User talk:Richard3120/Archive 3

Singapore chart

Hello. I appreciate your input in the AfD for List of number-one songs of 2018 (Singapore). I was curious about your comment that the chart is official and has allowed other charts to be accepted as "official" here on Wikipedia. I believe the Wikipedia acceptance is for adding these as a reliable source into articles for songs that have charted on such charts. It doesn't have to do with reaching number one on all these charts and creating a list of these number ones, which I believe requires a higher criteria for inclusion for such lists, because those same sources used in the song articles are now primary sources with no additional assertion of significance. If a list of number ones is going to exist for the Top 30 Digital Streaming chart in Singapore, just to use that one as an example, there should be 3rd party coverage in reliable sources of that chart. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hey sorry, Richard, this was intended for User:CHUI372. I think I was just following the preceding conversation and forgot that was your talk page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: no worries... I think on reflection the message did partly apply to me anyway, because I was more concerned with the Colombian chart's "official" status rather than notability and verifiability, which were the key concerns of the AfD.

While I have your attention, I wanted to ask you something related to another AfD we have participated in... seeing as Now 51 and Now 52 have both been redirected, do you think a precedent has been set and we can start redirecting the rest of the series, without having to take it to another AfD? I'd suggest starting with the most recent Now 98 and working backwards – Now 99 is due out in a month's time and the article for it has already been redirected, but I foresee that if the most recent Now articles still exist, someone will try and revert the redirect. Richard3120 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

They really should all be redirected. There were other AfDs as well where the result was a default keep mainly because the existence of all the others while acknowledging a large undertaking needed to be done. I could see a fight from IPs who will revert redirects (not just UK but Australia, US, too). So one choice is just start and see what happens. Another is to open it up to discussion (RfD?). I was thinking of trying to present something like this (not at all flushed out), which basically merges the UK portions of Now That's What I Call Music! and Now That's What I Call Music! discography and then redirecting the individual volumes to there. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your draft and proposed redirects are pretty much how I saw the final article being. Here's another article regarding the original idea for the Now series [1]. I'm pretty certain I could get hold of more information regarding release formats, sales figures, etc. from copies of Music Week in the British Library the next time I'm back in the UK, which would help with the article's sourcing. Richard3120 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Source for older Australian certifications?

Thanks so much for your work on the Up Where We Belong article. The citation for its Gold certification in Australia is an old online auction of the framed award that was issued by ARIA. Do you know of something else that can be used in place of it? —Danaphile (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Danaphile – no problem at all, I saw your request for a review but I was too late to contribute to it, but I thought at least I could fill in some of the missing citations for the charts and certifications.

Regarding the Australian certification, I'm afraid I can't help you very much. It's almost impossible to get hold of certifications from the pre-ARIA era (pre-1988), and I don't think there is anywhere that they can be found. They are definitely not included in David Kent's Australian Chart Book 1970-1992 which has the chart positions from this time, and Gavin Ryan's chart books only cover the ARIA era onward. You could try dropping a line to the editor Nqr9 on his talk page, because he is Australian and has these chart books to hand and also copies of the 1980s Kent Report chart sheets, but I have a feeling he will tell you that the certifications are not to be found on any of them... no harm in asking though. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the referral. I'll get in touch with him. —Danaphile (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

PS The level for gold certification of a single in Australia before 1989 was 50,000, not 35,000 – you might want to change this in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you know of something I could use as a citation for the change in these figures when I edit it to read 50,000? Thanks! —Danaphile (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently it was in the ARIA yearbook at the time when the change was made, which would be the official source... again, Nqr9 might have this information. Richard3120 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

reply on talk: leona lewis

hello I replied at Talk:Leona Lewis thanks andrew 199.101.62.36 (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Colombia

Hi Richard3120, to see if you can please take part in this discussion in the Colombia article. We want to achieve a consensus and that consensus is good for the article. --JShark (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colombia --JShark (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent merger proposal

Thanks for adding templates for merging Gender feminism and Victim feminism into Social construction of gender, diff. During the subsequent discussion an editor began a new discussion (for which there is no consensus) proposing an alternative suggestion of dispersing the content of "gender feminism" and "victim feminism" into their relevant authors. Another editor has now removed the original merger templates, diff. Based on the way the dispersal of content discussion has gone, would it be possible to add new merger templates for "gender feminism" into Who Stole Feminism?, rationale: The two terms were popularized by the book and subsequent support/criticism of the use of the term refers to book. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Carthaginian

I understand the issue of notability, which IMHO is frequently misused as a criterion. Having Carthaginian redirect to Carthage is misleading because it misses the point of my article, which is that in the 1800s the term meant coming from Cartagena, Colombia. A better solution, and one that I should have executed initially, was to make it a disambig page. Would you object if I made it a disambig page, or would I fall afoul of another Wikipedia policy? There are so many, most of which I do not know. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, the redirect to Ancient Carthage has caused a number of links to be misleading. For instance, see HMS Rifleman. The Cathaginian privateer in question came from Cartagena and was not some incredibly long-lived (2000+/- years) vessel from the Punic Wars. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: on reflection, my deletion nomination was a little hasty and harsh – I apologise if I offended you with the nomination, and it would have been better if I had discussed it with you first. I agree with you that the disambiguation page seems to be much the best solution: as the original text referred to more than one Carthage/Cartagena, it was effectively a disambiguation page anyway, and looking at Londoner, Parisian and New Yorker as perhaps the most obvious examples, I can see that they are all DAB pages as well, so making Carthaginian a DAB page seems the most logical step – it will always be difficult to find sources that specifically "prove" that this means someone or something from this city, without turning it into a dictionary definition. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn't happy with what I had done and was thinking of going back and tidying it up in some way. Before I could, User:Writ Keeper intervened and with a bit of back and forth between us came up with a DAB page with much better wording. The key in all of this is not taking WP policies as if they had been handed down on Mt Sinai and then imposing rigid definitions of what constitutes a DAB page. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Boxer Rebellion (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The National (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Aretha Henry albums

Think about placing a vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful (Aretha Henry album). That one has the same issues that you pointed out when voting in the AfD for her other album article. Also, I don't know how to bundle AfDs together so that might be a useful extra step if you're able. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about an AfD for the singer's article too but I will see if anyone else wants to do it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: Thanks, I agree that the Beautiful album has even less going for it than Enchanted. I'm still not convinced Ms Henry has enough coverage to warrant her own article, but that can be discussed separately at a later date - I just mentioned it so that other editors could look at it and decide whether it was worth redirecting the albums to.

Bundling AfDs is not difficult - see WP:MULTIAFD for instructions, but essentially you do the first article in the normal way, then add the AfD notices to the top of any other articles you want to bundle with the first one, and then add something like "I am also nominating :{{la|related article 1}}" after you've stated your reasons for nominating the first article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shout Out to My Ex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fuse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know

Thank you for letting me know, at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, that the article on Aretha Henry is up for deletion. I am no expert on Aretha Henry, so do not have any strong views on whether an article on her should be deleted or not. Vorbee (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

IP edits

I believe User:213.89.76.95 and User:213.89.68.99 are socks as their editing patterns are similar to blocked users User:Danieleb82 and User:Gogardendeep, so I marked this edit as vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES under "Gaming the System". Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – it was just that in this case the edits were genuine, the album title and the song article did exist at the time. But it's all sorted now anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources for synthesiser articles

Hi there - just some friendly advice... I appreciate the work you are doing trying to create articles for various synthesisers and electronic instruments, and to add details to existing articles. I just wanted to warn you that blogs and fan forums, like Vintage Synth, won't be considered reliable sources per WP:RS. I know it's not easy to get hold of old printed magazines, but I would try and concentrate on finding articles about the instruments from publications like Sound on Sound, Future Music, EMusician, etc. (I know some of the articles already reference these publications). If you can't find good references for the articles, there is a good chance another editor will decide to redirect them to the main article about the company (Yamaha, Roland, etc.) or delete them. Just wanted to warn you. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 

Thanks Richard, i was not aware Vintage synth website was a also a forum as well as a wealth of knowlege on electronic instruments, but if you look at the pages i have done i will also cross reference upto three pages to ensure the information is consistant. http://www.polynominal.com/ doesn't have a forum and in just informational. http://www.retrosound.de/ is the same, as is http://synthmuseum.com/ https://encyclotronic.com/ (which is very encyclopedic!. I will take your point on magazines though, they are a great source of information, and hopefully we can fill the gap of all the lovely synth, drum machine, sequencer and sampler page. Co-incidentally SOS has a forum page too which can be found here https://www.soundonsound.com/forum In fact some pages contain no references whatsoever, here are just two examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_SH-3A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_System-100M contain no references whatsoever Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Clavia --> Nord proposal change

Hi Richard, i have made the proposal if you would like to vote on it either way i dont mind. Thanks Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Earthtones World Tour

Hello Richard3120. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Earthtones World Tour, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: if it's a tour by a notable artist, that is sufficient claim of significance for A7. Consider merging to Earthtones (Bahamas album) per WP:ATD-M. Thank you. SoWhy 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: no problem, I thought it might satisfy A7, but I'll look at other options now. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, anything that can be handled by WP:ATD, does not qualify for A7 or deletion in general and specialist sub-topics can almost always be redirected or merged into the larger topic. In case of tours, WP:NTOUR explicitly guides this at the right way to handle non-notable tours. Regards SoWhy 12:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing project banner

By replacing {{WikiProject South America}} with {{WikiProject Colombia}}, you remove categories related to the South America project. Also, you don't need to use class=Category since the template detects it from the namespace. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Koavf: I know it does, but I didn't see how the category related to any other part of South America outside of Colombia, and the WikiProject South America is inactive. I do realise that categories (like templates) are automatically detected, but when I come across them I add the class and the importance so it makes it easier on the WikiProject Colombia assessment table to see what has been assessed. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hm. I didn't realize that was an issue for the assessment tables... It seems like the way the tables work should be updated then. Thanks for this insite, Richard. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: oh, it's not a big deal, just me being a bit picky, that's all – I just mean that the class automatically gets added, but the importance doesn't get assessed at the same time. But honestly, I don't think anyone apart from me cares about assessing the importance level of a category or template... Richard3120 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Breek Morgan

Wow. I have deleted it. How did you find this article? --B (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@B: over the last couple of days I've reverted a couple of clearly fake additions of chart placings and certifications in some random song and album articles, added by an IP 186.77.194.144 from Nicaragua. I decided to check all their edits, and found a small one that they made to the Breek Morgan article. I was about to revert them, when I noticed the claims elsewhere in the article of platinum certifications in the UK and Brit Awards nominations - as a British music fan I knew immediately that these were false, and checked out the rest of the article, to find it was badly written hogwash by someone who clearly doesn't speak English as a first language.

What astonished me is that this article has existed for years, and various other editors had tagged it for notability, lack of sources, etc. and yet nobody had done a basic check that would have shown within a couple of minutes that it was a hoax. Richard3120 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The Power Station

I decided to combine Power station (disambiguation) and The Power Station because items from the 2 DAB pages were already a bit mixed up and, more importantly, I don't think that readers would always know whether or not they wanted the 'The'. Since you just edited The Power Station, I wanted to drop you an FYI and give you a chance to object! Leschnei (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on Asian Americans

As someone who edited Asian Americans in the past two weeks, I invite you to participate in a discussion about some recent edits. Specifically, there is a question about whether to include South Asian ethnicities in the discussion about Asian Americans. --Ishu (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Bliss Carman

You broke the template with your edit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand which template you are talking about,but at present "The University Press" links to a disambiguation page, not to any particular Wikipedia article, so I was trying to note that it needed clarification. Richard3120 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ficha de organización

I think that Template:Ficha de organización can be safely speedied per {{Db-test}} if you'd like. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

50 Ways to Leave Your Lover

Hi Richard3120

Something went wrong with your edits to 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover . They made the page populate the non-existent, and implausibly-named, Category:Singlechart usages for West Germany2. This also happened with your edits to 2 other songs: 9 to 5 (Dolly Parton song) and Guantanamera.

In each case I have reverted your edits to remove the redlinked categories per WP:REDNOT. I don't know how the music chart templates work, so I'm sorry but I can't advise you on how to fix them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: my apologies, this is me getting ahead of things too much. These edits result from a combination of two conversations on the Template talk:Single chart page. Firstly, there were originally two options for locating German chart positions, with the parameter codes "Germany" and "Germany2". I'd pointed out that the website that used "Germany" no longer carries the charts, and hence I am working through the category of pages with this code, changing them over to the "Germany2" parameter.

In a separate conversation, another editor had asked if a "West Germany" parameter could be added, to reflect the singles charts the country before unification. However, this parameter was added without knowledge that "Germany" no longer works, and they will all have to be converted to "West Germany2" as well.

What I hadn't realised is that "West Germany2" has not yet been created, which is why the category doesn't exist. For the time being I will direct the songs to "Germany2" but will ask for the equivalent "West Germany2" parameter to be created, and that should solve the problem in future. Richard3120 (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like you know what you're doing with it, but I thought it best to let you know rather than risk you wondering what happened.

Good luck getting it all sorted --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: No, honestly, thanks for letting me know that I was inadvertently doing this - you are right, we shouldn't be populating non-existant categories. It's only three songs that have been reverted, and there are still nearly 1500 songs in the "Germany" category to change over, so three more songs is a trivial amount! Richard3120 (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Richard3120. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for implementing the NZ book certification template. If I had a copy of the book I'd do it as well lol. I'm glad that you got to use the template and help fixed false NZ references with their proper references. Many thanks :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: 70s in British music

Hello, I agree but this certain User:Tuzapicabit has been deleting every information I've been adding and calling it unsourced while I'm reverting the pages in good faith like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westlife_discography&action=history

@Myxxd: so the solution is most certainly not to decide to delete information from other articles in a petty tit-for-tat war. Tuzapicabit is removing information about Westlife that is entirely trivial and which cannot be verified by any reliable sources, and explaining his reasons for doing so – you are removing important and newsworthy items which can easily be verified in independent sources such as newspapers, music magazines, etc... there is a big difference. What you should do is discuss the issue with Tuzapicabit on his talk page, but I do think there is a difference between what he is deleting and what you are deleting. Richard3120 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ultravox videos

Hello. As Warren Cann says in the referenced interview in Vienna (album): The band did not make videos for "All Stood Still" and "Sleepwalk", and there are no videos of these songs on the video collection dvd "The Collection" (EMI, 2000). Why do you claim that videos were made? Edo (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Edo: – my apologies, you are right that there was never an official video made for "All Stood Still". But there was one for "Sleepwalk", which you can see on YouTube [2]. In his autobiography If I Was..., Midge Ure says that it was shot live in "a grotty club in St Albans" and that it was "boring"... which it is, and which is why it probably wasn't considered worth putting on the DVD. He also says this then caused problems when they came to shoot the video for "Vienna", because Ultravox's contract with Chrysalis Records only allowed them to shoot two videos per album, and they had already used up their quota with "Sleepwalk" and "Passing Strangers". So the band's management company had to lie to both the record company and to Russell Mulcahy and the rest of the team on the video shoot, saying they had permission to shoot the video from Chrysalis, which wasn't the case. It might be that because the video for "Sleepwalk" was really just film of a live concert, Cann didn't consider it a proper video.

There are some other things that Ure says which don't match up with Cann's recollections... for example, Ure says that the demo of "Sleepwalk" that got them the contract with Chrysalis was done without a producer, and the work on the full album with Conny Plank came afterwards. He also claims that the band wanted to call the album Torque Point, because they didn't want to focus on any particular song – exactly the opposite of what Cann says. Ure claims it was the record company that insisted they call the album Vienna, not the band. I suggest we include both viewpoints in the article as they are equally valid. Richard3120 (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. That's a very good idea. I haven't (yet) read this book. Edo (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: notability guidelines

Thanks for your edit on the James Norcliffe article. I have added several more citations including to reputable newspapers (Otago Daily Times and others on the Stuff website), journals (NZ Author), interviews (Radio NZ) and articles (Jacket2 and Flash Frontier). I feel the topic meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines as he has been widely published and has been recognised with a number of awards, prizes and residencies, and the Jacket2 article calls him one of New Zealand's leading mainstream poets, so I feel the template message could be removed now - do you agree? Thanks.--Pippipip (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pippipip: I guess so, if you like, I don't have strong opinions on it. But I do feel that the majority of the references in the article are still weak ones, so I'd recommend trying to find better ones. Richard3120 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

NZ checklist Scapolo book

Hello. I've finally worked through the New Zealand ones. Most of the ones I have left overs can be verified/disproven with the book (with a few exceptions - see the cert table entry template talk page).

The ones I would like for you to check are the following:

• Michael Jackson:

1. Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough - Gold 1979
2. Rock with You - Gold 1979
3. I Just Can't Stop Loving You - Gold 1987
4. Beat It - Gold 1983 (it went gold went it recharted in 2009, but I'm curious if it already had before then)

• Other songs:

1. Stealin' (Uriah Heep song) - Gold 1973
2. Out of Reach (song) - Gold 2001 by Gabrielle

• Albums

1. Darkness on the Edge of Town - Gold 1978 by Bruce Springsteen
2. Ixnay on the Hombre - Platinum 1997 by the Offspring, (I can confirm gold with the charts - id 3778 but not platinum)
3. Think Tank (Blur album) - Gold 2003
4. In My Own Words - Gold 2006 by Ne-Yo (can't confirm as it fell off the charts in April 2006 and Radioscope didn't start until April 2007)

That's pretty much it. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: the edition of the NZ chart book in the British Library is the first edition, which goes up to 1996, so it won't include the Gabrielle single. It also only covers just singles, not albums (the 2006 edition includes albums). But next time I'm there, I'll check the other songs – I can't think why I didn't bother to look for Michael Jackson's records, but anyway, it'll be some months before I can get there, so I hope you're in no rush. ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I just found out that I have access to the 2006 version! I thought I didn't have access to any edition at all. I could save you time and check myself, and message you if any of these are (for some reason) missing. Also, I'm not sure what you specificaly use the book for. I'll be checking for certifications. How about you? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: yes, certifications is really the only thing that I use the book for. Good news that you have access to the updated version – but may I ask a favour of you, please? I added the NZ certifications for Wuthering Heights (song), Crazy Little Thing Called Love, Money for Nothing (song) and Shout (Tears for Fears song)... but I forgot that it was the old version of the book that I was using, so the page numbering will be wrong because the template uses the newer version of the book. Would it be possible to look up the page numbers for these four songs in the 2006 edition and correct the page parameter in the template accordingly, please? Richard3120 (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Sure. Funnily Wuthering Heights is on my pre 1988 aussie certification list. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

re: "Do They Know It's Christmas?"

Hi Richard 3120! First of all Happy New Year! Thanks for writing me about my edit in the "Do They Know It's Christmas" article. The Hungarian chart is mostly based on the Spotify data as it's the most popular streaming service in the country. Using this site https://www.spotontrack.com/charts/daily/streams/hu/2018-12-24 I checked it, and realized it was the 1984 version that charted, they just probably used the wrong picture for it as you thought. I changed my edit in the article, sorry for the mess up. Kirtap92 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

TomWatkins1970

Thanks for reporting those accounts on the The Time (Bros album) editing history to the TomWatkins1970 sock puppet investigation page. As you may have noticed, whoever is behind this account is incredibly persistent - often re-appearing as soon as page protection expires, and resorting to personal abuse and accusations of others who revert their edits as being vandals. I've been dealing with this guy's antics for over two years on Bros-related pages, and I'm only a casual fan of the group at best.Nqr9 (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nqr9: it's ludicrous, isn't it? I only became aware of this editor recently - I was never a fan of Bros as a teenager in the UK back in the late 80s, and the passing of thirty years hasn't made me change my mind about them. But I do care about getting facts right on Wikipedia, and many of his claims are clearly nonsense. Sadly, like you, I'm certain the moment the page protection is lifted another "new" editor or two will arrive to add the same unsourced statements regarding sales and certifications to the Bros articles. It's getting to the stage where you'd want to asked the pages to be permanently protected so that editors have to have made 50 other edits elsewhere before they can edit those articles, or some such deterrent. Richard3120 (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with it being at the stage where the Bros pages need permanent protection, or at least 12 month protection at a time. I think the main Bros page is protected until March this year, being protected for the previous 12 months, because of him. At least your sock puppet investigation was dealt with promptly; in the past, I've had to wait over a month for someone to take a look at it, sometimes, and then state that the 'IP addresses are too old' - i.e. what was the point? If you take a look at the editing history of some of the earlier accounts/IP addresses he has used, it is not just Bros pages he targets - though he seems to be from the UK, given he has vandalised pages on UK football teams. Once or twice in the past, he has even edited my wikipedia user page (when unconfirmed users could do this), to make statements like I've been in jail and am a child molester. I've also had to request some edit summaries where he has abused me to be suppressed. He is crazy.Nqr9 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Children's Literature

Hey, I've noticed that you have been adding the {{WikiProject Children's literature}} banner to film adaptations. The WikiProject's article states that "Notable exceptions to this scope include redirect pages, and articles about adaptations of children's literature in a non-literary medium, such as musicals and films." Please refrain from widening the scope of the project before discussing it with the Project. Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 21:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: I think I added a {{WikiProject Film}} to an article which already had a {{WikiProject Children's literature}} on it, not the other way around. But if I did, I apologise, and have noted it for the future. Richard3120 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Dire Straits - Best selling reference

Hi Richard,

RE: Brothers in arms best selling album.

As of July 2016 Brothers in Arms is the eighth-best-selling album of all-time in the UK.[31]

I clicked on the eight best selling album link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_Kingdom

Which had another link in the sales figures - https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-uks-biggest-studio-albums-of-all-time__24431/

I can't see how to edit the reference link [31] to the new link.

You able to help?

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davelynch1 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Davelynch1: I'm not really sure what you are asking for – the link [31] already goes to a reference from the OCC that shows it is the eighth biggest-selling album in the UK. What is it you want to change? Richard3120 (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

On my initial edit I changed the date to reflect oct 2018, The ref you pointed out that is out of date Oct 2016 reference link [31]

The link I read with Oct 2018 figures comes from the underlying hyperlink in 'eighth-best-selling album ' text which leads to the wiki article 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_Kingdom' which under Brother in arms sales figures in turn references 'https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-uks-biggest-studio-albums-of-all-time__24431/' which shows Oct 2018 figures.

I don't know how to change the reference link [31] to show the current sales figures'https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-uks-biggest-studio-albums-of-all-time__24431/' to reflect that Oct 2018 is the current sales data.

When I go to click edit on the references i get.

References

Notes

Citations

Editing reflists is beyond me.

Ah, I understand you now... actually, you are mistaken, and there is nothing to change. The October 2018 list is of the UK's best-selling STUDIO albums... The two biggest-selling albums of all time in the UK are both greatest hits albums, Greatest Hits by Queen and Gold by Abba. Once you take those two compilations out of a list of only studio albums, obviously everything else moves up two places. So Brothers in Arms is still no. 8 on the all-time list, it's just no. 6 on a list of studio albums. And there has been no updated all-time list since 2016. Richard3120 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davelynch1 (talk • contribs) 11.48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: A New Hope (Amboog-a-Lard album)

Hello Richard3120. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of A New Hope (Amboog-a-Lard album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: one of the musicians in the band is notable so consider merging/redirecting there instead per WP:ATD. Thank you. SoWhy 08:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: apologies, I didn't notice one of the band members was notable, so you are correct to decline my speedy request. But I'm not sure a redirect is going to be useful, seeing as there are at least two other albums with the same name, there is absolutely no mention of the album at the proposed redirect page, and obviously it's a phrase most commonly associated with Star Wars. I still think a PROD or AfD may be a better option. Richard3120 (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the album is mentioned at Twiggy Ramirez#Discography and probably should be mentioned at Twiggy Ramirez#Musical career, so merging seems the best solution imho. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that, thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on Omid 16B. I'm glad it came to the attention of a knowledgeable editor like yourself. Thank you for your hard work in improving it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: thank you... I guess Omid's PA got lucky that there was a Wikipedia editor familiar with the artist's work, and I got lucky that they had kept press cuttings about him. Unfortunately the reality is that Wikipedia articles about dance DJs/producers are heavily biased towards those who have gained fame over the last ten years or so, coinciding with the rise of the internet and online EDM magazines which report their every move, while those who were around before this era are largely ignored because all their coverage is in print magazines of the time which are hard to access. Richard3120 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that's kind of the way with anything on Wikipedia, really - especially anything older than about 10-15 years ago. Just depends on luck of the draw, some interested person latching on to a given topic and being willing to put in the research. It's part of the charm in my opinion, but of course it does make coverage a little prone to randomness. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hope this is how 'messaging' works on Wiki! Wanted to thank you guys for the effort you made bringing this article back to life from non-existent! @Richard3120 you're a top man for putting article together from photo copies! Thanks to Omid's team who kept those press prints handy and tidy for years! Internet cannot reach as far back, and these days press is completely different world! I will give it a go to update his article, hope that wont cause another submission for deletion! Cheers PA to Omid16b (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Omid16b: yes, you got the messaging almost right... apart from the fact you didn't need to "ping" me on my own talk page! It's 99% certain that the article will survive indefinitely now - once an article has several verifiable and good quality sources attached, other editors are reluctant to put them up for deletion. I'll keep an eye on any other information you add and check that it's all okay. Richard3120 (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate that! Will pop back here if I get really stuck if you don't mind! PA to Omid16b (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem, feel free to ask me here if you have any questions. Richard3120 (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Article review: Sabana Grande (Caracas)

Hey. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabana_Grande,_Caracas has been vandalised by Jamez42. 100,000 characters have been deleted and several quotes/sources from relevant authors and academicians.

Please, I kindly ask you to review the article.

--QuinteroP (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@QuinteroP: Why did you write to 14 editors and didn't ping me? The edit was not vandalism, and you have already opened a peer review of the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge Proposal Protocol

Hi, since you seem familiar with the merger process what is the normal timeline? Should I be expecting more people to participate, is there a reasonable time frame where if nobody writes to comment or object I should request someone process it? Thanks 208.84.155.212 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It's usually a month or so, to give people time to see the proposal and add their comments. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at the pages it looks like very few people actually edit them except to stop vandalism though the protection lock takes care of that now and so few people are responding on the talk page. Is it a good time for me to start working on some proposed merge language to post there? 208.84.155.212 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I see you've already posted a couple of examples of sentences that you consider contentious. No harm in stating your concerns and making suggestions of how to overcome them. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Discusion article Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo

Hi richard, I am formally and politely writing to you in order to present my point of view about the elimination of the article, Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo.

If a consensus is reached to eliminate, I suggest that they allow it to be edited again with greater future reference. It is a biography of a living person, and the verifiable sources can be added later.

Because these expose arguments, there are currently other biographies of living people who do not have much biography, or verified sources. Your referrals are your social networks. As an example, here are two similar cases to compare the articles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernanfloo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ngel_David_Revilla

Check the links of these examples that I expose, and some are broken. Their references are their social networks, and some biographies can not be verified.

But still, it is not cataloged to delete the article.

So if these articles are accepted with a lack of veracity or just because they are YouTuber, why do not they accept the creation of the article Jorge Luis Diaz granados Lugo. Fastedeleted (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You can ask an administrator to move the article back to draft space, so that you can work on it. But you will need to find better references – not Facebook and other social media, but recognised and respectable independent news organisations, like national newspapers (El Tiempo, El País, El Heraldo), or Caracol or RCN.

The comparisons you give with Fernanfloo and Dross are not valid – if you read WP:BASIC, which is the basic guideline to define the notability of a person on Wikipedia, you will see that they need "significant coverage" (so it needs to be more than one or two lines of text) in "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable" (so they have to be from news organisations that are considered established and reliable, and more than one of them) and "independent of the subject" (so they can't be the subject's own social media). The articles for Fernanfloo and Dross do have two or more reliable news reports for them, and they talk about them in detail. Even more importantly, they are news organisations from outside of their own countries (El Universal in Mexico, La República in Peru, the BBC in the United Kingdom). So this shows that they are famous enough that other countries have reported on them. Richard3120 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Richard, greetings.

friend from your point of view some things you are in all the reason. But also in what he exposes there are contradictions. YOUTUBE is a social network wherever you look. Can not. categorized as something else why it would be a serious mistake. Since when YouTube are relevant on Wikipedia? Since when do you have to be famous to have an article? Since when is the number of followers taken into account in Wikipedia? Does a YouTube channel merit rstsr on Wikipedia or just accept it for the time being? All these points shine in the extensive explanation of the person, I do not want to offend anyone, I do not want to generate discord but. With the examples that I exposed you previously, there are links that lead nowhere. There is even a link in Fernanflo that is only a statistic of those who see it on YOUTUBE.

Your statistic is an account created by it: https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/fernanfloo

Then we go back to the beginning again, do Youtubers deserve to be in Wikipedia? Or do you accept those items by fashion of the moment, by personal tastes, etc? YouTube is a social network, and that is an absolute truth. Which shows that they are accepting that the reference of an article is a social network. YouTube is a social network. And it does not have to be taken as something out of it, and they are accepting such articles with reference to a social network (YouTube) where the Wikipedia policies are applied. The policies of Wikipedia is for everyone and there can not be that privilege or favoritism of some yes and no others. YouTube is a social network, and they are accepting articles about it. All this is counterproductive. With these facts I expose and affirm that the article Jorge Luis Diaze Granados Lugo must be maintained. If it is eliminated, it will be taken with all due respect, but the action will be frowned upon. Why if they accept YouTubers that are social networks, reflects that exists within the rules of Wikipedia, an air of favoritism to maintain an article.

I hope my words are not taken in a bad way, my intention is not that. Thank you. Fastedeleted (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there are references in both articles for Fernanfloo and Dross which are not acceptable by Wikipedia standards and probably should not be included in those articles. Unfortunately there are nearly six million articles on the English Wikipedia, and only a limited number of editors... it's impossible for us to be aware of all the bad references on all the articles. But they still include references from sources that are considered reliable and acceptable on Wikipedia, according to WP:RS, so in general we will keep their articles.

The fact that their "occupation" is YouTubers is irrelevant... it doesn't matter if a person is a sportsperson, or if they work in a shop, or if they appear on the internet... if they have gained enough fame and coverage so that reliable sources are writing articles about them, then they are considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There is no favoritism for or against YouTubers, they only need to have been discussed in detail in multiple reliable sources. That is the fundamental criterion for accepting an article on Wikipedia about anybody – they must pass the criteria in WP:PERSON. Richard3120 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Hi in response to your comment on my talk page, concerning my 'Organised crime in Colombia' article, i would like to say that this project is for a university assignment and temporarily needs to stay separate from the page crime in Colombia. If the admins want to combine it later they can. all good! Ninjacowgomooo (talk)

Bohemian Rhapsody

As you have made several edits to this article, I thought I might ask you whether you think categories such as Murder Ballads and Rock Ballads really apply to this song? It seems to me that it has a ballad segment, but the song itself is not actually a ballad. I won't remove unless you agree. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, categories and genres for songs are not particularly importance to me – I think they're usually too difficult to be that precise about a song unless they are specifically quoted as such in reliable sources. I'd probably agree with you – you could just as easily call it an operatic song, and "opera" and "rock ballad" seem to be almost mutually exclusive. I have no objections if you want to remove the category. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Bounce Back (Little Mix song)

This was not a good edit whatsoever. You essentially restored a prior version of the page. It's like you weren't aware Little Mix did a broadcast on Instagram Live four hours before you made that edit where they revealed the release date, and you were essentially accusing all the editors in the interim time, including myself, of having added unsourced material despite the clear fact I had added three sources to the article (1, 2, 3). Next time, check what is sourced and remove only what is unsourced. Don't just go and restore a prior version of the article by just saving to the last time you edited. Normally I'm fine with your edits but that was annoying and really misguided. Ss112 03:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ss112: I apologise, but that's really weird, because I wasn't trying to do a rollback at all – if I had been trying to do that I would have simply reverted the last edit. All I was trying to do is remove the statement about the dolls, which at that point was unsourced. I genuinely have no idea how that turned into removing the release date and everything else, because I can assure you I didn't use "revert last edit". Now I understand why you think I said "everything was unsourced"... I was actually referring just to that statement, of course I noticed that there were already three sources, but my edit managed to remove the other sourced material. I'm very sorry, but I'm still totally puzzled as to how that happened. Richard3120 (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I've apologised to DarkGlow as well. Richard3120 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Abortion in the District of Columbia

Thanks for the rename and fix. Will try to change graph title later today. I hadn't realized it was misspelled as I had copied the format from an existing template and it was already in place. --LauraHale (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bloodshells Revenge

I'm not sure you read my response to your request on my talk page regarding the article but I agree with your arguments on the album being non-notable. Your reasoning make sense, go ahead re-direct the article, I don't know how to redirect an article however. --Proudpakistani11 (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the ridirect of the article now, if you search google for bloodshells revenege now it appears on the side knowledge panel. I will look for more sources of the album. --Proudpakistani11 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Proudpakistani11: the problem is the XXL article is not about the album, and has literally no more than a passing mention that gives no details about it - as WP:RS states, the coverage must be reliable AND in-depth. I'll wait for a few days to see if you find anything better, but at the moment this still falls well short of passing WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I tried looking and could not find any other valuable sources aside from marketing websites such as Amazon or Spotify, you can go ahead and redirect it. Proudpakistani11 (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Proudpakistani11: Thank you for being reasonable about the whole thing. A redirect is the best option all round: the rapper is obviously notable, so he's a valid redirect target. And in the event that better sources become available for the album, the history is still there, and it can just be reverted and added to... better than deleting the article entirely. Richard3120 (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

International Conference on Applied Informatics

Dear Richard3120. I am a collaborator of the International Conference on Applied Informatics (ICAI). This year we have the second version of the conference. I considered interesting to include this article because the results of the first version of the conference were pretty good. The conference has been created by Hector Florez, which is a professor and researcher in one important university in Colombia. So far, there are a lot of collaborators (around 120 researchers that hold Ph.D. in informatics areas) in the different committees supporting the conference. The idea of the conference is to provide important contributions to informatics. This year ICAI will be held in Madrid Spain, but there are some proposals to host ICAI the following years in Argentina, Austria, United States, and Ecuador. Then, with this article, it is possible to keep the history of the conference as well as to state its importance. I am willing to improve the article based on the feedback. To write this article, I read some articles about conferences in different areas. Then, I thought that the information already included is enough and appropriate. Indeed, I have tried to include references to every information included. However, I can include more information if it is required. Thank you. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florezfernandez (talk • contribs) 20:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Florezfernandez: apart from the fact I believe you are Hector Florez, and therefore you have a conflict of interest and should not be writing this article (see WP:COI), please read WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:ORGCRIT. If the event has not received extensive coverage in independent sources (not related to the event), then it does not meet these criteria. I agree that there are other conferences on Wikipedia with articles, and it is likely that many of these should be deleted as well, if they have not been covered by newspapers or news organizations. You can make your case for keeping the article at the deletion discussion page. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hector Florez

Dear Richard3120 I was not aware of criterion #5 and #6 of WP:NACADEMIC. Then, I am afraid that the article will be deleted. Perhaps, in the future, it can be included. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florezfernandez (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In the Land Of

I moved In the Land Of per MOS:TITLECAPS, as the last word in a title should be capitalized. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Fair enough, no problem. It was a bit confusing as the creator had made two identical articles, one all capitalised and the other in lower-case. Richard3120 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Older reviews

Hi! I believe the reviews I got from Before and After Science were also from Tamm's book, but I believe someone suggested to me use the sources that I believe were in the books references section, which specifically cited the magazines. For other reviews (i.e: Escape), I did snag some reviews from rocksbackpages. My local university had access to its database so at the time as being a student, I had access from my own computer. I still am sometimes close to the university and pop in and go on the local computers their to get access to the site. I don't know when I will be there next, but I would be happy to try and look up some material if you would like. As for other reviews, I believe some old NME reviews are on the NME website, and this site has some old Select magazine reviews. Beyond that I have no really found anything outside university access. Hope this helps! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Charles Reid (Painter)

Hello Richard3120, you added two WikiProjects tags on the "Charles Reid (painter)" talk page. I'm novice and I don't know what to do with that. I added the two Start-Class categories at the bottom of article's page. Is there anything to do in addition? Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from you soon Regards --Lize56 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lize56: no, you don't need to do anything about that – it's simply to list this article under those two WikiProjects, so that anyone interested in either improving Biographies or Visual arts articles on Wikipedia will be able to find this article. I would concentrate more on finding sources for the article... there is a lot of what we call "original research", that is, your own opinion, for example in the influences or painting style. You need to find independent, reliable sources (not blogs, social media or websites closely associated with the painter) that confirm these statements, otherwise it is likely that other editors will remove the offending statements. Richard3120 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Fresh Kid Ice - Hip-Hop Wikiproject Tag, Rating & Question

Thanks for adding the Hip-Hop WikiProject tag to the Talk Page on Fresh Kid Ice. I'd been working on it doing edits, reworking the language, grammar, spelling, etc. but it was pretty well referenced even when I first started editing the page.

Did the "Start" rating come from the page also being listed as a "Start" on the Biography WikiProject tag? Do you know if it's been actually assessed by the Hip-Hop WikiProject editors yet? I'd like to think that it's AT LEAST a "C" Class article (rather than a Start). Sundevilesq (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sundevilesq – yes, I simply rated it according to the rating that was already there for the other WikiProject. I doubt it's been rated by anyone else... most WikiProjects are pretty dead these days, and you could have a long wait to find anyone to find anyone on the project to rate it for you. Reading it over I think you can probably raise the ratings to C-class yourself (there's nothing to stop you doing this, and I won't change it back), but someone else should review the B-class rating, and I can see some issues with that, mainly that availability on iTunes is only considered proof of existence, rather than notability, and as iMDB is a user-edited database, it's not considered a reliable source and its use is discouraged on Wikipedia. There are a few other things, like the use of other non-reliable sources, and the description of the "RIAA Top 100" (it's the Billboard Hot 100 – RIAA has nothing to do with the charts, only certification), but these are minor issues. Oh, and I'd also say the lead (the introduction) is too long – it's recommended to be no more than three paragraphs, summarizing the key information in the main text. But I don't see why with a bit of clean-up this couldn't become a Good Article, you've done a good job. Richard3120 (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Presumed removal of Billboard chart archives?

Richard3120, on the talk page for WP:CHARTS, you have suggested that Billboard may have plans to remove their online chart archives permanently, or, at the very least, move them to Billboard.biz and put them behind a paywall. Personally, I would be disappointed if such plans became reality. Late last month, it looked like it was headed in that direction, but that is no longer the case. Are there any sources regarding an announcement for any Billboard chart archive paywall plan? Jim856796 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jim856796: no, quite the opposite in fact, you'll be relieved to hear... not only are almost all the old charts back online, but a whole slew of new charts (Bubbling Under, Internet Sales, etc.) have been added... it looks like this is the reason why they were temporarily taken offline, to allow the new charts to be added. Richard3120 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edit of Talk:Back to the Stone Age (disambiguation)

FYI: Per guidelines of WikiProject Disambiguation, we do not place the {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} tag on empty talk pages. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: My apologies, I was unaware of the project's guidelines. But I have a question: I've noticed on other articles that if the talk page is empty, the corresponding article doesn't appear in the search box when you try and search for it. If this is also the case for empty disambiguation talk pages, how does one find the disambiguation page? Richard3120 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Weird. I tried to create one (before making a redirect) and it did appear in search box as prompt. Can you give me an example? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that the redirect page I eventually created does not appear as prompt with or without talk page, but if typed in full, the search puts me to the target page. But some other redirects work OK. There is a mechanism to report bugs/improvements to wikimedia developers, but the process is complicated. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

RECREATE

Hi, Previously deleted due to welding problem. And I want recreate with referance and Sources. (Living Peoples) Kil.Baran (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)