User talk:Walter Görlitz

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

Alex Morgan[edit]

I have done a test on the website and typed the following in:- <!-- Start copy --><!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <style> table, th, td { border: 1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse; } th, td { padding: 5px; text-align: left; } </style> </head> <body> <h2>Cell that spans two rows:</h2> <table style="width:100%"> <tr> <th>Name:</th> <td>Bill Gates</td> </tr> <tr> <th rowspan=3>Telephone:</th> <td>55577854</td> </tr> <tr> <td>55577855</td> </tr> <tr> <td>55585434</td> </tr> </table> </body> </html><!-- Finish copy --> which comes out with the result which the 'Telephone' bit spans three rows. Whether the numbers are quoted or not, it works both ways.

Thanks for giving me the website, it will help to avoid table preview errors in the future. Iggy (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It does come out the same only because browsers allow for it, but the HTML standard is to quote the numbers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages[edit]

Hi Walter. You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Style. I've gone ahead and added a source to back up your recent addition to August 2. Please try to find sources for additions to these pages as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Then 100% of the entries should be removed as none are sourced. Pretty stupid time to make this change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Correction, only one is sourced: Alain Giresse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the idea is to start improving the articles. The exemption from WP:V was recently changed and some of us are trying to ensure that new additions meet the quality goals. I think you can appreciate efforts to raise the quality of what Wikipedia delivers. Your help would be appreciated. Toddst1 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Toddst1: Thanks. Perhaps {{citation needed}} would be appropriate on new entries until this is more well-known, say until the end of March. Should be easy enough to source from the articles though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


Happy New Year![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
7&6=thirteen () 17:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: Thanks! Just saw this. Happy new year to you as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC comment[edit]

How is the RFC not worded neutrally? I asked if should we do it, and confirm what a "yes" or "no" stance would be. It doesn't get any more basic than that. Sergecross73 msg me 04:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You only offered a binary choice: should dates be included or not? There is are other options: let the number of entries determine whether they're included; form a consensus based on sub-project (pop, metal, jazz, etc); local consensus. I ignored the binary option and an admin could determine that my response is not within keeping and ignore my response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, it wasn't meant to imply a binary option, it was merely meant to display the general idea of the dispute to those unfamiliar with music template editing, and confirm what exactly a "Yes" or "No" stance would mean. For example, I've come across a number of RFCs and discussions where people don't pay attention to the wording of the question, and it becomes unclear what exactly they're supporting. Some say "Yes, include it" while other's say "Yes, exclude it", and it gets confusing when it comes time to figure out the consensus. I'd welcome a viable third option, and I think people generally know that they can propose whatever they want in RFCs, so I don't really think its an issue. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, Walter. Thanks for your kind introduction to Wikipedia! I'm excited to be a contributor here! Sethowens (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Liner notes[edit]

I am going by what Allegeon's past album links say.

Sorry if you did not like my edits, I was just trying to be helpful. MetalSword (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


I had actually already submitted an SPI request to have InterestingCircle checked against Motivação about 15 minutes before you did. So since we don't actually need to have two simultaneous requests open for the same users on the same evidence, I just wanted to let you know that I merged yours into mine as a followup "user comment" instead of a full separate request. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror[edit]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 01:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't need to identify with the show any more the dozen or so other program articles I have edited. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tommy Sims[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tommy Sims. NeilN talk to me 17:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

How to add a citation[edit]

You added to the Hawk Nelson page that I needed to add a citation. How do I do that? Cruzin64 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hey there. I've started a request for comment that you might be interested in – feel free to have your say when you get a chance. Thanks. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Twenty One Pilots[edit]

Thoughts on Regional at Best? Are they still the same as before? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(Talk:Twenty One Pilots#Follow-up on Regional at Best)


Hi Walter. A courtesy note to let you know I've closed an RFC you initiated, at Zwarte_Piet#RfC_about_the_character's_visual_state. Apologies for the delay in closing this request for comment; there is a backlog and it's being worked through as quickly as possible. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018 Removal of tag close[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering why you removed the tag close (<br />) I added to the Hudson's Bay (retailer) page in this edt? As far as I know it makes no material difference to display, but if you have the syntax highligherter gadget enabled (as I do) the lack of closed tags causes problems and the whole rest of the article is highlighted as if it is part of the br tag. I only make this change if I notice it while making other edits, and until now didn't think it was a problem. Thanks, Beevil (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beevil: I did not remove the break, I changed it from the unnecessary XHTML break and used the standard HTML 5 break. Since it makes no material difference to display, why add it? The syntax highlighter is out-of-date and needs to be updated with HTML5 standards as XHTML has been superseded by HTML5. I only make this change if I notice it while making other edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say you removed the break, just the close. The MediaWiki software itself apparently converts <br> tags to <br /> internally, so I don't see how one is any more appropriate than the other in articles. Regardless, I have no control over the syntax highlighter, but <br /> makes it a little easier to use for those who have it enabled, while changing to <br> has no benefit to you or anyone else. I only asked originally to make sure there wasn't an important reason to use one over the other that I'd missed. Beevil (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected. You stated I removed the tag close, not the break. As a user of that tool you have a choice of whether to use it or not. You also have the choice to talk to the maintainer of the tool or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi Walter Görlitz, do you know what genres the staff at FACT Mag are calling "Nuh Ready Nuh Ready" by Calvin Harris here please? Theo (contribs) 07:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Neither reviewer really makes a clear statement. The closest is that it's "dancehall". They both address the use of "dub horns", but horns aren't really an element of dubstep, so that's a bit confusing. The only other clear attestation is "pop". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you think it's clear enough that I can add the source to the infobox as a ref for dancehall and pop? Also, when Wilson calls it pop, does he mean song made for charts or the genre of popular music? Thanks. Theo (contribs) 16:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
For dancehall, yes. Pop? Not really. It's too broad a category and the specific definition we use is not necessarily what the author had in mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Added it as a ref for dancehall, that was really helpful, thanks. Theo (contribs) 20:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


I was following this shock VivaSlava for awhile. ...thought he was doing better with useless edits....but have not looked over there edits in some time. Have you noticed an overall problem? Charles lindberg vs VivaSlava.--Moxy (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: Not too much. Just not using edit summaries. The evidence seems clear to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no doubt it's him I just find it easier following this shock then finding and following all the other names he will try to use. Been at it for 4 years now.--Moxy (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi. Earlier in February, you changed subheadings on two Duran Duran articles (including the main one) to semicolons [1]. Per WP:PSEUDOHEAD however, we shouldn't use semicolons to bold anything other than description lists anymore. Bold is also preferred for screen readers. Thanks. Ss112 21:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Ss112:. I forgot that the correct way was to make them bold—I had it completely backward—and have applied the correct formatting consistently recently after re-reading PSEUDOHEAD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ellac (musician)[edit]

Not sure what happened here. There was no visible PROD when I tagged it with the AfD and I didn't get an edit conflict. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Perception (NF album)[edit]

You cited MOS:NUM in your edit summary. Where on that article does it support what you changed? I'm reading: "Generally, in article text: Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." Hence my change of "3.5 out of 5" to "three-and-a-half out of five". I don't think a rating really falls under the category of mathematical formulae, which say use figures instead of words. Ss112 22:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: MOS:NUMNOTES and MOS:FRAC. Sorry. I just assume everyone knows these. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
From what I understand of what I'm reading there, it states it can be written either way, but I suppose it's best to have consistency on the article considering "No. 1" is used later on. Ss112 23:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
That's MOS:NUMERO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

How can I keep from singing.[edit]

I don't have the technical skills to make editing changes to Wikipedia, so I don't think I'll try in future. After checking The Christian Pioneer Vol. 23 1869, p39 on Internet Archive, I was simply trying to correct an inconsistency between the correct publication date (1869) cited in the text, and the incorrect publication note in the accompanying footnote. I suspect from checking the footnoted source that the publication date of the Atlantic Monthly should be 27 August 1868, not 7 Aug, but I have no means of checking the original publication to be sure.Davidbro (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Date format[edit]

How to change date format in articles while using script? Like with this edit in Hell Can Wait. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: The instructions for "installation" are listed on the page of the script. You add a link to the JavaScript to your profile and the links will be available when you edit any page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


Bearcat, others and myself were bold and updated the text at WP:CANPLACE. If you have not noticed, you should review. But I think there is nothing there you would disagree with. Alaney2k (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Photographer Credit[edit]

Please forgive my ignorance but why is it not proper to credit the photographer mentioned? I clicked on the photo itself -as a link- yet still did not see his name mentioned..?

Thank You for your Time Merseymale (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Merseymale: We do. It's in the image itself. "Taken by Richard Lam" in the original upload. I'm not sure where the guideline is, but it's been the case for years. One photographer objected so much to it, he repeatedly inserted his name in the photos he took, and when he was told he wasn't allowed to, he requested that the photos be deleted from Commons. That too was rejected as he had released them to be used on Commons and no longer legally owned them. A bit more at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#Disruption See also, WP:WATERMARK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I see... Please forgive my ignorance & may I wish you & yours the hope of a Happy Eastertime. Merseymale (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mate (drink) and Murdoch Mysteries[edit]

I'm aware of your excellent policing of Mate (drink), and have thanked you many times for your work there. (I worked on it long ago, and it's on my Watchlist; your policing is greatly appreciated.) Tonight I saw your name on the Talk page for Murdoch Mysteries. My wife discovered that excellent show several days ago, and has been watching early episodes. Almost binge watching, I'm afraid. I watch some of them, too. What a clever and well-done series it is.

It's interesting that both our wiki-interests involve these two not-so-very-mainstream articles. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


Regarding Deadline Hollywood you stated that "websites are not italicized" yet that's how the Deadline Hollywood article is headlined, and how the citation templates render web site names. -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pemilligan: Odd. You're correct. However, use in a reference is not a REPEATLINK. Would you like me to make that change, or would you like to do it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: If you have the time, thank you. Otherwise, I'll get back to it eventually. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pemilligan:  Done. Thanks again for explaining. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Voodoo Children[edit]


I'm new to this site and didn't see the original message I got when you first reverted my edit to JT's page, so I posted it again without understanding what the issue was. I work for his management team and was told to upload his bio to the page, so can you instruct me on how to do this correctly instead of reporting me?

Thanks. Sarah061 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

GA for God's Not Dead (film)[edit]

I'm thinking of nominating God's Not Dead (film) for GA review. Since you have experience, would you have some suggestion to improve it? I'm asking you because you are a major contributor of the article. Thanks, L293D ( • ) 02:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: The GA review will find any potential issues. I tend to focus on form rather than content, and the GA reviews do the opposite. Form is already good, so the process should enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Christian Barnstar.png The Christianity Barnstar
Is hereby awards for your valuable contributions to Christian music. – Lionel(talk) 08:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ref layout[edit]

Hey Walter. What do you mean it's done automatically now? When you revert it goes back to a long list as opposed to 3 columns. Robvanvee 15:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: there's an algorithm now that automatically determines when to use multi-column or not. Not sure what the break-point is, but you can see that in articles with a larger number of references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, never knew that. Then why do some articles with say 10 references still stay in one long column which requires more scrolling and IMO looks far less aesthetically pleasing? I understand that an article with 3 references or less probably doesn't need it but articles with 8-10 references or more in single file looks quite "old school" Wikipedia. Are there policies to read up on this that you are familiar with? Robvanvee 15:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Not sure. You'd have to check the code of the template and which formatting is used in the actual article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Cheers Walter. Robvanvee 07:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

USL edits[edit]

Did my edits cause the pages not to be redirected anymore? It wasn't my intent, just adding stuff so when they become non-redirected..

Roberto221 (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Roberto221: Removing the #REDIRECT has that effect yes. You could take the content and drop them into draft articles in your user space if it's easier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Show Me Heaven[edit]

Thanks for your editing of the introduction to this article which was more appropriate than what I had done! (I admit I had doubts about it). I also wanted to discuss with you the 'other cover versions' section; although what is on the page was already there when I changed the layout of that section, do you agree with me that there is too much unsourced information? Appreciate your input on this. Jccgclrc (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jccgclrc: We should conduct this conversation on the talk page of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 Major League Soccer season[edit]

Did you mean to revert User:‎AmericanSoccer10 in 2018 Major League Soccer season? From your edit summary I think you meant to do mine, which I've now changed. Nfitz (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

PS - why use the further tag in the 2017 (or earlier) articles. There's nothing in particular relevant in there about the 2017 standings. Nfitz (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
You're probably right on the 2018 article. We don't need a template to link to the conference, you're right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

JJsCat's content[edit]

Okay, so I didn't read the first time. My mistake. A question then: why are you moving JJsCat's content? Why can't they do it themselves? Also, I'm just asking you questions, I'm not coming to you argumentatively, so you don't have to revert all my talk page messages. Ss112 17:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: I figured as much, and I mean to hit "revert good faith", but the JavaScript button moved as the page was drawing.
Good question. The history isn't that important, but the move wouldn't be inappropriate. It's my understanding that JJsCat is a bit of a newbie and may not have the facility that a more seasoned editor would have. We had discussed a move, but after looking at the history, I didn't think it was necessary.
And I didn't assume an argument was ensuing, just you trying to figure out the method to my madness. I wouldn't oppose a move even at this point. I questioned the genres (clearly they're from the previous album, and no one seems to have commented on the genre in the reviews). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Isn't there a concern about attribution about you moving JJsCat's created content though? Ss112 17:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ss112: A bit, but he actually created the page so any notices that would go to the creator would still go to the editor. I suppose I could ask. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


I really need to figure out how to cite references correctly beyond just a ref tag. You'd think that after all this time I could do it, but I keep forgetting and then try and add a ref in a hurry. Canterbury Tail talk 00:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I was happy to fill them in for you, but I did a face-palm when I saw that you added the bare refs: I thought essentially what you just wrote here. My opinion is that it's better to have a bare ref that someone can fill-in with a cheesy tool like the ones I use, than to have no ref because you want to supply a "correctly formatted" ref and can't figure out how to do it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Quotations of Google Books linked via ISBN code[edit]

Hi. I have only noted that wiki articles with too long URL's are not saved and published. You may try this. Google Shortener it wil stop in 2019 and just now is become only for registered users.

A shorter URL is more readable and, while editing the article, users will not have any problem to their sight on changing only a paragraph.

It is compliant with the guidelines on using some identifier code in quoting books and so on.

If you have this information directly in the URL, it is easier any user add it, instead of having an other attribute for ISBN or similar code.Micheledisaverio (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Micheledisaverio (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The Gathering (band)[edit]

Terrible article--typical for such bands which have some kind of following but never made the big time, esp. non-American or English bands. I listened to a few tracks from a 2006 album and was pleasantly surprised: I half-expected trash, but it wasn't bad at all. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Not familiar with the band. Not sure how it ended up on my watchlist, but I've been watching it for a while. Still haven't listened to them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I listened to a few songs from Home. Haha I'm a bit embarrassed cause right now I'm playing some really old stuff. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

non-notable EP[edit]

Hey, if I can ask for some assistance, may I request you to weigh in on the Rosecrance (EP) page and the war emitting over this release which is totally non-notable for a user so persistent to continuously revive the page? Just asking this of you as you seem to be able to argue in this topic better than I can. If you don't want to, that's fine too. Second Skin (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Thank you very much for this because I was honestly baffled when you reverted a ton of sourced information with no summary ahaha. Seemed very out of character for you. Sock (tock talk) 12:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sock: Yes. Sorry. I didn't see the fully explained edits since you made several and they all made sense. Sorry for the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Revised Choir bio[edit]

Hi, Walter... just wanted to have you review and assess my revised bio of The Choir. I know we've had our differences in the past, some of which were due to my ignorance of certain Wikipedia guidelines, so I thought I'd reach out to you first. I've made a very concerted effort to provide thorough sources, and remove any POV language. Some sources may not be considered acceptable, since they're not mainstream publications, but I'll let you assess that. I'd rather work with you than battle each other with edits. :-) TARDIS (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a few questions for you: 1) What are your thoughts on removing the sources tag? Has the rewrite met those standards? 2) What do you think about removing the 2017 touring lineup? It's now been mentioned a couple of times in the text above, and it's not like the band reformed with her permanently.TARDIS (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"Soccer Bowl" as trophy or competition[edit]

In reverting my edit, you said Soccer Bowl "(is) also the name of the competition". It was the name of the competition in the past, but the relevant article states with sources that in 2013 the league renamed its playoffs ‘The Championship’, the ultimate championship match ‘The Championship Final’ and the trophy itself "The Soccer Bowl". The NASL's website indicates that those names were still in effect as of 2017, the last season played.[2] That is precisely the confusion I was trying to clear up with my edit. Thanks! SixFourThree (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree

Narnia Tag[edit]

I removed the tag because it wasn't relevant anymore... not because it was "old" TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheRealWeatherMan: Yet you wrote, "removed outdated tag", and would not associated "outdated" with "irrelevant". The tag was better updated than removed, and that is what I did. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

sorry bout that. Best Regards TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FLRC for List of Vancouver Whitecaps FC players[edit]

I have nominated List of Vancouver Whitecaps FC players for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I've contacted you because you have many edits on the page and I wanted your input. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian Saucedo[edit]

Hey, I looked into Sebastian Saucedo further, and you're right. He's American. I missed that he played for the US U20s most recently, because I quickly scanned the international career stats. My mistake. --Ortizesp (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

USL Hartford[edit]

I noticed this awhile back. I know they have interest in it, and the politicos have set aside money to refurbish the stadium but nothing has been officially announced.

Roberto221 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Didn't see your edit notice[edit]

Sorry, I didn't see your edit notice. You wrote, "Please take it to the article's talk page as requested in my edit notice." Can you please direct me to that "edit notice"? Thanks! Holy (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@HolyT: User_talk:Walter_Görlitz/Editnotice should be displayed at some point during your editing activities.
Step 1. Hit edit here.
Step 2. Look above the edit frame. There is text that starts with "Please read this before you leave a comment on this talk page".
That's the way it looks in a browser using the standard skin. I don't know if that applies to you. If not, please let me know as that would be a bug with edit notices. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I see it now. Thanks for pointing that out! Sorry I didn't notice that earlier. I thought you were referring to a notice that came with your revert somehow. Holy (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent revert[edit]

Sorry for the confusion. I accidentally clicked the rollback button when no revert was intended. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 05:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Septrillion: I understand. I've done that more times than I care to remember. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

German national team kit sponsor[edit]

Hi, There is different information at Spanish Wikipedia. [3]. Can you check out the Kit Sponsor history? Is source of spanish wikipedia reliable? Footwiks (talk)

@Footwiks: The sources appear to be screen shots or replicas from I can guarantee these three sources are reliable based on English project rules: the dfb site, Reuters and Der Spiegel. The rest are blogs or fan sites and I'm not sure that they would be RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
So, Do I have to edit English article contents about 3 sources? Can you edit them?Footwiks (talk)
I don't think you do. I think the DFB and Der Spiegel ref are already present and the Reuters article is about them turning down an offer from Nike. I'm not sure what else you'd want to include there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

U.S./United States[edit]

Why did you change U.S. to United States?

Here's the Template:Infobox record label. Check the source code for your Talk Page to see the fields.

Vmavanti (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC) @Vmavanti: That clearly needs to be updated. First, it violates WP:INFOBOXFLAG with the flag thing, and second, there's absolutely no need to constrain it to an abbreviation. As long as it's not linked (which would violate WP:OVERLINK, the full term is a better choice. If it were city, state or province and country, then the abbreviation would be preferable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to contact whoever does the template. Until then, I'm not going change how I've been doing it. I'm going to follow the template, so if you have reverted any more of my changes please revert them back. Having a flag there strikes me as kind of jingoistic. I see no reason to avoid abbreviations, particularly in infoboxes which should be brief anyway, particularly when "US" is acceptable elsewhere. In fact, "U.S." is better than "US". "US" is nothing but "us" capitalized. It looks dumb, lazy, and wrong.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
@Vmavanti: We do the template. US is actually standard in all forms of English except American. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Given that Wikipedia is an American creation and operation, maybe it's best that we do it the American way.
Vmavanti (talk)

Charlie Peacock[edit]

Hello again, Walter. I see you have an interest in Charlie Peacock. You should know that the conventional way of writing record labels (here) is to use the name of the label, to link it and pipe it on its first occurrence, omitting the word "Records" or "Music" (or whatnot) after the name, then add a comma. This is all in the documentation, and nearly all of Wikipedia has it this way. Would you revert the changes you made? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The labels are only to be piped in the infobox. Is there a MoS for it in discographies on musician pages (he asks knowing that he's been trying to get agreement on a music bio MoS for a while and can't get one)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
No, that's wrong. Labels are piped in discographies and usually piped in articles after the first occurrence. Even if it weren't a rule, it's logical. Why repeat the word "records"? Why link the same term over and over and over again? What's the point? Do you have a reason? The label name comes first, then the year. Don't you wonder why the rest of the site does it one way and you do it another? Don't you think there should be consistency across the site, from one article to the next? That's how other encyclopedias, and other reference books, and other professional organizations do things. Do you have good reasons for doing things the opposite way?
Vmavanti (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Vmavanti: so you say it's wrong, but did not provide a Manual of Style. You can argue your point with me, but there is no guideline for it and the only clear documentation for it is for the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
It might be in Wikiproject Jazz, Wikiproject Music, and articles about discographies. Nevertheless, you haven't answered my questions. You seem to be claiming that you are guided only by documentation. But that's wrong. There are other reasons why you use formats that are different from all the other articles. What are those reasons?
Vmavanti (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
When you find it, be sure to point me to it as it's not acceptable for a sub-project of the music project to have their own standard. The classical music project already prefer not to use infoboxes for composers, so this would be a problem. If you want to discuss the need for piping labels in a discography section on a music bio, don't do it on my talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you brought up an exception: Wikiproject Classical doesn't want composers to have infoboxes. I disagree, but maybe they have good reasons. I don't know what they are. But back to the subject we were talking about: What objection do you have to being consistent with the rest of Wikipedia? It seems fair and reasonable.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is flawed. There is no consistency with how record labels are presented on the rest of Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I work mainly in jazz, and in jazz there is a lot of consistency. You are correct that the MOS allows one to choose between "(Columbia, 1989)" and "(1989, Columbia)", but I believe most people use the former. So we disagree.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


Would you like to weigh in this discussion regarding AllMusic should be in infoboxes over other publications. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)