Leave a message.

Merry Merry!Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Popcornduff, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

★Trekker (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Season's Greetings!Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Popcornduff, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

JOEBRO64 15:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

QuestionEdit

But is "the player" or "players" in prose? Example: The game is open-ended, allowing players/the player to take on several activities... Would "players" be preferred for multiplayer games (pvp and co-op both), or is there really no difference at all? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Good question. Either would be correct, because "players" refers to "players who play this game" (ie there doesn't need to be one of them, just as there doesn't need to be one of this particular game). And "players" has appeal because it's simpler and shorter.
But "players" might be ambiguous, in that it might suggest a single-player game is multiplayer. Certainly I think "players" is better than "the player" for multiplayer games. Popcornduff (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's exactly what I was thinking, but wasn't sure if there was some obscure rule about it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

MJEdit

It's like playing Whack-a-Mole. There is still much puffery and little real content. Sigh.TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

TheLongTone, yeah I'm going to respond to the latest developments shortly. I think we should probably nominate the article for deletion as it's just a WP:POVFORK and despite a few months of discussion and back-and-forth editing doesn't seem likely to improve any time soon. What do you think? Popcornduff (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Really the article says little other than that Jackson was a big star who sold lots of records.TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
TheLongTone, it will be a pretty painful nom but I think it's time to go for it. What do you think is the best approach? Put together a nomination myself and ask others for feedback? Or just nominate it and see what happens? Popcornduff (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't know the form I'm afraid. I'd simply nominate it. One can notify interested editors of both stripe... I would do this since there are obviously a number of Jackson obsessives who will clearly vote keep & who probably don't need notification but some of the other persuasion may well not notice.TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, any thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

EponymousEdit

Thanks so much for WP:ELEGANT! -- this will become one of my favorite links for explaining stylistic edits, along with WP:REFERS. One of the plagues on WP is the overuse of "eponymous", "of the same title", etc. I've added a bit more about "eponymous", which is not only ugly for all the reasons that "of the same title" is, but pretentious and often abused. Sadly, WP:EPONYMOUS already leads to a discussion of eponymous categories.... --Macrakis (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Macrakis, thanks for the kind words. Yes, "eponymous" is the same deal for sure, so thanks for adding the extra stuff. Popcornduff (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral noticeEdit

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moog synthesizer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VCO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's genresEdit

Hi Popcornduff, I believe that Post-disco and Dance-pop are unnecessary for the Infobox as the genres should really only be the main 'standard' genres of Jackson's career. Post-disco generally falls under Disco and Dance-pop falls under Pop. Also, New jack swing falls under rhythm and blues. What do you think? Isaacsorry (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Isaacsorry, that sounds reasonable to me but I'm not a genre master. You should probably discuss this on the Michael Jackson talk page instead. Popcornduff (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I did yesterday but got no answer. I'll re-add it just in case. Isaacsorry (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Isaacsorry, sometimes these things take a little time. No need to delete something just because no one replies to it. If no one responds it usually means no one cares if you make the change you want to make. Popcornduff (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Musical instrumentEdit

I worked a lot on musical instrument back in 2011 or 2012 but I didn't bother bringing it to FAC at the time. I've been thinking about polishing it up and trying. Are you interested in a collaboration? I could make a short bullet list of what I think needs to be done. --Laser brain (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Laser brain, sure, let's take a shot at it. Not sure how much use I can be since my main area of knowledge is electronic music gear, but I can at least help with that and do some copyediting. Popcornduff (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I felt like the 20th century and forward was my weakest area of the history, honestly. Most of the definitive works (Sachs, etc) were written in the 80's or earlier so I kind of glossed over the last few decades. Do you know of any authoritative works we could draw on to flesh out the modern era a bit more? --Laser brain (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Laser brain, not exactly. For sources on synths, I've relied mostly on articles from online sources like Sound on Sound and Red Bull Academy, which are great for very specific stuff like a new version of a TR-808 or something, but less good for sourcing more general statements about how the music industry changed over a period of time.
However, I'm sure at the very least we can recycle some information and sources from articles I've already worked on - we could beef up the article with some brief summary information on the advent of drum machines and samplers, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, I think the article right now is lacking information on modern but ubiquitous instruments such as the guitar and drum kits. Popcornduff (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Definitely. I'm going to start a worklist on the article talk and ping you. Feel free to add to it! --Laser brain (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Laser brain, will do! Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on producer entries in infobox albumEdit

A discussion has begun at WT:ALBUMS#RfC on producer entries in infobox album regarding the |producer= parameter used in this infobox. Please add your comments there. – TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nirvana (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootleg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)