User talk:41matt14

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. When you’re linking to articles in another language, as with at [[Exodus (Exo album), please use

@41matt14: Hi, I'm not wrong and please refer to Girls' Generation Lion Heart album.

S.M. Entertainment Co., Ltd. is the executive producer (yes it is the label) and Lee Soo-man is listed as producer. So are you implying that they (SM) printed the booklet included in the album wrongly? – Paper9oll | Talk:Paper9oll 13:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We only link names on their first instance in articles. This includes interlanguage links (
  WP:REPEATLINK
  .
• Please stop readding the note parameter if it's not filled out. There is evidently no use for it.
• There is no need to use hlists (Template:Hlist) for one name. They are unnecessary and it adds to the clutter. One name is not and does not make a list.
• You do not need to move the total_length parameter to the bottom of track listing templates. Per Template:Track listing it is actually placed near the top, even though it displays near the bottom. Please leave it where it was when you edited the page.
• Please stop removing the italics from the EP or album title and "track listing" from the headline in Template:Track listing. Simply putting Bambi in unitalicised text does not tell readers who use screen readers what the table is. Instances of EP or album titles are italicised, as you should know.
• There is no need to repeatedly specify the production collective every producer belongs to. You are cluttering already complex track listings. Please refrain from this.
• Please stop stylising producers' and songwriters' names. Unless their name is an acronym and the capital letters stand for something, their name should not be in all caps LIKE THIS per
  WP:TMRULES
  .
• Per
  MOS:ALBUM
  , you do not need to provide an external source or even a line stating, for example, "Credits adapted from Naver" for the track listing.

Please bear this in mind and adapt your edits to this advice. Some of the articles you have edited have not been an improvement to the existing credits and really only add to the clutter. Thank you. Ss112 09:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

sea of blue. Ss112 19:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

MOS:ALBUM clearly states with regard to track listings, "write (and link) the full name the first time it appears, and then just give the last name". The track listings need to be as simple as possible in order to improve readability. I personally find it difficult to read the tables when there are endless links and production teams included. Furthermore, the production teams are not even included in the liner notes in the vast majority of cases, which is where the credits are supposed to be sourced from. It's an extra level of detail that is unnecessary and confusing to the reader, which is why I removed it from the article. I will also add, 41matt14, that I've seen you get reverted by other editors on several other occasions. It has been explained to you before via edit summaries that you shouldn't overlink or use hlist templates unnecessarily, so please take this feedback on board. Artemisia (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure why you made this edit when I am in the process of expanding the article as could be seen from the history of the page. Nonetheless, it has been taken care of. But edits like this always require an edit summary, since it's neither disruptive nor vandalism. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my revert summary, please do not mark edits like this as minor. Please see Help:Minor edit for what constitutes a minor edit; anything over a few bytes is most likely not minor. Also, there is no need to add spaces to track listing parameters to make them "line up", and please do not continue trying to add them now that they have been removed. They are unnecessary and are primarily inserted for aesthetic reasons. I'm well aware of the example listed at Template:Track listing, but just like we don't need to add spaces to infoboxes that users have added that do not "line up", the same applies to track lists. Thanks. Ss112 01:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article. I'll edit it whenever I feel like it, and any other user is entitled to do so as well. You don't own the right to be "left in peace" to add credits to an article, nor are you the only user who can add or change them. The EP was just released. You can expect edits from other users too, probably some who will fiddle around with your precious credits that you obsess over so much. Chill out with your self-entitled

And no, I wouldn't trust that you'd edit out the stylisations of producers' names. You've added them to how many articles now? Hundreds? And even after I pointed it out to you in a previous thread on this very talk page, which you never acknowledged by the way, you still haven't gone back through all these SM artists' articles credits you've made unnecessarily complicated and changed the stylisations to normal capitalisation. Ss112 09:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:UNCIVIL. Please consider the language you use both in edit summaries and others' talk pages. 41matt14 (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

First of all, how on Earth would using a time calculator give you a rounding error? A proper time calculator gives you the exact time. It doesn't round up. Secondly, I'm informing you I created the article because you're acting like you and only you should be allowed to edit the track listing when you want. I'm telling you I created the article because that implies I would have an interest in editing the article when it comes out too. As potentially do other editors. Also, as if I or another editor is supposed to know you're finished "updating" an article, or would even care that you are. Caring would imply we should make way for you as if your edits are more important when they're no more important than anyone else's. For the record, not all editors are going to go to an edit history and check out what you've said (if anything), including that you will make further edits, before editing the article. "Don't come in ten seconds later"? I'll edit the article when I like. Don't tell me when I can and can't edit. I was editing the article right after it came out and was still doing it when you showed up. Also, thanks for stalking through my archives on what other users have apparently said to me. I don't archive editors telling me I'm uncivil, so what exactly you're referring to I have no idea and I don't particularly care. Please consider ceasing with your self-entitled attitude you have going on where you act like you're the ultimate authority on track listing credits or you're the only one who can or is going to edit an article for an album that has just been released. Ss112 09:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to give any more time to the unproductive side of this conversation. The reason adding the times together can give an inaccurate time is because if a track's length is stated as 2:56, for example, that won't be 2 minutes, and 56.000 seconds. There's some sort of rounding that happens. If you just add the stated times together, you'll get a very close approximate of what the total runtime for the album would be (and it might be the right time!), but there's a decent chance that you'll be a couple of seconds off. That's why I trusted the Spotify total length over adding the times together myself. 41matt14 (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While that might be the case, we don't know any further details than "2:56". Streaming services and simple audio players don't list into milliseconds, and the only way somebody would know the exact length is if they loaded the song into an audio editing program, and that just wouldn't be necessary to do. I'd trust whole seconds over 0.5 of a second I might be missing or that is truncated by the normal listing of a song's length. By the way, Spotify, Tidal and Deezer have added times incorrectly before (in instances where they've added something like 30 seconds to a 12-track album's total length over the time one would get if using a time calculator), so don't trust them as some ultimate authority. I'd trust my own ability to add up whole listed times rather than their listed total length. Ss112 10:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, that was just my reasoning for putting that time in the tracklist. I didn't revert your edit changing the time because I trust that your time is well-researched and accurate. 41matt14 (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above draft came up in discussion here recently, and as you are one of the editors who worked on it, I wanted to know if you could tell us whether it's ready to be published. Since 2 (myself included) of the 3 editors involved in that discussion don't follow NCT we cannot guage the article's state of completion. At a glance it appears to be ready for publishing so we don't know why it has not been. Certain updates to other pages would finally be able to be made if it is published. You were pinged in the discussion but no response was ever given so I am leaving a message here in the hopes that you might reply now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As far as it being ready to publish, it's been good to go for months now, but that's neither here nor there. The reason it hasn't been published is because those of us in the community still aren't 100% sure if

NCT 2020 Resonance Pt. 2 should be combined into one page. In all ways but the publisher's official wording, they are both part of the NCT 2020 Resonance project, along with RESONANCE, a non-album single. According to SM Entertainment though, both part 1 and part 2 are their own standalone album, despite part 2 in essence being a repackage of part 1. Without concensus, the port has come to a standstill. At the end of the day, either we keep it as is or we retire the pt 1 and pt 2 pages, replacing them with the (ready to go) NCT 2020 Resonance page. I hope that's helpful! (In my personal opinion, I would rather make it all one page if only for the non-album single to have a place as part of the project's page) 41matt14 (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@41matt14: based on the discussion on Talk:NCT 2020 Resonance Pt. 2, I'd say there was consensus to merge the articles. All of the editors who participated in that discussion gave their support. And if myself and Ïvana were to also comment, that would make it 8 in favour of the merge/publishing the draft. @EN-Jungwon: can you confirm I didn't misread, because it seems like everyone was onboard. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlobunnie and @41matt14, I had a quick look through the discussion and saw no major opposes ~ no actual oppose ~ for the merge. The discussion has been open for over 6 months now and out of the 6 who commented there (including you), everyone agreed on the merge so there is consensus. Now we just need to move the draft to mainspace and redirect parts 1 and 2 to the new page. EN-Jungwon 11:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just one note before the draft is published, the Sales tables are out of date and sourced using Retail Albums refs. At the very least the figures should be brought up to date using the more appropriate main Album chart, cuz that would get flagged in a draft review. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlobunnie:By the way, a quick update - I have updated all sales figures to album charts and with combined 2020 and May 2021 sales, so that should no longer be an issue! 41matt14 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@41matt14: thank you for lmk. I do think the sales info could be merged into the certifications tables using the 'salesamount' and 'salesref' parameters, and the section renamed to "Certifications and sales" instead, removing the need for separate tables. Up to you though. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: I think the only thing left to do now is add the attribution template (I'm assuming info was lifted directly from the pt1+pt2 pages) and then it should be safe to publish? 41matt14 already updated the sales. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#7 of both digital covers used in the articles to the new one. After the page is moved to mainspace we can add the covers and that would be everything done. EN-Jungwon 09:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BRD

. Let's start with Bold.

"Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. It's how new information is added to Wikipedia. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article. Either is a good outcome. If a bold edit might be controversial, consider adding "(revert if inappropriate)" or similar to the edit summary to alert others." 1. "It's how new information is added to Wikipedia." Your edit was a removal of information. Vital information? Maybe not. But certainly not an addition of information. 2. "Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article." You didn't propose an edit on the talk page, you simply made the edit. And that's fine! But just like

WP:BOLD

suggests, you got the attention of interested editors. Finally, "If a bold edit might be controversial, consider adding "(revert if inappropriate)" or similar to the edit summary to alert others." You did not do this. Maybe you should consider adding "(revert if inappropriate)" when making edits that don't follow the precedent of dozens of wiki pages with which *you*, and seemingly only you disagree.

Next up is Revert. Since you obviously disagree that your edit was not constructive, I'll leave Revert at that. I was unable to refine your edit since it just removed a section. There's no refinement to be made.

Now for Discuss. "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." Unfortunately, you seem to be extremely against discussion when it comes to edits. You believe you are right and the other party is wrong, nearly all the time as far as I've seen. You went as far as reverting my reversion before I could have the chance to rebut your post on my talk page. Funnily enough, the guideline here is very clear. "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." I can't see a world where you believe that this is not exactly what you did. You didn't revert obvious vandalism, you restored your edit which was one you must have known would be controversial. I won't restore my edit, but I'll link to this conversation on the talk page for Sticky.

YOU linked me to

WP:BRD

, but you obviously aren't using it properly. If a very interested person reverts your edit, you take it to the article's talk page, not their talk page. And you take the discussion to the talk page not because you want to tell them off, but in order to reach consensus. I hope I've exhausted the BRD talk since you seem to be trying to make wikipedia policy fit your needs, rather than the improvement of the encyclopedia.

It is rude to talk about other editors on a talk page without pinging them, so I'll do you the courtesy. @K-popguardian:

"Remember that I pointed out you misinterpreted another guideline the other day? Funny that." Great! You pointed out that I misinterpreted a guideline. How does that make you unable to make the same mistakes?

In a previous discussion, that went about as well as I'd imagine this one will, you told me to chill out with my

WP:OWN

-type language. You created the article. Great! Thank you. That does not mean that you own it, nor that you have executive control over edits other people make on it.

Where did I misinterpret a guideline here?

WP:BRD

means bold, revert, discuss, as you've quoted extensively to me here, which there was absolutely no need for. Now, in summary: K-popguardian made a bold edit. I reverted it. That doesn't mean another editor should come and revert me if they disagree with me. That means said editor (in this case you) who disagrees with my revert of that bold edit should discuss it on the talk page. As you've now done, so congratulations, and thanks for not continuing in your disruption. You already disregarded BRD by reverting my revert of a bold edit. I was telling you to stop because you were being disruptive by reverting what was already a revert. I undid a wrong with another wrong per BRD. You're not more right than me here. "Don't restore your changes" doesn't mean you had to be the one to have originated said edit; you just restored the changes and already disregarded the process. I find it just ludicrous that it's like you didn't even know about the concept of BRD before I linked you to it, then you attempted to try and prove I'm misinterpreting it. You misinterpret guidelines and consensuses now. Amazing.

Now where on Earth did you get the idea that my telling you to stop in this talk page message means that I think I'm fulfilling the "discuss" part of BRD? I've been on Wikipedia for 15 years, 41matt14. I don't limit myself to policing K-pop articles like you, and I'm very well versed in these sorts of things, so please stop trying to intellectually checkmate me and imply I think a user talk page message is what the "Discuss" part means. Jesus Christ. Again, did you really need to type out a 4,000 byte message? Did you really think you accomplished something with that here today? Did you really think I was afraid to ping K-popguardian? I don't wish to have another pointless conversation with them, so why would I ping them and make this even longer than your 4 KB essay made it? I will not be replying here anymore, your responses are frankly embarrassing as you continue to misinterpret literally anything somebody links you to, and now you've levelled up to parroting it back at me. Goodbye. Ss112 16:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Year-end chart positions are not peaks and should not say such

It appears not only did you address year-end chart positions (which are final, and not regular enough to be the highest point reached on regularly published weekly charts, so "Position" or "Rank" is appropriate) as peaks in your edit summaries, but you copied the actual tables to say peak position as well. You'll notice all proper year-end wikitables say "Position" for the reasons just explained. Please bear this in mind in future. Thanks. Ss112 18:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccessible widths

Hi, can you link the guideline/discussion where it says using width params are inaccessible? I've seen them used here and there so I didn't think it would pose a problem. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the talk archives for Template:Track listing and it seems you're right, I had misinterpreted old discussion. It seems setting %widths is fine. My bad!

41matt14 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]