User talk:SNUGGUMS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:XXSNUGGUMSXX)
Jump to: navigation, search

My talk page. Leave me messages here. Post new threads at the bottom of the page. I can also be contacted through email.


Assistance on a song GAN[edit]

I'm hopeful that you might be able to help me with Talk:H.A.T.E.U./GA2. efe and Coolmarc have already declined due to issues with the nominator, but I think that I need an experienced music editor to assist me and hope that you might be willing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not right away, but I'll probably have a look within the next 48 hours. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
That would be fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget about this, please.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Re-evaluation of existing Good Articles[edit]

Hey, Snuggums. I just saw your comment about GA re-evaluations on Dr. Mies' talk page. I have a current GA, Rex Grossman, that was a decent article at the time of promotion, but was carved up after the fact and allowed to deterioriate. I would like to get a GA re-evaluation and critique of the article, and then run it through the GA evaluation process again to bring it back up to snuff. Do you do such re-evaluations? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I do occasionally conduct WP:Good article reassessments (GAR's) to see if they're up to par. From a glance at Grossman's article, there are some uncited claims, though it would take a deeper look into the article before conducting a GAR. I'll give it a more thorough review later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. No rush. It's on my list of 2015 things to do before year's end. It still has the makings of a GA, but probably requires a couple days of word-smithing, sourcing and MOS conformance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Article → Draft[edit]

Hello, when you move an article to draft space (As you did with Purpose) please remember to add a draft tag to the article {{subst:AFC submission/draft new}} and to comment out the categories [[Category:Upcoming albums]][[:Category:Upcoming albums]] thankyou. Azealia911 talk 12:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


I have a feeling I hit the "Thanks" button a lot for your edits. But after the rumor-mongering at Amy Poehler, I want to thank you more personally for your efforts there.

One thing I love about seeing your name and those of a few other equally exceptional colleagues is that it saves me time ... I see an article on my watchlist and think, "Oh, good. Whatever it was, he or she's taken care of it!" --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help, Tenebrae. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review for Bharat Ratna[edit]

Hi. I have listed Bharat Ratna for peer review. Its currently a GA and I would like to take it FAC in the near future. I would really appreciate if you could find some time and provide your comments here. Thanks in advance. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to decline for now, but wish you luck in advance at FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the reply. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

California Gurls[edit]

Hey SNUGGUMS, how are you? Haven't spoken with you in a while! Actually I was busy working and travelling whole my summer in the US, so that's why I became inactive on Wikipedia. So, during one of my travels I was in Los Angeles, I can't explain how much I started loving that city just staying there for 5 days! Now, when I listen to "California Gurls" every moment I spent there flashes in my eyes when I hear the lyrics. I think I love the song even more :) lol. Anyways, I hope you are doing well and see ya around! xoxo — Tom(T2ME) 09:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite well, thank you :). Sounds like you love the babies like you love LA as much as Snoop Dogg; they are known to be unforgettable and melt Popsicles :P. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Haha whaaaaaaaaaaat?! You read my mind, that's my favorite lyric! Ahhh, good times, miss the LA sun so badly! Anyways, nice to hear you are doing well. I am so anxious about Anti right now, I just hope she drops it real soon, not just forget about it and we get it in 2016. — Tom(T2ME) 13:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
So do I. Rihanna's put it off long enough already. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
IKR! We are not used to be waiting so long from her. Usually, we get the material right when she records it. I really think that with this one she prepares something special and that the wait is gonna be worth it in the end. — Tom(T2ME) 13:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure it'll be worth waiting for and that she knows what she's doing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Nom for Thomas Jefferson[edit]

I am about to complete a substantial edit of Thomas Jefferson - on the same (greater, really) level as I recently did for John Adams. I will soon be putting it up for a GA Nom and since you were interested in reviewing Adams, I thought you might have the same enthusiasm for Jefferson. I wanted to make sure you were at least aware of my plan. Thanks again for the work on Adams. Hoppyh (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like quite the goal! I might review Jefferson. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mops and buckets[edit]

Hey, you may recall a while back that you asked me if I should become an admin, and as everyone knows that seems to have been successful (well, I haven't been desysopped yet, anyway). You may also recall even earlier than that that I suggested you might be suitable for the bit once we'd put some time between that silly edit warring block in March 2014. Well, it's about 18 months since then, so how do you feel about it now? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I very much do remember that. As honored as I would feel to become an admin someday, I don't feel ready for it yet. Probably gonna run in 2017 or 2018. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, good to know you might think about it at some point. I was looking through CAT:CSD yesterday with huge backlog (about 30 A7s, if I recall correctly) thinking "where's everybody gone"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi, please stop removing metacritic scores from albums. Metacritic is perfectly stable, and if the score changes, I will adjust it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoore95GAGA (talkcontribs) 18:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not stable at all during the first couple of weeks following album release. Also, I didn't remove the scores; I hid them using a text code that makes things only visible while editing the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly am I being reported? Did you read what I wrote about why I put the meteoritic scores back? You said that 8 reviews is not enough, but Stories by Avicii only has 4. So how can 4 be enough, but 8 can't? Do you not see how you're wrong about this? Also, I am very much willing to talk outside of edit summaries. If you wanted to talk, you could've messaged me. I'm actually the one who started this conversation outside of the edit summaries, so I think it's you who doesn't appear to be willing to talk outside of edit summaries. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You were reported for edit warring because you crossed the 3RR limit by making 7 reverts to an article within 24 hours. They would only be exempt if reverting things like obvious vandalism, copyright violations, or spam. See WP:Edit warring#The three-revert rule for more. What counts as "enough" reviews varies from album to album. Some might get hardly any reviews while others get tons of reviews. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I just say, I just joined Wikipedia about two weeks ago, and I can't stand how people act here. I've seen countless times that people will put metacritic scores on a page, and if it changes, then they adjust it. But you can't just let it go. Just like a lot of people on here. I have tried my best to add useful information here, and almost every time I've done that, I've gotten attacked by someone. I joined because I wanted to make Wikipedia better, but honestly, a lot of people on here are just annoying. Tons of people have opinions, and if someone else's opinion doesn't go with theirs, they find some reason to argue that their opinion is "invalid." People just can't accept the fact that sometimes listening to others is ok. I honestly don't care if I get banned, because I can't stand the reactions I get from people here. People take things so seriously. You all just need to calm down and let some things happen that, God forbid, you might not agree with. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I never doubted your intentions and you definitely have made good edits, such as adding reviews to articles. The problem is reverting so much within a day, which is what edit warring consists of. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

But don't you understand that I wouldn't have had to revert so many times if you could've just accepted the fact that maybe keeping it there would be ok. I could've just updated the score if it ever changed. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't just my opinion. For example, when Madonna's Rebel Heart first came out, multiple editors agreed not to show MetaCritic score so early after its release since scores often go through substantial changes right after release with more and more reviews coming out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Alice Roosevelt Longworth[edit]

Hi SNUGGUMS, I tried to remove the Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Morris" defined multiple times with different content message. I'd love to find out what went wrong. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotje (talkcontribs)

Good Bye[edit]

Im retiring tonight. Good bye. Huon (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Marilyn Monroe[edit]

Hi, any chance you could give this a review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Marilyn Monroe/archive1? A core article if ever there was one which really needs a good review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. Definitely going to be an interesting read. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Stone Cold[edit]

Hi, please stop taking out Stone Cold as a promotional single. It was released a week before Confident was released, but it's not the 3rd single, so what would YOU call it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoore95GAGA (talkcontribs) 12:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Smoore95GAGA, it is neither a single nor promotional single yet. Posting a video of oneself singing a live rendition does not in itself make something a single/promotional single, and to reinsert a Google Play reference to claim a release when the ref doesn't call it a single/promotional single is a violation of WP:No original research. I'm also not sure Google Play in general is a good reference to use for such claims to begin with. Either way, I should note that putting something up for digital download is only a single release/promotional single release if Demi herself and/or other reliable sources call it such. See WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for a sense of what is reliable for music articles and what is not. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


If you don't fix the unclosed ref tag here, any subsequent post to your talk page will have issues. As it is, all the ~~~~ will change to your signature when you fix it. (NeilN) --

Thanks for the notice, NeilN. I was wondering why things were displaying oddly. Should be good now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

recent series of your archiving edits to Nicki Minaj[edit]

Do you know if the archiving bot is broken-down completely? Shearonink (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, but I sometimes just use OneClickArchiver anyway on inactive threads. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Genre question[edit]

How would you define the genre used to describe the title track in this review, do you think I can use either as a genre for the song?

"Her raw soul is at its most commanding on the dance-friendly title track, where she announces, “I am breathing without you/I am somebody without you.”  — Calvin999 14:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Dance-friendly" sounds like more of an influence than a genre, and I'm not sure "soul" is referring to the genre in this case. Best to use a different link for the song's genre(s). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll incorporate it into the composition section but leave the Genre parameter blank with a notice in it. Unfortunately, the album got very sparse reviews and no one gave it a genre.  — Calvin999 15:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! Face-smile.svgThis e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Tara Strong's article[edit]

I noticed you dropped the article to Start. Any reasons? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It honestly seems too short for a C-class. Having quotes from Strong on her works and/or critical reviews of her roles would be helpful. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's further along than Start articles. C-class ones typically still have a bunch of flaws. Her bio section could use some more detail on major works after she moved to the US. I think the early life section was fine. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes it definitely could. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Gaga songs FLC[edit]

What do we do when we resolve all comments, but the reviewer doesn't say if he/she support or not. GagaNutellatalk 15:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't really do much other than say you've addressed the points and notify the reviewer. Thankfully, we've already got three supports, which is the minimal requirement for being promoted to FL. Any additional supports of course are quite welcome. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I see. I might notify them asap. Thank you!!! GagaNutellatalk 16:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Finally we're done. All reviewers have supported our FLC. Next step is her awards, which I think is ready or at least almost ready. Thoughts? GagaNutellatalk 13:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems pretty well-referenced from a glance. I'll take a closer look for prose quality later on before it goes to FLC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, then tell me what you've noticed so we can improve it and nominate. GagaNutellatalk 14:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your close of Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya AFD[edit]

While I agree with the outcome, your close was inappropriate. Per WP:NAC, nonadmins may close discussions as speedy keep if appropriate, but may not close discussions as SNOW keeps. Please revert your SNOW keep close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - If you agree with the outcome then what's the problem ? ..... I've closed a few as such for the past year or 2 & no one's ever cared and that's because there's more important things to worry about than a SNOW Keep close!, COMMONSENSE should override BADNAC!. (Sorry Snuggums hope you don't mind me commenting,) –Davey2010Talk 17:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
My reason for closing as snow was because it got a really large number of reasonable "keep" votes within a short time, though I probably wouldn't have closed it so soon if there were any non-"keep" votes. I also don't see anything in WP:NAC discouraging snow keeps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"After an AfD discussion has run for at least seven days it is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

PR request[edit]

Hi SNUGGUMS, any chance you could review this one? It's been sitting in the queue without attracting any reviews for quite sometime. Vensatry (ping) 18:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at it within a few hours. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

1993 Oscars[edit]

Hello again,

Could you look over 65th Academy Awards for featured list promotion? I understand you are busy, but I would appreciate the help. Thanks.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll do so within a few days. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, was able to do so quicker than I originally thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of awards and nominations received by Tilda Swinton[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of awards and nominations received by Tilda Swinton —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Ntb613 (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to decline, but hope the discussion doesn't get too heated. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC) as a reliable source for filmography?[edit]

Hi there,

i was reviewing Raveena Tandon filmography for FL promotion and noticed that one of its citations is for I am very weary of considering it as a reliable due to very little fact check and accuracy. If this was Box Office Mojo, that would be no problem with me since they report box office figures and budgets according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Repository of resources, but Amazon in itself is more of a store.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I would not recommend using it for anything other than release dates, and it seems to be used for more than just that in this case. Definitely needs a replacement. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Snuggy[edit]

How are you? Sorry haven't been much around lately. I have got a new job and it has taken complete my time. Sorry again for not able to look into the Lady Gaga FLC. Have you noticed that so many articles have a broken ref tags? I could not find from where it is coming. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I've been pretty well and have been doing some maintenance to various articles in addition to Gaga's songs FLC. There has to be a really large number of articles with referencing errors, though I haven't come across very many of them lately. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tinashe discography/archive1[edit]

Would you mind leaving some comments? It'd be much appreciated, thanks. Azealia911 talk 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Not a problem. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

GoldDerby (Just some conformation as a reliable source)[edit]

Hi there,

Just wanted to give you heads up that the website Gold Derby is indeed a reliable source. The website was temporarily licensed by Los Angeles Times between 2005 and 2010. Here is conformation on this bio by its author Tom O'Neil on his LA Times bio page> it was also periodically featured in "The Envelope" a special section in the daily newspaper edition of the LA Times devoted specifically to showbiz awards. Here is his farewell letter from LA Times. Just wanted to let you.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1016 of
Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Kennedy family edit[edit]

I did these changes in Kennedy family because I know all things that I put, and I have sources about them, the next time instead of revert all my work of hours you should check that I'm wrong. Take my sources: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Facebook pages like that are full of user-generated content and therefore unreliable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That page is carry for just one user that have more sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It would help if they provided links for reports, since such links to original reports might be viable, but Facebook itself is discouraged as a reference. Sorry. See WP:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Another source:

and anothers: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely better than Facebook. However, even with references, I'm not convinced the article even needs to go into really intricate details (i.e. exact dates of birth and death). Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In this way the article be more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There is already Template:Kennedy family tree included within the family article that gives cleaner listings with all of those names and their birth/death years, so the long list you've inserted is redundant. It has also been repeatedly removed due to large amounts of unsourced/poorly sourced details. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You insist in that I have to put sources when in your version appear it <<This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations.>> very coherent ...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That tag means it needs more in-text citations (to reliable sources) than it currently has, and was already there before you edited. It's actually been an issue for quite a while. Adding more content that is unsourced/poorly sourced only makes things worse. I'm not the only one who has reverted massive additions, though, just saying. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that it could be a good source for kennedy family tree, look it: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


What do you think if me and you start writing the episode's plot? I mean, since the very beginning. I really hated that Wikia sh*** talk. I can write and you improve, as long as your English is much better than mine. Here in Brazil it airs every Thursday, then I'm able to write. GagaNutellatalk 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Kudos for also reworking the plot to "Devil's Night". Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up

Symbol support vote.svg

The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.

The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents!

Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best.

The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input.

Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

"Feud" sections in articles[edit]

Hello, I've noticed that you review "Good" articles, have an emphasis on articles for musicians, and saw that you cleaned up some of the Talk page on the Drake article. Not sure if you have an opinion/input on this, but the Drake article has a "Feuds" section which was suggested to be removed in July but has no foreseeable consensus regarding it. It's also the subject of disruptive editing/edit warring that's completely derailing any chances of improving the section/article in general.

I took a look at the Nicki Minaj article for comparison (which is a "Good" article) and saw that the only feuds mentioned were two famous and notorious cases, and that these mentions were integrated into the rest of the article. Is that an ideal standard for other musician pages? The reason I ask is because there's a big roadblock from the aforementioned issues, and the lack of consensus is being construed by other editors as an obligation to "leave the section alone until consensus is reached" (which doesn't appear to happen soon). So the article's really stagnating because of these disruptions. But if you think integration and truncation is more appropriate than an isolated and all-inclusive section, that would be a real boon. Do you have any thoughts about this? Antinate (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

GA (Good article) class not withstanding, I do feel it's better to integrate feuds into other parts of the article. It will likely become bloated if left as its own section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

AN archiving[edit]

Please don't archive ongoing discussions [1] -- the last comment [2] was just posted about 17 hours prior to your archiving. NE Ent 12:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My bad; I hadn't noticed the comments below what was within the "closed discussion" bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Filmography sections[edit]

Hi Snuggums. I just wanted to raise this with you because I've found it a bit concerning. In the Monroe article and now the Liz Taylor one, you've removed "Filmography" from the contents and moved the link to either "See also" or hidden within the acting section. I believe you're doing this based on WP:LAYOUT - I can't actually find the specific bit where it advises against this, but even if "empty sections" are discouraged then I'm sure it's mostly to avoid things like "History of Leeds" as a subsection which then contains only a link to History of Leeds. That obviously would look bad, but I really don't think it's the same with "Filmography", which always comes at the bottom of an article and everyone knows would only be a list anyway. And besides, ultimately the main concern should always be "what is best for readers", and it's obvious that having "Filmography" in the contents of an actor article is better than...not having it. I'd also argue that whether it says "See also" with a sole link or "Filmography" with a sole link, the appearance is exactly the same and I don't see how one can be okay but not the other...

You seem to review articles a lot - which is a noble thing to be doing, I don't want to sound ungrateful for that - but I'm worried by the idea of you spreading this to numerous actor articles and ultimately making things less simple for readers (all for the sake of following wikipedia's rules, which WP:MOS tells us to "use common sense" with and allow for exceptions anyway). If you really can't stand the idea of an empty filmography section, perhaps you could at least encourage writers to fill it out with some info, such as Julianne Moore#Filmography or Philip Seymour Hoffman#Filmography and awards? That would definitely be better than removing it entirely. I hope you see my point here and know that I just want WP:ACTOR to be as useful as possible. Let me know what you think, thanks! --Loeba (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The specific part of WP:LAYOUT being applied is MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which states: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points. With this in mind, having just a section consisting of {{main|_____}} would be ridiculously short and pretty much useless without any other content since it doesn't inform readers of anything meaningful. Furthermore, it's also not a good use of WP:Summary style. "Common sense", while really an oxymoron since there's too much overall diversity of people's senses, would actually if anything discourage ridiculously short sections and really doesn't make things simpler for readers. As for using a "see also" section, WP:SEEALSO (which is also a part of WP:LAYOUT) states that such sections should be a bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles when used. They're not exactly the same as other sections since it comes right before "references" and isn't part of the main article. I sometimes would opt to move into article body under an "acting career" or "film career" section for a prose form of summary style. It helps avoid cherry-picked listings of films. Better to have a list of all films than it is a section consisting solely of {{main|_______}}, which is completely uninformative by itself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I know it is uninformative when empty, and my personal preference is to have a bulleted list (full filmog if short, selected if long) or a paragraph of information, like the examples I linked to. But removing a "Filmography" section entirely should not be the answer. Even if it provides no information, we need to have it readily available via the contents. You never see a musician article without a "Discography" section, or an author without "Bibliography" (or similar). All such biographies need a section that links to their work - actors just end up being a bit more difficult because they can potentially have dozens and dozens of links. That's why the Filmography bit needs to be empty sometimes, unless more people are prepared to do the alternatives I suggested...But then you get people complaining about selected titles, which is a shame and unnecessary worry IMO but it does happen. As for, "and really doesn't make things simpler for readers" - I really can't see how this could be argued? "See also" sections don't come after references, they always come right before (ie, the same spot as Filmography/Discography/etc).
You're not the only user I've seen doing this sort of things so please don't take it as an attack, it just happens that I've noticed it from you recently (and I've started to feel more strongly about it, as I care less and less about following WP rules that are clearly counter-productive!) I do feel that regular editors have a tendency to get too lost in Wikipedia world and forget what it's like to be a casual reader, who just wants to find the things they're after in an easy and accessible way...I was like that at one point as well, but after long breaks from editing I now remember how that feels and it's always my #1 thought when looking at an article. --Loeba (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The examples you listed are definitely better than having {{main|_____}}-only sections since they actually give informative content. I also never felt attacked by this, so no worries there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool, well maybe in reviews you could link to them as examples? There's also e.g. Bette Davis#Selected filmography. I'd also like to see more of that sort of thing (along with the Moore/PSH approach), it's definitely the best option. I'd be very happy to see it become the standard approach on actor articles. --Loeba (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I might link them in reviews. As for Bette Davis, though, I should say that "selected filmography" sections aren't really ideal since those are based on some unknown (and potentially biased) criteria. Cherry-picking like that is simply not neutral. Better to list all films (to avoid cherry-picking) or go with what Hoffman and Moore use (to establish criteria). Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Whenever I've made selected filmographies (I made that Davis one, although my initial list was quite a bit shorter) I've gone with the ones that have the most votes on IMDb - I see this as a reasonable indicator of the individual's best known films. Or any that they had award nominations for, since that would indicate that it's an important role. Ultimately you just go with the ones that are, rightly or wrongly, most often seen/talked about. I wish it wasn't regarded as problematic; it's pretty harmless and doesn't need to be taken seriously. Anyway, whether or not you suggest examples I hope you won't simply remove/encourage removal of the sections completely - that's the main thing. If you're still not convinced we could ask for wider input at WT:ACTOR, see what the general feeling is. --Loeba (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro[edit]

Could you please explain what you meant with this revert? I can see no "hidden note" - so it must be very well hidden - and I cannot imagine any note that justifies the use of the incorrect Rio De Janeiro rather than the correct Rio de Janeiro - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I simply clicked the wrong button at first when trying to revert fan additions of fake tour dates as shown here. Your edit was not what concerned me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
OK - No worries - we all make mistakes - Arjayay (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Box office[edit]

What are you going off to suddenly say film pages shouldn't have the grosses in the infobox until they're done in theaters? That's never been a thing... TropicAces (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)tropicAces TropicAces (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it's not exactly "sudden" since I've previously removed grosses from articles before they were finalized. Secondly, the gross is not stable when in theaters, especially for just-released films since they change substantially upon release and don't settle until the film is out of theaters. Third, I'm not the only person who's done this before. It's better to simply list in article prose when still playing in theaters and saves people from having to make as many changes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teeth (song)[edit]

Disappointed, and really don't give a damn, but this had to happen. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 20:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

New DOB RfC[edit]

If you wish, please join in. —Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


I've nominated this article for FAC which also happens to be my first attempt. It is also the first Indian Telugu film article to be nominated for such status. If interested, please leave your comments here. All constructive comments are welcomed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I might review later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A gentle reminder! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum FAC[edit]

Kailash29792 has nominated the article for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page. Face-smile.svg  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll review, but wish the best of luck. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Mariah Carey[edit]

Hey. Because Mariah has so often used samples in her songs, do you think I should have a Sample credits column? It would greatly reduce the length of some of the boxes where two songs attributing 5 or 6 more sample credits.  — Calvin999 15:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know how that would look. Either way, one thing you could do to reduce length is merge the "lyric writers" and "music writers" into one "writers" column. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't really want to do that. It really blurs who wrote what, and that Mariah wrote pretty much all the lyrics herself from 1991-1997.  — Calvin999 19:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ghost Town (Adam Lambert song)[edit]

Can you keep an eye the page? (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. Is there a particular aspect you are worried about? Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


So trevor philips is not a cross-dresser he just wears a dress and walks around town and acts crazy just for the heck of it? Wikiman103 talk 15:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Being a cross-desser is not a major aspect of his character and therefore is not something about him that needs to be categorized to begin with. He is insane and does tons of things others wouldn't do, though he isn't really noted for cross-dressing compared to things like his murders, rage, and general lack of remorse for actions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, understood sir Wikiman103 talk 15:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie Portman filmography[edit]

Hi. Hope you're well. I have another actress filmography, up as a FLC. If you've got some time, I'd appreciate the input on improving it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I should be able to within the next 24 hours Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


Hey Snuggums, my manual ANI archiving went haywire because I think you and I clashed, and because those pages slow my PC down to a crawl. Please feel free to archive everything I just closed--we gotta get this down to manageable size. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Done and done. That thread was quite lengthy, and the main page itself always seems to be monstrous in size! Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, the shorter the better. I need a new computer too, haha, and Chrome is, in the end, just as difficult as Firefox. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

AN/I archiving[edit]

Hi. You archived a section from AN/I in which an block discussion was still open. The topic ban discussion at the top had been closed by Drmies, but the ban section at the bottom was still under active discussion. I have restored it. BMK (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that; didn't notice the ongoing bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A deletion discussion you may be interested in[edit]

An RfC you were recently involved in (RfC: Filmography navboxes) is being discussed in a Templates for Deletion discussion (TfD Template:Anthony Marinelli). Please excuse this unsolicited contact, and avoiding WP:CANVAS, all of those involved in the RfC discussion (for, against and comment) are being notified.

Again, I apologize for the intrusion -- seeking clarification. Cheers! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 08:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex Girls[edit]

Can I ask your opinion on the above linked AFD? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 15:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to say, so declining to give input (at least for now). Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi there, would you mind putting the filmography section on Ed Sheeran's page and everything in it, back on his page. If it's because it's not cited, I will cite them, just put it back, please. Thank you. Kalope (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was because there were no citations supporting the listings. I not going to restore unreferenced material per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Every Day Is a Holiday[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Every Day Is a Holiday at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! carlojoseph14 (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Jakie Astor[edit]

Please see WP:MOSBIO for the correct way to format the first line of a biographical article. It is laid out clearly there. You will note that the form in inverted commas within the name is not mandated in any way. There has already been discussion on this and it has been rejected. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't see anything in MOS:BIO discouraging things like "John Jacob 'Jakie' Astor VII", which really is a more concise form than "John Jacob Astor VII, commonly known as Jakie Astor". Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you see that construction used anywhere in the MOS? No. Do you see the construction I used anywhere in the MOS? Yes. Why does it have to be more concise? This is an encyclopaedia, not a soundbite. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Using quotation marks for nicknames isn't exactly a "soundbite" and is perfectly fine for encyclopedias. It's unnecessarily long to use your form when he didn't go by a last name different than his legal one unlike people such as Iggy Azelea or Nicki Minaj. Concision is used when reasonable to keep things from being overly wordy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You're skating around the fact that the MOS says how these names should be handled and that it's already been discussed fully on the MOS talkpage! Note that none of the examples use the quotation mark form, including Bill Clinton, who is commonly known by a contraction. I don't personally think it is overly wordy to write properly. If we needed to be that concise then Wikipedia would be written in text language! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't going to the extent of text messages, which is why I said when reasonable. Also, "Bill" is a nickname for "William", not a "contraction". Many highly formal documents I've come across introduce a figure in the *first name, middle name(s), nickname in quotation marks, last name* format when first mentioning their names. MOS doesn't exactly prohibit it, and both forms are permitted. Just because it isn't listed in the samples doesn't mean it can't be used. However, using someone's last name twice in one sentence can be repetitive when introducing them. It really depends on the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Reading through talk page discussions, I don't exactly find a consensus to only use that longer form. Opinions, yes (including yours), but no official consensus. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Lady Gaga awards[edit]

Hello there! If you are not a major contributor of the list, can you take a look at its FLC? It's been a while without comments. -- Frankie talk 19:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm too involved to leave comments, but best of luck! Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Book talk:Katy Perry[edit]

Hi Snuggs, I was checking the above talk page where the Book report is generated. Many of Perry's articles require urgent cleanup. Was comparing to that of Madonna and Gaga, although they have more articles they have much lesser erroneous ones. Shall we target to clean them one by one? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk about an ambitious task! I'd be up for improving her articles, though it would take quite a while. I'd probably like to first see how much Every Day Is a Holiday can be expanded. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Difference between Singer-songwriter and Musician[edit]

A singer-songwriter is someone who writes songs and sings songs, their only instrument is their vocals. A musician, however, is someone who plays one or more instruments. For example, Sam Smith is only considered a singer-songwriter, because he writes and sings songs but doesn't play an instrument like Ariana Grande. But artists like Taylor Swift, John Mayer, Tori Kelly, Ed Sheeran, etc. are not only considered singer-songwriters, also musicians because they play musical instruments as well. Kalope (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your definition looks more like original research coupled with personal opinion, Kalope. Well-known performers who are considered singer-songwriters in the traditional sense (Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, Hank Williams, Paul Simon, James Taylor, Carole King, Merle Haggard) and so on, all play instruments. -- WV 20:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Winkelvi. Genre not withstanding, it's repetitive to include "musician" with "singer" or "singer-songwriter" in a lead sentence since many artists play instruments in addition to singing their songs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your appropriate edit summary[edit]

Regarding this edit: I knew that the edit needed reverting, but how to explain it? Either "unsourced" or "not an improvement" would have been valid explanations, but not a satisfying solution to the puzzle underlying my objection. I confess, I decided to let another editor bear the burden, curious to see what rationale would be given. Well done. Willondon (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Martha Jefferson[edit]

FWIW, another editor has reverted your redirect of the article, and I am in the process of undoing your removal of links. Please discuss your actions before removing any more links to her. pbp 13:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you & asking for a favor[edit]


Firstly, thank you for your kind words on Monroe! I was wondering, if you have time, could you do an image review on Elizabeth Taylor? I've tried to make some improvements to it, but am a complete newbie when it comes to images and copyright issues. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

No problem :). I'll have a look within the next few days. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

J. Law & Nicholas[edit]

You remember that discuss we had about Jennifer Lawrence's personal life in regards to her relationships? You make the call. I am not even exactly sure we established consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 05:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I very much do. One thing I do remember either way is agreeing not to include the Chris Martin ordeal. I personally don't think her relationship with Hoult is really noteworthy. To my knowledge, it wasn't exactly a high-profile one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
To my knowledge, she never, or little if ever, mentioned Nicholas at all and the opposite. I would call it speculation, but that's just me. Thanks for the help. I agree with your reasoning. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 05:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

GAR closure[edit]

Hey Snuggs, sorry for constantly bothering you, but can you close the Byzantine reassessment? I think it's been open for a while, and there were no improvements. Appreciate your time.--Retrohead (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done nothing to worry about Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Remove deprecated persondata"[edit]

Hi, could you clarify about this action? I've recently updated "persondata" for the article in question (Arthur Nebe), because I saw what I identified to be SHORT DESCRIPTION (formerly filled by "German general") in the Wikipedia mobile app. Was your action related to my recent update? BTW, I've seen similar templates used on other bio pages, such as those of Nebe's colleagues. Are they all 'deprecated' as well? Thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, persondata has been deprecated entirely and should be removed from any articles containing it. There was consensus at WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 122#RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles? to no longer use it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Should I be removing this data when I encounter it? In any case, is it weird that the info from the "deprecated template" is showing up when viewing an article in the Wikipedia mobile app? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't know how it shows up on the app since I haven't used that, but yes it should be removed when seen. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)