something and I don't understand can you chat back to tell me. Well thanks you made it three times easeir to understand so I can make the acticle again by what proposel Because I want to add it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talkcontribs) 22:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tha Bulbas

I have, as requested, posted the article in question on the author's talk page. I retained the warnings to give you a start in helping him improve it. Thank's ill try by tomorow. It will be, I think, an uphill struggle given the criterion on which it was deleted. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:A Fire Inside

As far as I know, there is no policy regarding the categorization of templates. However, there exists a separate categorization scheme for templates than there is for articles. Common sense dictates that templates belong in template categories (such as Category:American rock music groups templates), and not in article categories (such as Category:AFI (band). It is the same logic by which you removed Category:Misfits (band) from Category:American punk rock groups and placed it instead in Category:Categories named after musical groups: because Category:American punk rock groups is for articles and Category:Categories named after musical groups is for categories. Categories help readers find articles on like topics; templates are not articles, and placing them in categories with articles does not aid readers in this goal. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that, but then why under WP:SORTKEY does it say to sort templates with "τ". If templates only go into template categories, you'd want to sort by the template's subject. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I've never run across a case where a category grouped pages from different namespaces. For example {{Infobox album}} isn't in Category:Albums, nor is Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for providing a sortkey for templates. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Please do not use this template. Use {{about}}, because otheruses4 is deprecated. Please delete {{otheruses4}} and replace with {{about}}. Thank you. (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


pleases consult users on talkpage on BOTH articles before you started to redirect the page! Chingster (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


maybe i undid the redirect because i was going to add content and references in? Chingster (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Stop

Can you please stop making edits like this and like this? Please and thanks. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:CHARTS#Succession_boxes is still on going, there is no set consensus. Also, do not add a "See Also" section to the article, thats what the categories section at the bottom of the article is for. Having a see also is messy, list-y, unattractive and redundant. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

You are invited to take part in the discussion regarding the need of succession boxes for #1 songs and albums on the Manual of Style for Record Charts talk page at WT:CHARTS#Succession boxes. General opinion is leaning towards their removal and hopefully a consensus will be reached soon. Since you are opposed to their removal, your input is valued and appreciated.

I don't care if there's a 'See also' section or not, but why would you prefer succession boxes over them? Are you saying they aren't messy, list-y, unattractive and redundant? I think they are even more so. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the removal, im opposed to you removing something that may not happen, again, there is no consensus, so removing them is premature. I dont personally like the succession box, but i hate adding a "See also" section even more. Its much simpler and neater to add a categories rather then an unneeded list of charting when that is already covered by the Chart section. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Which is exactly what the succession boxes do, except provide links to songs that have no relation to the article. The lists provide links to those seeking further information on the full succession of those charts without cluttering up the article. I don't believe there was a consensus to have succession boxes in an article, so if you don't like them why put them back, especially if you are satisfied with the categorization option (note though there are no similar number-one categories for albums). Consensus is often reached silently by accepting the change that was done. Again, I don't mind at all if there is no 'see also' section like I had added. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll just leave it to you guys. Until a settlement has been made, then the succession box can be removed. But for now, it stays. ozurbanmusic (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Start Without You

You recently removed the 'Chart precession and succession' from Start Without You, please do not remove this again, thanks.-- (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

Can you please wait until an official decision is made before you overhaul all these articles removing the succession boxes? So if it doesn't go through does that mean you going to re-add them to each page? Don't jump the gun. Candyo32 13:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

GAR nom

{{helpme}} My nomination for Good Article Reassessment at Talk:Let It Be (song)/GA1 doesn't look right. What did I do wrong? Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try fixing it, and let you know in a few minutes.  Chzz  ►  18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
OK - done, I think. The process for listing them is a bit complicated, what with templates, and a bot listing them, etc. So effectively I re-did the GAR process. The review page looks right now Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Let It Be (song)/1, and it should be listed in Wikipedia:GAR automatically, within an hour or so. I'll check that too. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That is terrific. Thanks so much for your help. My first listing at GAR. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
All seems OK, so I'll stop watching these pages now. Use another {{helpme}}, drop a note on my talk page, or talk to helpers live, with this if you need anything else. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree

I added the sources that you asked for and created an article for the preceding Number One, "Dirty Old Man." Late last year, Carlossfsu (talk · contribs) worked tirelessly to link together all 1,571 Number One single on the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart from "Pistol Packin' Mama" in 1944 to "The Boys of Fall" in 2010. Most of those songs also reached Number One on the Canadian RPM Country Tracks chart, but he didn't include Canadian succession boxes, so I've been working to add them and create any missing articles. I've made it as far back as 1988, but these things take time. As far as I'm concerned, removing a succession box because the preceding Number One doesn't yet have an article isn't a valid reason. Wikipedia is a work in progress and surely a song that reached Number One on a major chart is going to one day have an article. Eric444 (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. We don't need succession boxes for every chart in every genre and every country for which a song or album reached number one. The use of succession boxes on I Will Always Love You is complete overkill and helps nobody. However, I do believe that succession boxes have their place when done right. I think the solution, rather than removing them all outright, is to pare them down to the necessary ones and create a list of which charts should have succession boxes, such as Hot Country Songs or the Billboard Hot 100. Then we can hide them, like on Need You Now (song), for the users who find them so objectionable. As for removing them because the preceding article doesn't have an article, what about the singles chronology on Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree? Would you remove that because "You're a Lady" doesn't have an article and probably never will? Eric444 (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously there is still some work to be done. Succession boxes are navigational, but they can be informational too. They provide a concise look at which charts a song reached #1 on, when the song reached #1 and how many weeks the it spent there - information not always contained in the article - as well as which songs preceded and succeeded it at #1. If we were dealing with a navbox of #1 songs on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1973, it would only have to contain songs with links, but succession boxes are different.
Maybe we can narrow down which charts are allowed by which charts have #1 lists so that succession boxes can work in conjunction with the lists. If reaching #1 is accomplishment enough that we have lists of #1 songs, there should be an easier way to navigate through those lists than to have to keep clicking back to them. Songs normally only reach #1 on a handful of charts at most, so there shouldn't be a lot of instances where the use of succession boxes becomes excessive. I've been removing cases that I've come across where they have their own subsection, but for songs that multiple artists have taken to #1, like "It's Just a Matter of Time" or "Cry," they're a lot easier to navigate when separated by artist rather than some overwhelming cluster at the bottom of the page. WP:SBS says that they can be placed in sections where applicable. I agree that "order of precedence" is vague. Personally, I think "achievements" is the more appropriate header available, although it should be simple enough to create one that says "chart procession and succession." Eric444 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we're saying the same thing: this is acceptable but this isn't. "Number of weeks spent at peak position...may be mentioned within the article text," but from my experience, it's usually reserved for the succession box. Since we categorize number ones and create lists of number ones, why is it only succession boxes, which we've been using for years, that are suddenly going to open a Pandora's box? Eric444 (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Excuse me You Deleted the discography of the 2AM Club which had some references and I'm going to try to undo this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknewmoon (talkcontribs) 19:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Pendulum: Crush

"In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia, if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."

The song 'Crush' is the next single from Pendulum, who are a notable ensemble. The song is not a demo, mixtape, bootleg, promo-only recording. As more information is released, such as the tracklisting for the single, the article will expand. Do not keep removing it. Alinblack (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Substituting templates

Hi - when you add a warning template to a user talk page, can you remember to substitute it by typing, for example, {{subst:uw-v4|article}}. This makes the message permanent rather than leaving the template in place, so that the message does not change if the template is edited. See WP:WARN for more information. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Succession Box Removal (again...)

As you can see, I undid some of your removal of succession box. I don't have the time undo all of these but I did this to deliver a message. Like what other people mentioned before on your talk page, PLEASE ACT ONLY AFTER CONSENSUS IS SOLIDIFIED AND FINAL! I'm not opposed to the removal at all, but please let other people to express their opinions and start the removal AFTER consensus is reached to remove the box. Don't find this offensive but please follow etiquettes here, acting before reaching consensus is considered rude. Thanks. Yong (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I see I'm not the first to notice this: Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, please stop removing these succession boxes pending a broader discussion about this. 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. You have new messages at 28bytes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm about to undo another of your succession box removals at Joanna (song). As the song was a number one hit the consensus seems to be to have the succession box. If you're not happy with this then discuss the matter at the talk page or at the appropriate discussion for this type of template. What you shouldn't do, however, is just remove it without reason. BTW your edit summary doesn't really give a clear reason. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, but I still think you should wait until a final decision has been made. At present the discussion is ongoing so no consensus really has been reached, has it? TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Nor is there a consensus not to have them actually so wait until the final decision has been made. TheRetroGuy (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing genre categories

Please review Since Category:Donna Summer albums is in Category:Pop rock albums, then Category:Donna Summer live albums should be in Category:Live pop rock albums and Category:Donna Summer compilation albums should be in Category:Pop rock compilation albums. If you want to remove that parent category, that's fine with me, but please be consistent. If you want to respond, please do so on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC) And you are Forget it. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Walk On By (Burt Bacharach and Hal David song)

Can you explain your reason for this move? Particularly your edit summary - "not a writing team so should be first names". Huh? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan. I understand your point, but I don't think I agree with it - if anything, it probably points up the need for a Bacharach and David article. But it's not really a big deal either way and I'll see if anyone else comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where in the world you are, but certainly in the UK their songs are very often known simply as "Bacharach and David" songs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Lionel Richie singles

Most artists split the main-artist and singles templates. Even though he doesn't have a very huge amount, I think it would make the {{Lionel Richie}} template much neater if the singles were just removed from it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Too few of his singles have articles for me to agree with you, and it doesn't take anything away or make the main template messier. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disneyland/Walt Disney World Music Vacation PROD

Your first PROD on Disneyland/Walt Disney World Music Vacation was contested. It is not permitted to make a second PROD when one has been contested, so the second one has been declined. You may like to take the article to Articles for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironic (song)

What's not a rule? Use of {{singlechart}}? Even if it's not, why does it need to be reverted? It's perfectly adequate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A) Consistency, especially when many articles had it; and b) it is not a rule to use it. Perfectly adequate? for who? The use of that template is absurd, and make, in some cases such Slovakia, the reader follow a searchable database, when it's possible to have a direct link. Tbh®tchTalk © Happy Holidays 01:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately Slovak chart started after 2006, but the thing is that add those templates for US, someone'll feel free to add them for the remaining countries (Except Canada). Tbh®tchTalk © Happy Holidays 01:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I always find it unnecessary to add the template if the charts in a particular article is formatted properly and doesnot use any BADCHARTS, or unsourced things etc. Other than that, articles where the charts do not exist, there one can add the templates. Also, a series of articles, having the same format for the charts, there addition of the template to a single article of the series, breaks away from the consistency. Tehre also the addition of the template is discouraged. Otherwise, add it. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed links

Hi StarWars. I'm puzzled by this edit. There were 2 identical links, so I can see why 1 should go. But why did you remove both? Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the link was for a song that was a stub with an unsourced claim of being a hit. With so little info, I redirected the article to Unforgettable (Imran Khan album), thus there would be no need for links redirecting to the same page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. But shouldn't there first be discussion to gain consensus as to whether Amplifier (Imran Khan Song) should be deleted, made a redirect (as you have done) or remain an article in its own right? I don't know if you knew, but there are set procedures we should follow, to arrive at consensus in such matters. We shouldn't take it into our own hands to, say, make it a redirect, without proper discussion and other standard and appropriate steps.

That being so, I've reverted the redirect back to an article, so that you or anybody else can propose its deletion / merger / becoming a redirect, as per the guidelines above. Hope you understand - happy to discuss further if you want. Trafford09 (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, wikipedia guidelines encourages editors to BE BOLD. I believe my actions, as well as yours, are entirely appropriate and within the guidelines. Should no one have opposed, then consensus on my redirect is implicitly reached. I redirected the article and you reverted the redirect, which I have no issue with. Should I want to take further action to have it redirected or outright deleted, then I would take it to discussion. For what it's worth, I don't feel an article for the song is necessary. It has no sources, and no information is imparted that isn't already in the album article. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I do believe you're right on all accounts, now that I've read the AFD a bit closer! I regret getting involved - although it's taught me a bit! Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: talking of being bold - I'll try a little cheeky! Had you been thinking about wp:archiving this page before long? Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're referring to below, but not typical for me. Just an ongoing project I've been working on for about 4 months. I do plan to archive end of year. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


I just had a really strong urge to let you know that your a pain in the rear end. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barry Manilow albums

Cateogization I have readded subcat.s of Category:Soft rock albums to Category:Barry Manilow albums subcat.s only because the infobox for Barry Manilow mentions him as a soft rock artist. I have no real horse in this race, but these should all be consistent at the very least. Please respond on my talk if you have more to say. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm You've given me something to consider, but I'm heading out in a minute. I'll get back with you substantially later. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories again I guess the question hinges on whether or not these categories are meant to be universal or simply general characterizations. There are bands out there who have released a one-off jazz-fusion experimental album, so you wouldn't want to categorize their albums under that scheme, but does this one deviation from their norm mean that their albums can no longer be categorized under punk albums? Maybe not all of Barry Manilow's work is soft rock, but is enough of it that it could generally be characterized that way? Is Johnny Cash Gospel enough, country enough, and rock enough? It's hard to say. I suppose in general it's fair to say that he's a Gospel artist although it's clear that a large portion of his catalogue is not Gospel music. If so, is it fair to categorize him as a Gospel artist? Is any of this making sense? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 03:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)