This user improved "Let's All Chant" become a good article on 18 August 2014‎.

User talk:Synthwave.94

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

.

The Article Rescue Barnstar[edit]

Rescue Barnstar Hires.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
Thankyou for your great work saving the article "Overpowered by Funk" from deletion! benzband (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

And this is from me:

Music barnstar.png The Music Barnstar
I award The Music Barnstar to Synthwave.94 for his exceptional effort on expanding and —probably— saving from deletion "Overpowered by Funk". –pjoef (talkcontribs) 10:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ben has anticipated my intention, as always :D. Once, again thank you. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 10:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Tool suggestion[edit]

Hi there, have you considered making use of a tool like Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser? It is built for making repetitive editing tasks a bit easier by semi-automating them. For example, you could make a list of articles that contain "New Wave" and tell it to change them to "New wave". You still have to review each change to make sure it's correct, but it might be a lot easier for something like that. Just a thought. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's true. However I don't know how tools like AutoWikiBrowser work... But thank you for your suggestion, that reminds me of something I'd like to talk about with somebody. Do you know if it is possible to create a bot (or an automatic tool) able to make changes like this one ? It would help me a lot. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser does some of that type of stuff.. general maintenance and cleanup of articles that you tell it to look at. Maybe you can look through Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User manual and see if it would be easy to use. I know there is also a tool called Reflinks that automatically fixes and fills out references properly. See User:Dispenser/Reflinks. I don't actually know too much about bots except that they are generally programmed in Python. That is not my area of expertise at all. I do know that if you have a task you would like automated, you can ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests to see if an existing bot could be programmed to do the task. Hope this helps! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I will take a look at these links as soon as possible. Thank you very much for all of this ! Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ray Crisara[edit]

Did you hear that Ray Crisara just died? Sad news for Let's All Chant fans. :( DBaK (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know who was Ray Crisara before you asked me this question. Now I know who is this guy but I've been unable to find something related to his death. Where did you get that from ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hang your head in shame! <g> He MAKES the record!! (I'm totally unbiased here, of course.) The whole trumpet world is talking about it - he was very highly thought of and has lots of ex-students of great eminence. I'm seeing it on FB and in emails from colleagues, but when I see something citeable, I will either add it in or let you know ... how does that sound? Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
PS It might well show up here in time. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Just because I like "Let's All Chant" doesn't mean I know all artists who made this record. This is only one of the numerous disco records I'm listening to ! ;) But thank you for all this infos, I learned something I didn't know at all. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Please don't take the "shame on you" too seriously. :) I am well aware that my angle on this stuff is a minority interest! It was just a joke, not a criticism of your musical knowledge - apologies for any offence ... it was not intended. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised by your "He MAKES the record!!". It may be true, but Zager made this record too. ;) Also don't worry, I understood you seems to be a die hard fan of Ray Crisara (and the "trumpet world" ?). Nice to see people like you love sharing knowledge. Once again thank you for all of this. ;) Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will let you know if I turn up anything that could help. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year (song)[edit]

Could you keep an eye with the page? Make sure if contributors doing unsourced genres. 183.171.168.64 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. And I can clean up the article by the same way. ;) Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Azok voltak a szép idők, barátom"[edit]

Well, you certainly tidied up there. Care to discuss at the Talk Page? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Wanted to say a big big thank you for noticing the dmy issue,

Unbeknowingly I'd done the same thing to all of his singles/albums so took some time self reverting,,
Anyway thank you :)
Regards, –Davey2010(talk) 22:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the reason why semi-automated tools should be used with extra care. ;) Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely agree! :), After yesterdays crap I'll most certainly take more care :)
Regards, –Davey2010(talk) 23:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

Hi, Synthwave.94! I am Isabella, Barbara's daughter, just wanted to say thank you for your accuracy.

Thanks. ^^ Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Get down!![edit]

[1]. Thought you might appreciate this funk gem. Much shorter than the 9:05 12" remix, alas (where you can really get carried away with that overpowering synth-funk groove) - but I'd pleased to email you a copy if you'd like one. Meanwhile, please feel free to make any contribution you can to Robert Brookins. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow ! Never heard this before but this funky rhythm is so good ! Sounds like a mixture of "Living in America", "I'm in Love" and "Walk the Dinosaur", three great tracks you should listen to (if you don't already know them of course ^_^)
Can you give me your e-mail adress so I can e-mail you and then you'll can send me a copy ? I'm already excited about listening to it while editing Wikipedia at the same time ! X)
As soon as possible, I would try to help you improving the article you're talking about. You know I like improving music-related so there's no reason to ignore your suggestion ;) Regards and happy editing. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, three great tracks, all well-known to me. Always nice to have a bit of "luxury". If you want my email you'll have to enable your contact option under User perefences! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I managed to send you an e-mail. Please confirm it as soon as possible. Regards Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Just sent you a mp3. ENJOY!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've just seen it. Thanks a lot for sending me this 80s gem. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

All Day and All of the Night[edit]

Hi, I was wondering, do you know what Dave Davies is trying to say? I've read the quote a few times and I'm still not quite sure i"m "getting it". Does he resent the Doors for "stealing" the song, or think that they're so revered that nobody can say anything about them? Also, according to the Hello I Love You article, apparently the UK courts found in favor of Davies, according to the biography No One Gets Out Here alive. Is that true, you think, and should that be added? hbdragon88 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hbdragon88: I think Davies is trying to say the Doors may have "stolen" his song, but as the group seems really important for him, he thought he shouldn't sue them. However the other article seems too say something different ... so I don't know what should be written about this case and the similarities between the two songs. Anyway it's obvious that there should be some consistency between "All Day and All of the Night" and "Hello, I Love You". Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Greek techno vandal[edit]

Your actions are mentioned at the case page Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Techno genre warrior from Greece. I thought you might want to know. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I knew I was mentioned in it, but thanks for the reminding ! Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Binksternet: : I think he is back...
I think you are correct. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Manics[edit]

Hi

Apologies - I did not notice you were using sfn, in my defence I was VERY tired!

Even if I had, I have never used them and got confused the only time I was copyediting a page and needed to convert lots of refs to sfn.

Thanks for fixing it :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I convert refs into sfn template as often as possible. It didn't take me a long time to convert everything for "La Tristesse Durera" (compared to a huge good/featured article) so don't be upset for this reason ! After all, improving a Wikipedia article is a cooperative work, isn't it ? ;) Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Who's the third black musician in Sex Crime videoclip?[edit]

Hi, Synthwave.94. Yesterday I looked again the 1984's Sex Crime videoclip and I have a doubt. Who's the third black musician besides Annie Lennox and Dave Stewart? I understand that Eurythimics was a duet, but in this video, it seems like this third gay is a very important member or contributor. Thank you very muchAlexiscorreia (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiscorreia: : Sorry for answering you after a couple of days, but I have no idea who is this guy and I didn't find anything about him. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you![edit]

Brownie transparent.png Let's enjoy a snack for a bit. I do appreciate the work you are doing on the Christian metal list, despite the fact that I've gotten annoyed with some of your methods. Thank you. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Whenever you're done, I'll jump in[edit]

Whenever you feel your done on the list, would you mind leaving up the "under construction" tag? I'll be working on the template in one of my sandboxes, as I don't want to conflict with your edits. If there are artists I feel that you missed, for one reason or another, I'll see if I can find sources and add them, too.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention: If you don't have a copy of Powell's Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, I do have one, so if you want me to look anything up in there for you, I'll be happy to help.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@3family6: : Thanks for your support. I think I will remove the "under construction" tag in some hours, because I think I would add more bands in the list, as I'm currently looking at the different reliable sources suggested at WP:CCM/S (realizing several online sources don't work any longer, by the way). I don't have Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music and I used Google Books to find infos in this book. However I only managed to find infos about some bands only. Can you please tell me what Powell says about XT ? Is the band described as Christian metal or not ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Powell describes it as heavy metal that sounds very similar to Stiggson's Leviticus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that some sites on the list are defunct. One or two I knew about, I just didn't update the list to reflect that. I'll have to get on that at some point.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@3family6: : I've just reogarnized the list and created a whole section for the defunct publications and websites. Synthwave.94 (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Also thanks for your answer regarding XT. Synthwave.94 (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, wow! Thanks! You're welcome. I'm going to go through Powell's book myself to help populate the list more, as you might have missed some not having a full view of the book. I'm going to work more on the list in my sandbox, and then bring it over to mainspace.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, from my side I will continue exploring the different websites found at WP:CCM/S in order to add more bands in the list. I intend starting completing the list soon, but I really don't how many times I would spend on it before finishing adding new entries. But anyway, thanks for helping adding new additions in the list. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Whenever you're finished, I can jump in, too, so don't feel that this has to take up all your time.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@3family6: : I would finish it in some hours. I wasn't editing Wikipedia after my very last edit on the page and I just came back. I will make a dummy edit to say to you when you could edit the page. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For you work cleaning up list articles, including the List of Christian metal artists. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, and I'm going to continue doing so with other lists soon. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

List of New Age music artists[edit]

Hello!

I'm currently adding some New Age artists (real, all those I append are known for a long time, and having produced many albums each one, and generally with international career) to the list.

And suddenly I see a new banner telling that the list is now restricted to autoconfirmed users. Is there a problem with my contributions? I've been contributor for years on the French Wikipedia (hundreds and hundreds of contributions, and some new articles) and sometimes on the English Wikipedia (less contributions of course but always serious).

I point out that I'm also myself New Age musician (amateur but quite known on KVRAudio with my nickname BlackWinny). My profession was biologist (now retired).

Could you give me some precisions?... if there are special things to do to be autoconfirmed for this page.

Cheers, Jacques Jacques Prestreau (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jacques,
The page is restricted to autoconfirmed users because several IPs added non notable artists to the list. Note that you're already an autoconfirmed user as you performed several edits under an account and over, well, several years ! It means you can edit this page as much as you want, but I need to give you some advices regarding music-related :
  • The artist needs to have a Wikipedia page. You need to create a page first if the artist you want to add in this list doesn't have an article on the English Wikipedia yet.
  • You need to add reliable sources to prove these artists are associated with the new-age genre, such as AllMusic, Rolling Stone and Spin but also newspapers and many other sources. As I've already improved several music-related lists before, I can help you finding reliable sources.
  • Remember to be neutral and only uses short descriptions which can easily be checked (eg. the info is already sourced in the artist's article).
I hope you'll enjoy improving this list.
Regards,

Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Good job.

Lynchenberg (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Singlechart_called_without_song[edit]

Hi Synthwave.94, I am wondering now how we can remove the category? I understand it's not needed for the link to work, but the category isn't something to be ignored completely. Either way, both versions work. I appreciate advice because this template isn't used when I was heavily editing WP before. I'm probably missing something. Thanks! --Efe (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know how we are supposed to remove these categories. I guess we can ask for its deletion, as it doesn't appear to be useful in any way. The song parameter is unecessary for several singlechart templates, including the Canadatopsingles, Dutch40 and UK templates. The Ireland2 template is also a bit special. For example, if you search "20 th century boy", you'll find something. But if you search "20th century boy", nothing appears. Synthwave.94 (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll probably post a request for comment at the cat talk page. Thanks!! --Efe (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

2 Unlimited[edit]

I was in doubt if I would add this category or not, but when I took a look at the list, a group like: Cappella was also included. That's the reason I desided to add it. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Without no doubt an error. I will remove this category from this article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I've done the same with SASH!. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to Breaking Benjamin[edit]

WP:DUEWEIGHT does not apply because post-grunge and alternative metal are subgenres of alternative rock and hard rock. There has already been an extensive discussion on the matter, and consensus was reached, so by changing it you are editing against consensus. That's fine, but don't proceed to edit war when you're reverted. Kind regards, User:Jacedc (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if "post-grunge" and "alternative metal" are subgenres of another one, you're still giving undue weight to "alternative rock". You cannot ignore one of a band main genres just because there's a minor redundancy. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You're free to feel that way, but you are not free to continue to revert without discussion. You need to find a new consensus through a new discussion, or you need to drop it. Editing contrary to an active consensus is considered disruptive, and may get you blocked from editing. WP:UNDUE weight is a subjective matter, and not a free pass to ignore prior consensus. Its a reason to discuss.
On a similar note, since its disrupting other articles as well - there is no requirement for there to be consistency between the infobox and the musical style sections. Quite the opposite, its very common for the infobox to be more brief, and then the musical style section to be more detailed cover all the other related genre. As I said, many featured articles like Smashing Pumpkins and Tool (band) take this approach. And while no, FAs are not perfect, they are peer reviewed and passed under considerable scrutiny, and thus considered an example of precedent. Conversely, your idea that they need to be consistent seems to be arbitrary - I'm not aware of any guidelines or precedent for keeping them consistent. Its great that you're evaluating references and tweaking sources as a result, but some of these other decisions you're making are not helpful. Sergecross73 msg me 04:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It's OK to discuss it if it's necessary. However would you make me believe that checking sources for genres and having correctly sourced categories is unhelpful ? WP:CATDEF clearly says "Categorization of articles must be verifiable", which means, in this case, that genre-related categories such as American alternative rock musical groups must be correctly sourced in the article. This is one of the main reason why I regularly make sure there's a consistency between the infobox, the musical style section (if this section is included in the article, of course) and the categories section. I discovered a page which says Wikipedia should be consistent, an abandonned guideline every article should follow. I always follow what this page suggests because it's a good way to clean up articles, including good and featured articles. Now would you make me believe that the kind of changes I made unecessary and disruptive ? As I said featured articles and often lack consistency. If I take the exemple of Tool, I can see "progressive metal" is unsourced, as well as the categories American avant-garde metal musical groups and American post-metal musical groups. That's clearly not an exemple of what the best articles on Wikipedia should look like, honestly, even if the rest of the article seems to be correctly sourced. I think that Wikipedia:Consistency proposal should be better known because it is much more important than you can imagine to improve articles. Of course the page talks about "consistency" in its general definition, but you can apply it to everything, including music genres. Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I just removed two unsourced categories from the Smashing Pumpkins article. It's another proof that featured articles are not perfect and require a in-depth clean up from time to time and not a one-time peer review. Synthwave.94 (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
NB : I've been doing the same thing with many, many other articles without receiving any negative comments and without being reverted (I am sometimes thanked for my work, just saying). Synthwave.94 (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, after watching the recent activity at that article and others, here's my two cents: I'm a bit more neutral on this matter. I agree with you on the "redundancy" issue and the consistency issue, to an extent, but consensus should also be respected. I know you are doing these edits in good faith, but as Jacedc and Sergecross mentioned, genres were discussed in the past. The previous discussion got a little heated, so I'm not sure if we should really go through another one of those.
I don't particularly agree with your recent edits to the Nickelback article either. Honestly, how often are Nickelback described as heavy metal or nu metal anyway? Those would be the ones I would keep out of the infobox. After some Google searches, those came up with the least results, compared to the other genres. Besides, WP:DUEWEIGHT is also something to take into consideration. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I first didn't see there was a consensus about Breaking Benjamin genres, but I'm now aware of the consensus. However I'm not sure about starting about a new discussion about it really a minor problem I wanted to fix and I really don't want to waste several days to talk about it. Regarding Nickelback genres I simply cleaned up the article, realizing there was an unsourced and highly dubious category (Category:Canadian death metal musical groups) as well as a lot of dead links (I changed/archived them all). I also noticed "nu metal" was removed by another user (which seems to dislike the label). Anyway I wanted to make sure there was a certain consistency throughout the article. However I agree with you that it's a bit strange to see Nickelback being labelled as "nu metal" (even if some of their songs seem to be quite metal-oriented). Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I just removed the three genres with only two references from the infobox, but I kept the corresponding categories (Canadian alternative rock groups, Canadian heavy metal musical groups and Canadian nu metal musical groups) as they are at least sourced under the musical style section. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think you need to change your fundamental understanding of when its necessary to discuss. If anyone challenges you, and you want to keep pursuing the change, you need to discuss. That's when its necessary, plain and simple. There is no "I didn't think it was necessary" or "I'm hard-pressed to believe you'd convince me otherwise". Its in a good faith challenge. (Its all in WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, and WP:CONSENSUS.) Honestly, if your case is as clear-cut as you say, you should be happy to discuss, as you should have no problem convincing people of a consensus in your favor. Similarly, if you want to cite an inactive guideline, you're going to need to go through the discussion to make it active before you're going to be convincing anyone of its rationale.

Like I said, the source checking, removing unsourced genre, yes, that is good and helpful. (though I doubt you'd have a hard time finding basic ones like calling Tool prog-metal). Tidying up infobox/style sections - also great. The problem is when you're ignoring active consensus, refusing to discuss, continuing to revert, and citing a consistency concept that isn't attributed to any consensus or active guideline. And if you don't like these long, drawn out discussions, then I recommend following through on these sorts of things, so you don't have all these complaints all over your talk page, which are probably going to lead to more dicussion than if you had just started a talk page discussion. (Not to mention, you've already got 3 editors irritated with you actions, if you keep this up, its only a matter of time before someone takes you to WP:ANI, and let me tell you, if you don't like drawn out discussion, you're not going to like it there...)

Also, since you keep mentioning it - I don't have any issues with your category changes. Do whatever you want with those, I don't place much importance on them, as I believe they're largely ignored by the casual/mainstream reader. I haven't particularly objected to any of your category moves, if I've reverted them, its merely because you made a bunch of changes all in one edit, and they happened to be involved. Do what you've got to do there, I'm more concerned about the infobox/style sections edits. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I simply wanted to improve in a quick but effective way the Breaking Benjamin article. I would probably start a discussion to restore the "alternative rock" genre, but it's definitly not my priority. I honestly never needed keeping the guideline as no one asked me about justifying the "consistency" issue I'm trying to fix each time I edit an article.
Regarding the Tool article, I never said it would be difficult to find a source for "progressive metal", I simply wanted to make you understand that there's a lack of consistency in featured articles as well, not simply in stubs or any average article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that, aside from if you want to change it you should talk about it, you also seem to have a misunderstanding of the genres you're dealing with. Hard rock and alternative rock are both very very broad genres, and are parent genres of post-grunge and alternative metal. So the wording in the musical style section should remain, because if you simply list them by commas it makes it seem as though alternative rock and post-grunge are two equally-different genres, when that's not the case. It's for this same reason that DUEWEIGHT doesn't apply. Regardless of your self-affirmation and all-to-common focus on genre fiddling, these fundamental lexical distinctions need to be understood.

And also, as for your source checking, the Childers 2015 reference for the hard rock mention was a simple error (thanks for correcting it), but Wiederhorn 2015 clearly mentions hard rock twice. Furthermore, the phrasing "primarily classified as" is appropriate because there are several other random designations by some websites that don't have nearly enough weight to be included in the article (nu metal, heavy metal, and prog rock being examples—yes, really.) User:Jacedc (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if "hard rock and alternative rock are both very very broad genres", that's still your own knowledge about the genres and not what the sources say. An alternative rock band is not necessarily a post-grunge band or an alternative metal band (a good exemple ? the Red Hot Chili Peppers). It's the same thing for a hard rock band (think AC/DC or Buckcherry). On another hand, alternative metal bands are not necessarily alternative rock bands (never heard of Korn being labelled as alternative rock). This is the reason why I changed the wording in the musical style section : it's a personal statement which is not reflected by the sources you used to support them. So it's not about understanding the link between genres, but it's about sticking to source to avoid an OR-oriented statement. It's exactly the same thing for "primarily classified as", which should logically apply to hard rock only, as there are more sources for this genre. If you really want to prove the four genres kept in the article are actually "the main genres" of the band then you need to add more "random designations" supported by, for exemple, one or two sources. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, no, the fact that alternative rock and hard rock are parent genres of alternative metal and post-grunge is reliably sourced—otherwise, that's not what those respective articles would say. And I'm not saying an alternative rock band is invariably also a post-grunge band—I'm saying a post-grunge band is invariably a type of alternative rock band. Again, lexical distinctions that you need to understand. These misunderstandings only betray the fact that you're unfamiliar with what you're dealing with and thus shouldn't be so obsessive about genre fiddling. Everyone thinks they're an expert on genres, but maybe you should follow your own advice—stick to the sources.
Similarly, in the way that you should follow your own advice, is to not condone the addition of obscure designations, as that would go against DUEWEIGHT. Again, follow your own advice. User:Jacedc (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Sources used to support the four genres in the article don't say the genres are linked together. It's irrelevent what I think or what you know about it anyway. Each genre should be given the same weigth and the first sentence in the musical style section should be changed. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
No except they do matter. Changing the sentence to the way you're wanting is like saying "X band's musical style is classified as rock, punk, hard rock, and pop punk". See how that doesn't make any sense? Hard rock is a subgenre of rock, and pop punk is a subgenre of punk, therefore the sentence should be refactored as "X band's musical style is classified as rock and punk, more specifically hard rock and pop punk." User:Jacedc (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense if the number of sources which supports each genre is the same or if how often the band plays a specific genre is mentioned somewhere else in the article. In your exemple, the band may play straight rock and punk rock, but are also known for performing hard rock and pop punk as well (which is perfectly possible and prove the link between genre doesn't matter). Can you see the difference ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The number of sources has nothing to do with the logic of the sentence. But I do see what you mean, the sentence as it stands sounds as if they don't play anything other than post-grunge and alternative metal, but keep in mind post-grunge is also super super broad as well and can encompass anything literally post-grunge. User:Jacedc (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hard rock is also very broad. Does it mean we should remove it from the infobox too ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, according to pre-discussed consensus, no. Mainly because hard rock is the most widely-used designation. Additionally, together alternative metal and post-grunge comprise alternative rock, at least to some extent, which is why we decided to remove alt rock (there used to be all four in the infobox which was too many for a fairly straightforward rock band). User:Jacedc (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course the answer is "no". I simply wanted to show you that if "alterative rock" is considered a very broad genre then it's exactly the same thing for "hard rock", which makes your comment about alternative rock nonsensical. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The only reason I'd say to not remove hard rock is because for one, it has far more sources for it than any of the other genres, and second, it's the most straightforward and applicable genre. People would sooner call Breaking Benjamin straight up hard rock than post-grunge or alternative metal, which really only applies to their earlier stuff and isn't at all accurate for their latest stuff.
Do keep in mind that in the original genre debate, I argued for only "hard rock, alternative rock" because there's no reason to list two subgenres of alternative rock. But then I realized that it's not necessary to remove two genres, so I conceded that just "alternative rock" could go. But personally I'd still be in favor of replacing PG and AM with AR. User:Jacedc (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hard rock has currently more sources, but you can easily find reliable sources which explicitly describe Breaking Benjamin as "alternative rock". It means one can give as much weigth to this genre as hard rock, meaning that once again I don't see any reason to remove the genre from the infobox. I don't care about the post-grunge and alternative metal genres. They can stay in the infobox, because they are both correctly sourced, but alternative rock should be kept too. Synthwave.94 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean weight*. And no, all of the sources that support alternative rock and other genres also support hard rock (well, a lot of them anyway). Feel free to add more genre sources if you want, but as it stands, hard rock is the most sourced. The onus is on you to provide more sources if you want to push in that direction.
And I din't think PG and AM should stay in the infobox. Yes, they're sourced, but they're just redundant of hard rock and alternative rock, which are their parent genres, and the infobox documentation says to aim for generality. How can we aim for generality if we're listing two well-sourced genres and then also listing two of their subgenres that also happen to be specified in the sources? It doesn't make any sense. But as I said on the talk page, I've seen no arguments brought to the table that would trump pre-existing consensus, so no change is happening until then. Sorry. User:Jacedc (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Just added some extra sources to the article to prove what I'm talking about. "Aiming for generality" doesn't mean reducing genres to one or two and doesn't say you cannot include subgenres/associated genres. One genre and its subgenre can easily be included in the infobox and still aiming for generality (eg. new wave and synthpop for most early to mid 80s bands/projects). Alternative rock and post-grunge/alternative metal exactly illustrates this situation too. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to note, past discussions at the talk page of the template where it says to "aim for generality" indicated that subgenres can be used and that the phrase is more of an advisory, rather than an actual guideline to take literally. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the reason why you rarely see "rock" in infobox for rock groups who are known for specific rock subgenres (eg. AC/DC for hard rock, Yes for progressive rock, etc) Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Audio sample upload question[edit]

Hello. You appear to know a lot about Wikipedia and its music articles. I tried uploading a sound sample onto Wikipedia with a song from an album I bought on CD (and put onto my computer) and for some reason I wasn't able to upload even though I filled out all the required fields. I do feel like it might be because the audio was m4a instead of MP3. I didn't download an MP3 of the song because that's illegal (unless you download it and buy it at the same time on iTunes). How do I upload a song (in an m4a) that comes from a CD I bought and how do I put it into a 30-second sample? Statik N (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I can't give you an actual answer. I never uploaded audio samples so far, only images. However here are some useful links I found in "My Favorites" :

I hope it can help you. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem to have removed[edit]

the thread here about Money (That's What I Want) I am assuming that you do not want to discuss it here. Your page, your call. Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And ? I've got the right to remove previous discussions from my talk page if I want to. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
absolutely. Carptrash (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for universal help on music articles![edit]

I know you recently edited the Private Music record label page, inserting new-age for New Age. I undid the edit, as New Age is the reliably commercial name of a specific music genre. All the best in 2016! (KarenJohnsonKJPR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenJohnsonKJPR (talkcontribs) 02:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at the corresponding article, as well as WP:GENRECAP. Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like an answer, please. What is your obsession with the Private Music entry on Wikipedia? I am an expert on New Age music, which is a bonafide music industry recording and stylistic genre. It is spelled this way -- New Age. Thank you for stopping the harassment, in advance.
And, what do you mean by attempting to demean my contributions to a subject I sweat bullets for? How dare you tell me I have no authority to make edits. How did you put it -- "an authority you obviously don't have." Well, please do tell. When did you become the arbiter of (Everything). Happy New Year.
@KarenJohnsonKJPR: I just answered you here. The article for the musical genre is new-age music per WP:GENRECAP (= Names of musical or literary genres do not require capitalization at all, unless the genre name contains a proper name such as the name of a place) and because of discussions at Talk:New-age music where it was decided to keep an hyphen. This is the reason why I changed "New Age" into "new-age" in "your" article. Note that it doesn't matter that you're an "expert" in new-age music or not (and you don't seem to be a real one, as you don't spell "new-age" the good way). Instead you need to focus Wikipedia rules and guidelines, including WP:GENRECAP, as well as WP:AGF. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"How dare you tell me I have no authority to make edits". That's not what I said. I only said you seem to be very close to the article while not letting other editors editing the article because of your own thoughts on the subject. Note that this article doesn't belong to you and I'm free to edit the article if I want to, as far as I don't vandalize and violate core rules such as WP:OR. I suggest you reading WP:OWN and to stop your behaviour. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Excuse me, it was necessary for you to say, "you don't seem to be a real one?" Really? Is responding in a demeaning way part of your expertise. Thank you for the articles. KarenJohnsonKJPR — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenJohnsonKJPR (talkcontribs) 21:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It was only to make you understand that "New Age" shouldn't be capitalized, which I think you've understood now, but I didn't attempt to demean you in any way. I apologize if I did as it wasn't my intention. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I Shot the Sheriff[edit]

I went back the origional source (RPM Top Singles) and I was able to confirm that you are correct "I Shot the Sheriff" was a number hit for two weeks. Given that you are correct are you going to correct List of number-one singles of 1974 (Canada)?

I intend to improve this list later, as well as other list of number-one singles, later. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What I Am (Edie Brickell) genre[edit]

I noticed you deleted the genre+source I entered for the Edie Brickell song "What I Am". What's wrong with the allmusic source that I provided (for "pop rock")? I understand deleting other genre entries elsewhere in the article (not made by me and unsourced), but I believe my source was valid. Temeku (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Temeku: The song is never described as "pop rock" in the biography (and note that AllMusic sidebars are not considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid). Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Black 'Wonderful Life' Australian chart peak.[edit]

Hi, you reverted my edit on the Wonderful Life page, stating "Don't see any valid reason to remove the peak position from the official website" as your edit reason. Yet, I provided a reliable source and explanation in my edit reason for the change. Furthermore, the "official website" you mention, australian-charts.com, only has a chart archive dating back to 26th June 1988, which was when ARIA commenced producing the ARIA Chart in-house. See http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/25-years-ago-this-week-june-26-1988.html for an explanation of the change-over from the Kent Music Report to the ARIA-produced chart.

The reference I listed - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uKBp7ZppEzc/UYDzU9Mj8EI/AAAAAAAACV0/eFrJQuJrdmE/s1600/June+5,+1988.jpg - is an actual scan of the top 50 ARIA Chart for that week, showing "Wonderful Life" at #7. Also see this screen-shot from the pdf version of Gavin Ryan's "Australia's Music Charts 1988-2010" book showing the HP (highest position) for the 'Wonderful Life' single being #7: http://i.imgur.com/Pdh0Ojk.png .

Furthermore, see http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/25-years-ago-this-week-april-17-1988.html which lists 'Wonderful Life' peaking at #7. Although it is a blog, it is reliable as it provides scans of the printed ARIA top 50 charts from each week.

Please do not revert this edit again.Nqr9 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I've seen your edit, with the explanation "source doesn't even say it's the Kent Music Report, but the ARIA singles chart." Again, if you read See http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/25-years-ago-this-week-june-26-1988.html you will see an explanation that ARIA had licensed the Kent Music Report chart until late June 1988. The scan of the chart states the 'Australian Music Report', which is what the Kent Report chart was later known as.Nqr9 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you realize your sources are blogs and not official websites ? Also I can read "ARIA Singles Chart" on this scan. There's no mention of the Kent Music Report anywhere. Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you actually read my posts (where I stated that yes I know it is a blog - but it is a reliable and verifiable blog) or check the links I posted here explaining that ARIA licensed the Kent Report Chart (which was later branded as the Australian Music Report)? If you look at the chart scan it says: "authorised and endorsed by the Australian Record Industry Association;" not produced by the Australian Record Industry Association.Nqr9 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, at the bottom of the chart it states "this chart was compiled by Australian Music Report from record sales." Compare this with the first ARIA-produced chart - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-30LYnDgjvz0/UcbeVDf9KsI/AAAAAAAACZM/1NvPe5PCQmA/s1600/June+26,+1988.jpg - "Compiled from record sales throughout Australia by the Australian Record Industry Association Ltd.".Nqr9 (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Vertical vs. horizontal citations[edit]

This is starting to become a pet peeve of mine, because there's nothing wrong with vertical cites. I find them easier to read and edit. They're totally acceptable in the Wikipedia citation guidelines; the guidelines don't recommend one over the other. There's nothing "correct" about the horizontal style vs. the vertical style, and there's nothing that requires "consistency" - they're both fine. It's just personal preference. I don't run around changing horizontal citations to vertical ones - why would you change vertical ones to horizontal? Rockypedia (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines clearly recommand to use a consistent citation style all over an article. Stop your unhelpful changes and stick to the one used all over the article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you show me where that guideline is? I have not seen that, and I have looked through the entire vertical and horizontal citation specifications.Rockypedia (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:CITEVAR. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
That talks about "Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags," - not vertical vs. horizontal. They're both <ref>-tag based, and the difference between them is not a difference in "major citation styles", as they are both the same style, i.e., <ref>. Can you be more specific? Rockypedia (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It's still part of this guideline. You're adding a new citation style, with incorrect parameters, and I changed all of this to respect the guideline. All simply. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
That's just it, it's not at all a new style. It's the <ref> style in both cases. So it doesn't fall under that guideline at all. In addition, WP:CYCLE is being violated, as you made a change, it was reverted, but rather than discuss and wait for a consensus, you reverted back. You're supposed to leave the status quo in place until the discussion is resolved. It is not resolved, as we are still discussing it. So you should change it back until it's resolved. Rockypedia (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It was you who violated this guideline, as you first added a badly formatted citation style. It's up to you to start a discussion, not me. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous statement. How is a "badly formatted citation style" one that is described in detail in Wikipedia's style guide? It's right here. My cites are as valid as yours. Also, the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. You didn't revert my edit. You changed my edit, I reverted it, and you reverted it back without discussing it first. Rockypedia (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on this issue here. As it appears you are insisting that the vertical style is verboten, I suggest we move our discussion there, since it appears we will not come to an agreement here. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop your unhelpful changes and respect the current, horizontal format used all over the article. It is also badly formatted as you didn't even use the correct parameters (eg. "cite journal" for a magazine, with "magazine=", etc.) Now stop your disruptive behaviour. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I've tried very hard to avoid taking this to 3RR and applying for a block, but it apparent from your statement of "I've been edited the article for a long time" that you regard this article as your own personal fiefdom, and you have no interest in actually resolving the question of whether vertical cites can peacefully co-exist with horizontal cites (they can, according to consensus here. So okay, I guess discussing this with me on the talk page, and opening it to discussion @ MOS, has not been the path you wanted. I suppose you will go ahead and break the 3RR eventually. I'm sorry to see that. Rockypedia (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a huge difference between cleaning up after other editors (which is perfectly permitted and not disruptive in any way) and "owning" an article. You're not supposed to undo good faith actions without even respecting well known guidelines. I'm regularly thanked for these kind of actions, something you probably don't care about, but that I still want to let you know. Solving the problem is actually very simple : give up and respect the horizontal form used all over the article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I can tell you feel passionately about the articles that you edit often, and I think a couple of other editors noticed that too, judging by the talk page, and I'm pretty sure you're not a bad guy. I guess I'm from the other side of the spectrum - I don't really look for people to thank me for edits and I don't regard any edits I make, even when I make a ton of them on one article, as a sign that I have more authority over that article than others. It's easy to fall into that trap and start taking things personally, and I hope I haven't offended you, because I'm not looking to make enemies out of editors that do constructive work, as you do. I just wanted clarification that vertical cites can co-exist with horizontal cites, and I feel that's been resolved. Cheers! Rockypedia (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)