User talk:QuietHere/Archives/2023/January

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi! So, I'm new to Wikipedia. I've been editing the 2021 albums list, and when I'd see some of my edits getting removed, I'd do them again. Today I found out about the recent edits tab and saw that users can see the edit notes, so I'll be able to be more helpful and cooperative! I'm sorry for my inconvenience, anyways. Now, about the Lawrence Rothman two albums, why can't we do a rowspan and put them together, instead of having two simultaneous listing with the same artist, label and reference? Tete40i (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tete40i: Welcome to Wikipedia! Don't worry too much, I'm sure plenty of new users make similar mistakes. WP is a complex system and there's a lot to learn. I can remember plenty of mistakes I've made over the years since I started editing. Hopefully nobody still holds those against me! And fortunately WP is designed in such a way that undoing small mistakes is quick and easy, so it's usually not all that inconvenient in my experience.

As for your question, I was deferring to precedent set by this edit and this one both by

WP:ACCESSIBILITY that make them less usable, I'm not fully familiar with the policy myself), or if you have any other questions, you should take any of that to Talk:List of 2021 albums or whichever talk page is relevant (In case you didn't know, every WP article has its own talk page, they're always very useful, you can find links to them at the top-left of the page around the the same place as the edit history). QuietHere (talk

) 03:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, joining in on the conversation between Tete40i and QuietHere. The general rule of thumb that has been worked out, but not formally declared, is that each album entry should be it's own complete row, in order to make each entry easier to move or delete if needed. In general, it wouldn't matter for an artist releasing two albums on the same day, but it sets up expectations by other users about other sub-column mergers. Where I first saw the sub-column mergers was in record labels, and that starts getting messy if you merge some columns inside a table, and then someone wants to insert a new artist between the two rows which have merged column. This is when we started not allowing merged sub-column listings. This would absolutely not apply to two albums by the same artist released on the same day, except for the perception it would leave that other mergers elsewhere would be okay. In logic arguments, this could be declared a slippery slope fallacy, but my battle is to keep the tables as simple as possible to make future entries easier, especially for new-comers, who are all welcome. Mburrell (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mburrell: Thank you for your input! Decided this should be linked on the 2021 albums talk page, so I put that up right here. QuietHere (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for clarifying! Tete40i (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to ask you for some help for

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSongRemainsTheSame/comments/f6cfwf/peter_bjorn_and_john_young_folks_and/

Maybe this would reflect the social media tone of the article better than a direct link to Soundcloud. What do you think?

So, I'm going to revert the edit because you are a blank slate showing unique interest in an obscure band's page which contains lots of social media positive flavour, but are going after a particular media link about artistic process on page full of social media links about artistic process.

For context, your account is a brand new account (registered for the purposes of "later use" in 2017, and then blanked and resuscitated recently) that shows an interest in recent popular music. The page that you are reverting is for a particular band. Do you have any professional connections with this band? Before my next undo, I think it's fair to ask that, and to get an answer.

Dster (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dster: First off, I already cited the clearly-named Wikipedia:No original research policy in my first edit (Perhaps it was my mistake to abbreviate it to WP:OR, assuming that editors would either know that shortened name or otherwise click on the link to learn it). Said policy page opens by stating "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." This SoundCloud page is not a reliable source (Nor is the Reddit link), and without such a source the information does not belong. "Anyone can go to the Youtube links", etc., is the definition of OR. Those SoundCloud and Reddit pages are curated by "anyone", and WP policy says that won't fly. My link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Reliable_sources was simply to show a list of established-as-credible websites as examples of where one could look for a statement like the one in contention that could be added to WP. Many other websites exist that aren't on that list. So long as the site does not appear on the "Generally unreliable sources" list lower down on the page, there's at least a decent chance you can use it as a WP source, though if you're ever suspicious of a page I'd again recommend taking your concerns to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. I'll be sharing this conversation on that page after I've posted this response, since you chose not to.

Second, you are correct that the article is over-reliant on primary sources. I've added a Template:Primary sources notice to the article based on your assessment. I will admit that I was focusing on your statement because I happened to come across it while reading the article casually, not specifically looking to edit anything. Just so happened to see a statement with a poor source and decided to cut it out quickly. And my subsequent returns to the article were based on receiving notifications for your reversions, not me spending any more time at the article otherwise. If you have the time (I don't right now unfortunately), I'd recommend cleaning out those Instagram-sourced statements, either finding good sources for them or removing them outright.

Third, though I resent having to entertain these notions, I will give you this much: One, I've been editing WP since 2017, which you can see via my "User contributions" page. The "later use" statement was in reference to me not filling out my User page, with the thought that I may do so at a later date, and intended as a touch of humor rather than a serious statement. It had nothing to do with my editing work on WP, which I've done quite a bit of over the last four years, though I've picked up a lot more in recent months in large part due to becoming a regular editor of the Category:Lists of albums by release date series. And two, I have zero professional ties to any part of the music industry, I do not reside in the same country as any member of Superorganism, I've never met any of them. I'm a fan of the band, but that's not a crime, and I'd ask that you refrain from making such allegations so carelessly in the future.

And fourth, to humor you, I listened to the PBJ song. You're correct that they are recognizably similar, but the reason why I didn't humor the question before was because it was irrelevant to the reason why the statement was removed. Even knowing of the similarities myself, I still cannot support the inclusion of the statement on the OR grounds stated above. Find a reliable source and add it back with that, or don't put it in at all, simple as that. On the bright side, I also quite enjoyed the PBJ song, so thank you for introducing me to it in this ridiculous, roundabout way. QuietHere (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dster: Here's a link to the WikiProject Music query that I've launched off the back of this contention. QuietHere (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Would the following mention at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bentley_(record_producer) qualify as notability? Bentley is also producing a second tribute album for the late singer Roky Erickson, titled MAY THE CIRCLE REMAIN UNBROKEN, to be released by Light in the Attic Records in 2021. Peterh6658 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:RSMUSIC has a long list of websites that may have covered this album, check some of those as well). If you can cobble together an article with multiple good sources then that should cover the notability requirement. I'd recommend starting the article as a draft (Start here for that), and if you do link it here and I'll look it over and contribute what I can when I get a chance. And if the draft comes together well, you can get it published as a proper article, and then it'll be ready to be added to the list. QuietHere (talk

) 17:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@QuietHere Thanks! I've started a draft at [[1]] and am looking forward to your advice.Peterh6658 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Peterh6658: Just added/changed a few things, looking alright so far. One thing I should mention is that there's a good chance the article won't be quite up to snuff for publishing until around the time of the album's release. Many, if not most, references on album articles tend to be reviews, especially because those are also commonly used as sources for genre and other things, and those don't come until the album is released. So I'd hold off on publishing until all that comes in, 'cause then we'll see just how much coverage the project gets. I'd also consider saving a copy of the draft on your computer or somewhere; I'm not overly familiar with the rules around drafts but I believe they get deleted if you don't touch them for a certain amount of time, and I'd hate to lose all that work due to some technicality in WP rules. QuietHere (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@QuietHere Thanks again! Just a few questions: 1) What do you call that green-and-black box in the upper right corner, and how'd you get it there? 2) Does it matter that citation No. 3 comes before No. 2? 3) How did you get the notes to show up under Reference links? When I made them, they weren't showing up down there, and the two examples were still in that section. 4) I thought the purpose of creating an article for the tribute album itself was to allow it to be added to the List of 2021 albums; but you're saying hold off until the album has been released.Peterh6658 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@

WP's original research policy

.

2. The citation numbering is automatic and you do not need to worry about it.

3. I'm not actually sure what you mean by this. As far as I can tell, the references you entered worked just fine.

4. Here's what I meant: The article needs to fulfill a certain list of criteria to be published (Help:Your first article should explain those). Wikipedia:Drafts#Publishing a draft mentions that you can submit your draft for review by other editors whenever you think it's ready to be published. But the amount of info that usually goes into an album article that is ready for publishing isn't there yet, and likely won't be until reviews come in. Notability is one of the key factors in a successful WP article, and for an album that means coverage by music publications. Most of that coverage comes in the form of album reviews, so when those start coming we'll add them in and fill out the article more, and hopefully that'll be enough to clear the notability hurdle. QuietHere (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@QuietHere: I changed the tense from future to past to reflect today's release of the LP, and then I published it because I thought that since it's a draft, that's how you save it. But then it gave me a message about "the article has been restored." It took my tense changes but looks like it also rearranged the reference citation numbers in the text. Did I mess something up? If so, how should I have done that? I also think I forgot to do the four-tilde signature on the draft edit (sorry). BTW, I really appreciate your help and how you added the reviews from the past two days. There's a new one at https://www.covermesongs.com/2021/07/review-may-the-circle-remain-unbroken-a-tribute-to-roky-erickson-pub-on-7-17.html; is that a usable source? (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peterh6658: Your tense edit worked fine. I don't see anything noticeably different about the article other than things we've edited on purpose, so I'm sure it's fine. Citation numbers are automatic and change according to where the references appear in the text -- the earliest reference will be 1, next will be 2, etc. -- so you don't need to worry about them. And you don't need to sign edits, that's automatic. The four-tilde signature only applies to talk page messages. And the @username command is done as "re|username" (with {{}} where the quote-marks are). You don't need to use that on here though because it's my talk page and I get notified of messages on here regardless. I'm not sure what the "article has been restored" message means, but the article looks fine and I haven't gotten any such message for my last three edits on the page, so it's probably nothing to worry about. If you're concerned, you can also pose questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse, I believe that's the right place for 'em (If it's not, hopefully an editor there will point you to the correct place for it). And that source looks fine. I usually check for a staff page to see if the site in question has a full team of editors, and this one does so it should be alright. Plus, this search shows the site being used in numerous other places on WP, so other editors seem to approve of it. No harm if it's not, some other editor will probably just remove it and they can explain their reasoning for that. QuietHere (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@QuietHere: Cool, thanks. I'm going to wait a week and see if more reviews roll in. Do you think if possible, I should use another two or three reviews to lend more notability, and just make them footnotes somewhere in the already existing text? And/or should I paraphrase what some of the reviews are saying? Peterh6658 (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peterh6658: If you're gonna write in quotes from reviews, put them in a separate "Reception" section right above Track listing. And get as many as you can, there's no rules on how many refs an article has as long as they're all reliable sources. QuietHere (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@QuietHere: I confirmed and incorporated text reflecting the album's digital and CD release. I gathered all the usable reviews I could find and created a Reception section. I didn't know how to cite the American Songwriter article a second time, so I left a parenthetical note for you at the end of the Reception section's second paragraph. Also, if you want to add the Mojo review (which is print-only) to the ratings section, they gave it four stars (and I'm guessing it would need the Mojo citation used again there). Can you look over these latest changes, please? And do you know how to get an album cover image in there? Peterh6658 (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peterh6658: Refs are copied, ratings are added. Everything looks good on the article now and I think it's ready for submission! I've looked into adding cover art for other articles before but never figured it out myself, looks like this is where you go to do that. If you can't figure it out (I had a bit of trouble with it myself) then you can always ask for advice elsewhere (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums is probably the best place for that. QuietHere (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@QuietHere: I've uploaded the cover art. Can I click the "submit for review" button now, and what happens after I do that? Peterh6658 (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peterh6658: Just clicked it myself. Looks like all we have to do is wait until another editor gets a chance to look it over. QuietHere (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@QuietHere: Looks like a bot removed the cover art because the article doesn't exist yet. Any idea how long it takes for another editor to review the submission? And will the covert art have to be added back into the infobox? Peterh6658 (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peterh6658: The most I know is that it says at the bottom of the page that it could take "7 weeks or more". Beyond that, I have no idea, so just be patient. I'm sure we'll be notified somehow when the review takes place. And yes, the cover art will likely have to be readded manually, but that'll have to wait until the article is published because non-free images aren't allowed in drafts (Did not know that 'til now, good to keep in mind). QuietHere (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I need help finding and adding a verified wiki page could you help me find a good sneaker pimps ref because the one on there wiki is busted i think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:92c0:3b20:2936:a721:6ae1:6b5d (talk) 11:36, June 14, 2021 (UTC)

@2600:1700:92c0:3b20:2936:a721:6ae1:6b5d: Removed the entry because you misunderstood what the source was saying. The title track will be released as a single on July 9, but the album isn't out 'til Fall, hence why it's listed under List of 2021 albums#Unscheduled and TBA. Also, looked like you just forgot "</ref>" at the end, the ref would've worked just fine with that. QuietHere (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh my bad thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:92C0:3B20:2936:A721:6AE1:6B5D (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for that mess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:92c0:3b20:c90a:271c:c585:3acd (talk) 11:10, June 15, 2021 (UTC)

Need help again with a ref also what is the difference between an access date and the date is it the same?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:92c0:3b20:cc07:c8c1:e379:5c60 (talk) 10:20, June 20, 2021 (UTC)

"Date" is the date when the article was posted, "access date" is the day you added the reference because it's when you accessed the source. QuietHere (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

May the Circle Remain Unbroken: A Tribute to Roky Erickson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peterh6658: Faster than expected but there it is! QuietHere (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@QuietHere: Excellent! Thanks again for all of your help and advice. Peterh6658 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! I just wanted to share a tip with you. According to

@Broccoli and Coffee: I looked through the MoS earlier before I reverted, and couldn't find that so I just went for it, but now that I'm reading that page, it looks like you're correct. It'll be good to keep in mind for later, so thanks for letting me know! QuietHere (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

in re

@Yappy2bhere: I guess if you actually have something to say about it then it makes sense to move it here. QuietHere (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Only a couple of things really. First, I was surprised to see you replace the secondary source for the date with a tertiary source like Spotify, which imo is most likely renting some other tertiary source for their info. Second, I'm uneasy when anyone seems to be reasoning their way into replacing a RS because "it's gotta be wrong". Third, I assumed Spotify was another

WP:CRYSTAL of the projected release date, like the pre-release RS and figured other editors would too, so I'm interested to know why you think it's something more than that. Fourth (and this is a little embarrassing), when I follow your link to Spotify [2] I only see the year even though other editors apparently see the full release date. Is there a trick to it? Yappy2bhere (talk

) 23:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yappy2bhere: 1+2. I only replaced it 'cause I thought Spotify would count as primary, since the info comes from the record label, and that should override if there isn't an apt secondary, which of course you called into question hence my query about it. Clearly I jumped the gun on that, my mistake. Should've started with the query but the idea to post it only came to me after the multiple reverts 'cause I'm not interested in starting an edit war.

3. As I said, Spotify pages don't go live until the album is released. Just last night a new album from the group Injury Reserve released, and I remember specifically refreshing the page at midnight on the dot and seeing the album appear, which is usually how that goes. If Spotify is doing any CRYSTAL, then it wouldn't be publicly available information until the album is released anyway so there wouldn't be a point (I don't know how other streamers handle this but I would imagine it's much the same).

4. If you're on desktop then you hover your mouse cursor over the year at the top of the page and a text box with the full date appears. Dunno how you see it on mobile though. It's not exactly taught or anything so it's not surprising that you missed it. I probably found it accidentally myself. QuietHere (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I added an explanatory section to the Talk page. If you're still not persuaded then I think we'll need a ruling from the officials, so to speak. Let me know. idk who'd adjudicate this, it's a little odd, so if you have a preferred forum let me know that too. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:ALBUMS, but perhaps there's a better venue for this specific sort of issue. QuietHere (talk

) 20:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

OK. I'm not keen on

WP:ALBUMS; I feel they side-stepped your sourcing question, which I think deserved more comment (and not just Spotify but tertiary data in general). I'm not interested in conflict, but I do believe I'm right about the sourcing. I just wanted to explain my position on this so you won't feel blind-sided if we can't agree and I do ask for a ruling. Yappy2bhere (talk

) 20:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I only suggest it because it's the venue I'm most familiar with. I'm also very disinterested in conflict, as any good WP editor/reasonable human being should be. And again, thank you for letting me know ahead of time; I suspect a ruling may be necessary at some point so it's good to know you're already prepared to submit for one. I'll be sure to leave my side of the argument there whenever the time comes for it. QuietHere (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to check in with you about the removal of the the compilation album SpongeBob's Greatest Hits from the List of 2009 albums. I don't disagree with removing the album, but do disagree with your reasoning. I think any notable album can be included in the lists. Soundtracks, compilation albums, greatest hits albums, as well as studio albums, EPs, and mixtapes. However, the album has to be notable, which the SpongeBob hits album was not. No citation provided, and the album article was poorly supported for showing notability. If you disagree with me, then let's take this discussion to the current album list and discuss publicly what type of albums we would like to see on the lists. Sometimes we allow mission creep into the lists, and the lists get looser than originally designed. Should we be tightening up the criteria? I am happy with them as they are, but maybe we should think about what we would want to reject. Mburrell (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mburrell: No, your reasoning is perfectly fair. I wrote that in quickly and realised upon looking back on it how poorly worded/how poor the logic was, but of course it was too late to change it. I don't think anything needs to be changed about what's allowed at this time, so long as the notability requirement is met it should be fine. QuietHere (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

QuietHere, you made a sweeping statement on the edit summary for List of 2019 albums when you stated that if I didn't find a citation that it probably did not exist. There is a big caveat there for foreign language albums. I am using the English language to search for news or reviews for the albums. I chose not to locate the Japanese characters for the band and album and search for news or reviews written in the Japanese language. There could well be viable secondary sources out there that the English language search engine did not find, but I was not willing to put in the hours searching for them. However, the original poster could dedicate time to locate such citations. On the other hand, there was no evidence that the original poster understood what citation showed notability. Anyhow, did not want you claiming I did an exhaustive search when I see at least one form of search that I could have pursued but chose not to. Mburrell (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mburrell: My mistake, I had assumed you were doing something like that (didn't think it was an hours-long search process), shouldn't've made that assumption. Will keep that in mind in future. QuietHere (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Normally would not be an hours-long search, but the anonymous user created about twenty album listings throughout the tables. I have done searches in foreign language, specifically romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish) which are relatively close in values to English, and it is a fairly tedious process. Just trying to get the right word for Review in the other language is a challenge. Reseña for Spanish, but so many meanings for review. Now try that for a language where you don't even comprehend the alphabet. More than I am willing to tackle unless it is a project I care about personally. Mburrell (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I just saw your edit summary on

Also, as you've cited MOS:STYLERET and a key point of that is that there is differing advice in the Manual of Style over acceptable styles, please point to me where in the MOS it encourages the use of small text to get around the no-longer-existing-functionality of a parameter in

MOS:ACCESS and all the changes brought in over the increased visibility of making Wikipedia more acceptable for visually impaired readers, we would be encouraging more users to be dropping text sizes. The ability of an editor to use HTML markup to make text small, and the existence of Template:Small and those of its ilk, does not mean they should be used wherever one wants to use them. Ss112

05:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: Firstly, was totally unaware of the history around that parameter. Second, entirely my mistake for not considering accessibility in this regard. I'm assuming you've undone that latest edit by now (have yet to check, will do momentarily) and that's fine, you're clear in your reasoning here and I'm not gonna argue with it. If not having small text there is a common policy as you're saying, then I've got other articles to remove it from as well and I'll be doing that now. QuietHere (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

And since we're here talking about this article/your new edits to it, two things:

1. It is my understanding that the point of adding Template:Use dmy dates to an article is that it will automatically adjust dates inside of references/dating templates, which is why I left the ones in my sources unadjusted unlike the release date where it appears in the lead and infobox. Is that not how that works? Should I not be relying on that?

2. Not using "|first=" in sources is a habit I picked up from Mburrell doing it that way consistently in the Category:Albums by year pages (I've edited on those so much that I've just gotten used to following M's lead in re ref style). If that's a problem (rather than just a style choice as I had assumed) then you'll wanna bring it up with them as well, and there might need to be a good bit of work done to fix those lists. QuietHere (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You absolutely can rely on the template making the dates dmy format but it's just best to be consistent—somebody who runs scripts on sets of articles would come along and do it eventually anyway. As for author parameters, wasn't aware Mburrell did this, but CS1 templates like Template:Cite web are pretty clear that last= is for surnames only. An editor should pair last= and first=, or use author= where "surname, first name" can be put in that order. No need to have a whole separate discussion, so just to ping @Mburrell: if you use last= to hold both a surname and first name, you should be using author= instead. Ss112 06:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, they do use "author", they're in the clear. I'll just have to adjust my own habit in the future. Thanks! QuietHere (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, is there a reason to remove "Melted Stone"? Because it does not have any label or imprint. It just a copyright holder for her recordings.[3] --113.210.102.255 (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@

the album's talk page than here. QuietHere (talk

) 14:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You stated a comment on one of your edit summaries on List of 2022 albums where you stated "For reasons I'm admittedly unclear on) we're only allowed three genres per entry". This was the result of a discussion and action taken to make the lists more accessible. See Talk:List of 2021 albums (January–June)#Accessibility. - Mburrell (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mburrell: Ah yes, I remember reading that discussion now. I haven't been able to find the page Doggy54321 is referencing but I have found Template:Comma separated entries which could be the solution to this issue. QuietHere (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did you only specifically rearrange these two citations on

@

WP:CITEVAR is of that much concern to you, perhaps you can bring up the issue with the ProveIt developers and see if they can change settings to accomodate this preference. Although I don't see anything about the order of parameters on the CITEVAR page so I'm not entirely sure the policy applies here, but whatever, this isn't the place for that discussion anyway. Personally I can't say I fully understand why CITEVAR is such a big deal for editors such as yourself, but clearly it is so excuse me for not being more considerate of that. QuietHere (talk

) 06:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

CITEVAR isn't a policy, it's a guideline. It applies to all aspects of how citations are formatted (if consistent), including whether spaces are inserted/present between each parameter and what order they're in. (I've also had editors try to tell me in the past CITEVAR only concerns whether we define citations in the prose where they're first used or whether they're listed at the end in a "References" section, which is not true.) My bad for not assuming it was a script, but surely it's not necessary to use ProveIt when you're citing existing citations anyway? As for your suggestion, I've previously asked developers before if they could modify their scripts to not do such things, like excluding discography wikitables that use em dashes for non-charting entries (to prevent them from being changed to en dashes, as it is grammatically correct to use en dashes when they are spaced) and they were baffled as to why anybody was concerned about such a thing, so I'm not interested in lobbying script developers for any such change. It would likely go nowhere. If you could be mindful of this script altering parameter order going ahead and that "editors like myself" do mind, that'd be great. Ss112 07:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Table_navboxes_for_sections for a reply to your request. --CBD 19:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I added conditional parameters to show/hide individual links. --CBD 21:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Diamond Star Halos, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've closed the CfD that you've withdrawn.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lenticel Thanks! QuietHere (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Through the Madness, Vol. 1 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Through the Madness, Vol. 1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Two different issues to raise for

1) Last year, after the draft submittal was rejected more than once, I proposed a standard before re-submitting the draft for approval, the standard being a minimum of four albums listed with known release dates. It was still rejected by an administrator after abiding by those rules, but I then went ahead and just created the article in main-space, bypassing the approval process. Would you agree that we list on the talk page or in notes at the top of the draft page that we will not submit this page for review until we have a minimum of four album listings with known release dates?

2) This is a favor I am asking. As creator of the article, you can set how the formatting of citations goes, and I can't arbitrarily change them. However, I very much would like the citations to be in the same format/pattern as all the other album lists. Would you allow me to modify the citation formatting to match the pattern of the other album lists? Your call.

- Mburrell (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mburrell:

1. Sure, if that's the precedent from last year then why not stick with it? I wasn't planning on publishing until we had a few solid dates anyway, specifically based on that issue from last year, so may as well.

2. Go right ahead. I just got lazy and didn't adjust the formatting since I was adding so many entries at once, but you've already set a standard for the previous lists so may as well stick to it. QuietHere (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Having a go at other users through edit summaries and entirely reverting my edit sounds like you're holding onto a grudge because I rightfully reverted you changing a citation style on an article you didn't start. You are allowed to main a consistent citation style on articles you started, per

Finally, your precious stylisation note is trivial per

Also, I saw you made this edit summary after finding there was an article on

WP:GOODFAITH thing, but my point in writing two whole paragraphs and now another is that you very clearly do not understand our basic guidelines and you're taking issue with me on some articles as if you do. Consider the guidelines I actually link in my edit summaries (not as things to take issue with, or claim a prose-disrupting parenthetical note in the lead explaining some basic stylisation is so important to retain or restore or should be an exception to our "disregard stylisations" guidelines) and what I'm writing here. I wouldn't bother writing to you at all if I didn't feel you were already a good contributor and just needed pointing in the right direction. Ss112

17:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112

Alright, let's try and work through this step by step I guess.

1. No grudge at all. That parenthetical was just a casual reminder. Had a feeling it might come across badly and it was my poor judgment to leave it in like that anyway. Apologies.

2. Wouldn't exactly call it mindless, I did go through and individually remove specific changes while keeping others. I had my reasons for doing so and I'd like to think I explained them in my edit summary. And to reemphasise, it had absolutely nothing to do with any previous edits/interactions between us, just a matter of a single article.

3. As I already explained before, ProveIt changes citation formatting automatically and that's not my fault. It's a really convenient tool and I'm not gonna stop using it. If other users, such as yourself, really do take that much issue with it then feel free to fix the formatting back to how you like it.

4. Guess I forgot that sentence in

MOS:REPEATLINK

so excuse me for that, you've clearly got that one right.

5. You're going to have to explain what you're saying regarding noprose because from a reread of

Template:Album ratings

it sure sounds like it's exactly what I thought it was for, and I can't remember making any edits that weren't in line with that.

6. No, it turns out I was not aware that those parentheticals were being phased out. Is that a recent change? Was there a larger discussion around this issue that I missed?

7. In my experience, describing an image involves more than just saying "there's a picture" or "it's got this word on it" so excuse me for assuming WP worked the same way. Perhaps I'll have to bring that concern up somewhere because I'm not sure that style guide works for something as complex as an album cover. There's generally a lot more going on in cover art than can be described adequately in just one sentence and perhaps the guide might need adjusting for that.

8. My understanding of the "disregard stylisations" guidelines that you mention was that stylisation still gets a mention in the article's lead, and they're typically only around four words long which I wouldn't exactly call overwhelmingly disruptive. Fair enough that there are some articles that don't use that particular stylisation and that it isn't a massive difference, but when I read

MOS:TMSTYLE

and see the words "which may include simple stylization, like capitalization changes", I don't see anything that would imply there is too simple a stylization that is excluded from that policy.

9. I am not fully familiar with all the rules around

WP:NOEXEC

so that is my mistake for jumping the gun on those aspects, I seem to remember seeing pages formatted like that before so I suppose it's a common error.

10. I would not have assumed that there was any sort of targeting involved. Your focus on this notion of aggression concerns me; this is one of two instances of us crossing paths in this manner and aside from one regrettable edit summary I can't find anything I've said that I'd consider aggressive. Now of course that is a matter of perspective so excuse me for the offense either way, but I hope you understand that I mean no harm and can't exactly imagine how I would be able to tone down anything I've said anymore than it already is.

11. And on the subject of targeted editing, honestly you may as well go through my other recent edits. If the too-long alt text is that serious an issue then there are others that will need cutting down. And you may as well give 'em an inspection in case there are any other policies I've missed out on. I'm not trying to violate any rules here, all of the mistakes you've found/fixed thus far have been just that. QuietHere (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Classical artworks not needing to be explained in any more than a few words does not make me think digital editing on an album cover is all that important, let alone needing a paragraph explaining the presence of text and three pictures of the artist. That's how simple it should be per that explanatory essay; we don't need to describe every little detail of the photographs. (Visually impaired readers themselves would probably bored by the end of their screen reader reading that.)

Any parenthetical note in the first few words of the article disrupts the flow, so should really only be added to the lead if it's very important. I would find it amusing if an artist who writes in "all-lowercase wispy text speech thank u next by ariana grande look how low-effort yet deep this is" then insisted on how important writing their titles in all-lowercase is, but that aside, Wikipedia editors made it a point years ago to disregard bigger artists' often very staunch insistences on capitalisation/rendering of their titles (Lady Gaga's "ARTPOP in all caps communicates a deeper meaning and I insist you all replicate it"; Pet Shop Boys' "we think our sentence case rendering of our titles makes our work look more distinctive"), even as a parenthetical note. If there has been a discussion somewhere recently, I'm not aware of it, but perhaps there is and I don't know about it—it's very possible. Either way, editors, including admins, from all areas of Wikipedia have removed these as trivial citing various things, and I agree, so have followed their example. It became a habit for pop music articles in the 2010s here and it quite frankly never should have caught on.

I am very confused as to why I need to further explain noprose. You restored it to

Template:Album ratings: "noprose: Should only be used for articles that do not have a Reception section summarizing the reviews". You already have a section summarising the only critical review you've found on Forever Music, therefore noprose no longer applies, will not apply again, and doesn't need to be present, commented out or not. Ss112

19:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, turns out the noprose thing was an accident and I just missed that. My bad. As for the stylisation argument, it sounds like you're describing a shift in/disagreement with precedent which would ask for a larger conversation regarding the necessity of those tags. I'm not about to get all the way into that here as it's not the right venue for it, but I suspect there's something to be said about how you and other editors are approaching this issue. QuietHere (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If the "precedent" is pop music editors on Wikipedia deciding somewhere in the 2010s that stylisations of their favourite singers' song and album titles was so important it needed to be noted at the start of those articles, that's not much of a precedent considering the quality of those articles—quote farms, blogs and deprecated sources, outdated formatting, ESL and ridiculous phrasing on literal GAs (because of how that favour-for-favour, don't-rock-the-boat-unless-the-quality-is-really-egregious system works), and

MOS:SMALL violations out the wazoo. Let's throw out all those outdated conventions but say stylisation notes are "precedent"? Please. How is that going to convince anybody? I see no need for a conversation, or at least, my starting one, because there wasn't one in the first place. I acknowledge precedent in plenty of cases, but there was never a necessity for these. The point remains: no guideline states stylisations need to or even should be pointed out; they in fact say not to use them. I say case closed. Ss112

12:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong to remove them, I'm just saying you're quick to dismiss when it sounds like it could be worth a conversation to at least reaffirm the standing precedent that you're already working toward. But again, this is not the venue for that discussion so I'm leaving it here. Do you have any other concerns or have we covered everything up to this point? QuietHere (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:Angels & Queens
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, QuietHere! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Angels & Queens, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Chaos Now, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Alyo (chat·edits) 15:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Louie (album), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:I Love to Lie. Thanks! Hitro talk

18:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I Love to Lie, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Come Around (Carla dal Forno album), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and split the list of 2022 albums before we were commanded to, because I could see the way the consensus was going. If we can keep reducing the size, I will start another discussion in about March stating that I intend to merge the two halves, as there were no technical or rule issues that required the split, just the size causing problems for some people with mobile devices, and as no size limit has been set, if we can get the total size down to a combined 470k, I will feel comfortable merging the two halves. Mburrell (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mburrell I saw the split, and I respect the move. It was clear that consensus was in favor of it, and I can't guarantee I'll be able to work through the whole list in a reasonable amount of time. I think 470k is absolutely manageable, it's just gonna take a while to make it happen. Ah well, at least it's only in halves, that hasn't been too troublesome for the 2021 list so we can survive for the time being. QuietHere (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hiya. Are you currently working on fixing the links? I ask since I am, and would prefer we don't conflict in our efforts. If we're both working on it, can we agree to start at different ends and meet in the middle or something? I finished 2012 from the bottom before going and doing something else for a bit and was about to start 2013. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt I am, but I was just going at it randomly. Lemme just post what I've done so far now and let you take care of the rest. QuietHere (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Please believe I am more than happy for us both to work on it; I could just see us edit conflicting without organizing, and that might be quite frustrating. I will carry on from the bottom (2013) , section by section, and keep an eye out for you :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt Perfectly understandable, would hate for a conflict to happen, those can be quite annoying. If I get a chance I'll pop back in and do some more later. QuietHere (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. I actually got sidetracked by someone being difficult so haven't done anything useful for long enough that it's now just time for tea 😆 I'll get back on it when my caffeine levels have returned to normal. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt I had one last look over the page and cleaned up a couple stragglers. Looks to me like we got everything that can be linked for now. Should be ready for the page move whenever you wanna do that. QuietHere (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the Icarus page! BuySomeApples (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

To the Moon and Back (album), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hitro talk 13:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Medulla (Bjoerk album) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 19 § Medulla (Bjoerk album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi QuietHere. I have seen several edits from you recently where you have used mdy dates and American spellings on British topics. Please endeavour to use dmy dates and British spelling on British topics (and most countries outside the US use dmy, or we do on Wikipedia for them anyway). Even if the article is tagged with use dmy dates and converts dates in citation templates, it's really something you should do as an editor who's been here for several years now instead of just plonking cites down and not adapting them whatsoever. I can't force you to adapt your citation style/parameter order or whatever I last came here about to the pre-existing style used on the articles you edit, but the MOS recommends using the date format and style of English that aligns with the background of the topic you're editing. Also, I think it would be helpful for editors and readers alike if you began linking websites/publications in citations. I've noticed you don't do this for some reason. (In case you were concerned,

The dates you just changed on I, Gemini were all inside of references. Those dates are automatically converted to the correct format by Template:Use dmy dates. The dates displayed the correct way without any issue, as they do in every article with that template present. Your edit didn't actually change anything of substance. I'm not undoing it because I don't care, but don't talk to me like I don't know what I'm doing. QuietHere (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Even from the first revisions of

MOS:DATEUNIFY: "Each article should use either DMY or MDY consistently, except that in references, the format used by the citation style chosen for the article is used consistently." As I pointed out, the dates in the citations themselves you used weren't even consistent. Also, as I just pointed out, I'm not just talking about the Let's Eat Grandma article. The Wombats' latest album use dmy consistently before you introduced inconsistent mdy date formats. I have seen multiple other past instances of you introducing mdy date formats on articles that consistently (or pretty consistently) used dmy, including on articles that didn't have a use dmy dates template at the top. It doesn't matter if a template does it for you. Is it that hard to change MDY to DMY when the MOS says you should use one consistent date format on an article? Is this something you need to get defensive about not doing? "Your edit didn't change anything of substance". Yes it did. Dates should be consistent and the dates you used were not, so I unified the date format for a British act. I also introduced links in citations which you seemingly do not want to do, which is helpful to readers looking at those citations. Please adapt the date format you use in citations for British and non-American topics, this shouldn't be something you need to be argumentative over. Ss112

06:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

For the linking sources in refs bit, I guess I forgot. Oh well, you came along and fixed it so no big deal. And less so when the same links are present elsewhere on the page already, which I believe all the ones you added were. Sure, the rules allow for it, but it is definitely not required, so it's making mountains out of molehills to keep pointing out that I haven't been doing it every time.

As for the dates, I still disagree with the weight you're putting behind that language. We have a template that resolves this issue automatically, and it's not like I was inconsistent outside of the refs where it would pose an actual (minor-at-worst aesthetic) problem. And no, it's not hard, but it's an extra bit of time I could be putting elsewhere for something you aren't convincing me is necessary. And again, I'm not undoing your edit or anything so now it's the way you want it and the problem is solved.

As for the general ref style question, since that's coming up again, lemme put it this way: It's up to the article creator to define and maintain the style they set at the time of creation, right? If they care, they can fix it. I've fixed plenty of refs that others have added to articles I've made (though I'm not particularly attached to any style; I really only care that the parameters are spaced because it makes it easier to read in the editor. Past that, it makes no difference to me). But I don't always do it for others because I know they're capable of cleaning up after me if they so prefer. I don't see an issue with this. It's not like I'm being majorly disruptive or anything; so long as my references are functional then it won't make that big a difference to readers. That's always been my main concern and the rest I find frivolous.

Lastly, I'm only getting argumentative because, as I said, I see this as mountains out of molehills. My concern is that the article as rendered is consistent and readable, not the walls of monospaced text in the editing box. I've seen a lot of editors who get overly concerned with how many spaces there are on either side of an = inside an infobox or ratings template, and I think that's completely silly. To be fair, the things you bring up are more reasonable than that, but they're still not such a problem that requires this much attention in my mind. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

And P.S., I assume what you mean by "the dates in the citations themselves you used weren't even consistent" is that "|date" would be in dmy while "|access-date" would be in mdy, something like that, right? In those cases, that's most likely because the source is a British publication such as NME which publishes articles with dmy-formatted dates, and I just copied directly from their page. Unless you're referring to something else in which case I don't know what happened. QuietHere (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that you created I, Gemini, but again, I wasn't just talking about that article. That was just an article I noticed had recently been edited. "Necessary", no, but it's part of the MOS and I'm simply saying it would be helpful if when you are adding citations to articles that you adapt the date format to dmy on articles that already use dmy. Like here. We shouldn't just fall back on templates to format that. That's all I'm asking. Ss112 09:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

And I understand exactly what you're asking. I haven't ignored a word of it. I just disagree that relying on the template is a bad thing. And as for that article, I could be mistaken but I remember reading once that

MOS:MAJORWORK applied to titles inside of references as well. Even so, I don't see why it shouldn't for consistency's sake. QuietHere (talk

) 10:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Because the MOS doesn't say anything about how a template makes something look or the output, it's talking about making text you input consistent, which you are not doing (the MOS also makes no note anywhere that "you can ignore x, y and z because a template can do it for you"). It's not taking any more time out of your day to write "25 December 2022" instead of "December 25, 2022". The mdy date format is actually one more character (the comma), so your argument above that that's "extra time that could be spent elsewhere" instead of formatting the dates how the article dates should be for the topic or more importantly, to be consistent with the established date format of an article is silly and factually incorrect. It becomes second nature to type "December 25" or "25 December" depending upon the style, really. I get that you don't have many hang-ups about preference, but you certainly know other users do, and I think date format is an important one to editors (and again, it's in the MOS), so you not being a stickler for spacing or how something should be doesn't mean you shouldn't at least attempt to conform your citations a little on articles you did not create. This is just sounding like you will just pick and choose which parts of the MOS you want to apply and which you don't because they aren't "necessary". If I can acknowledge

MOS:CONFORMTITLE says titles in citations should be italicised just as in running text, and that I will try to incorporate this going forward, I certainly think you can do the same with date formats, at the very least on articles you didn't create. If your next reply is just going to be "I still don't think it's necessary and I will not even try to do what the MOS says", I'm done arguing and I don't think you're being very fair to other editors going forward as regardless of the output, the code is not consistent and you know others care about this, but perhaps more importantly, then it's concerning that you will pick and choose which parts of the MOS to follow. Ss112

11:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

1. I'm not typing the dates out manually. I'm copy-pasting directly from the article page so I can get the title, date, and byline all at once, and then adding them to the appropriate fields. So it's not faster to change the format from what a source has it as. As for the access date, I just keep that copied to my clipboard at all times so I have it on hand, and since I live in the US and use mdy format, and most articles I'm working on do as well, it doesn't conflict very often. When it does, that's what the template is there for.

2. I'm not denying the MOS, I'm just deferring that work to more vigilant editors. There are plenty of MOS rules I find violations in constantly which I fix (Mainly

MOS:CURLY

), and some I don't always remember or am not personally concerned with because I know other editors such as yourself are as vigilant about those. As long as someone cares then it gets done eventually and that should be fine. I have no opposition to the MOS, there's no picking and choosing, or else I'd be undoing a lot more edits.

3. Thank you for finding

MOS:CONFORMTITLE

, that's exactly what I was thinking of. The MOS is very frequently difficult to navigate so finding specific pages is a hassle.

4. There's a much longer rant to be had about our view of what's "necessary" about the MOS or even the intent behind guidelines like STYLERET. In short, my understanding is that it was intended to guide between differences as big as

MLA, and CMOS

, not as small as the order of parameters in one style or the spaces between them, and that many editors use a far stricter application out of sheer personal preference. Is there a consensus behind that interpretation? Perhaps; I haven't bothered looking for it because I really don't care that much, but if I did then I would probably make more of a point of being in public disagreeance with it. But I'm not at that point now so no fuss shall be made. Enjoy your hyperspecific stylization all you want. "Not necessary" is more of a tip-of-the-iceberg phrasing than a final judgment, but it's my stopping point for now because I have far more urgent concerns.

5. We can agree to disagree at any time. I think I've made it clear so far that I came into this discussion knowing it would end at an impasse, and you're the one continuing to try and make a case that I've already said won't convince me. I apologise for causing you so much grief, but my mind still hasn't changed. QuietHere (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Word it however you wish. "Deferring the MOS to others" because you don't want to change what you're doing is another way of saying you're picking and choosing what you follow because you think others will do it for you. Yikes. You don't have to actively be reverting editors who change something to the way it should be to be "denying" the MOS; your refusal to do so yourself is denying it. I'm very disappointed in your stubbornness on this. You really shouldn't need to be "convinced" to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Ss112 13:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I found you often in the edits page of the 2023 albums so I hope you don't mind me asking for help. I've added the Ayumi Hamasaki album "Remember you" to the January section of the page, but it keeps bolding the Header cell with the date, and I'm not sure how to stop that. I've tried comparing the formatting options with the other cells but I'm just not seeing what is different. Have you ran into this before? Sorry to cause further work for you. Jelioi (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jelioi as you'll probably notice, in looking at your edit I realised that the album article you made didn't have enough reliable coverage to satisfy notability requirements, and so I have converted it to a redirect for the time being. This also means the album is not notable enough for listing on the 2023 albums at this time. I do know what the problem was with your formatting; the issue is that you didn't copy the scope and style parameters from other entries which are what make the actual formatting of the cell work. Doesn't matter now because the entry had to go either way, but next time just look at the other entries in the text editor and copy the formatting from there. QuietHere (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the in-depth response, that's much appreciated! I'll utilize the text editor more in the future when I'm running into issues like this. It's a shame the album doesn't meet notability requirements - I'll need to look into those more - who knows, maybe in the future. :) Jelioi (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you meant that you redirected the whole page! Does that mean all the work is gone? She's a significant artist and the page was reviewed recently, and if the issue was the citations to prove coverage, that's something that can be improved. Jelioi (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jelioi the version of the page as you had it still exists in the page history and can be restored from there whenever new coverage appears that can be used to improve the article. And who knows, maybe that coverage already exists and I just missed it. Typically I find most albums won't have enough coverage for notability prior to their release, but it's not impossible. QuietHere (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm so relieved! I will try to improve the citations with better sources as following the notability guidelines, but I'll be realistic about it and wait until post-release reviews and coverage is available if I don't find enough to replace the primary ones I've used. I have a few places to check first though. Thank you for the explanation, and your patience! Jelioi (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jelioi of course! Always glad to help where I can. QuietHere (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)