User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars/Archive 2

RFC courtesy notice - succession boxes

Thank you for starting the RFC, and for the courtesy notice. I agree, it will be good to resolve this. 28bytes (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 28bytes (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd recommend notifying the talk pages of all active music genre and band WikiProjects as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

re:Mediabase charts?

I left an answer on my Talk Page, but then I went ahead with this anyway, so here is part of your response: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mediabase Pop 100 Airplay Number 1's of 2010 - eo (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Empty categories

Empty categories should not be placed in the category Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, but tagged with the speedy deletion tag {{db-emptycat}}. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, for the information. I am sorry, I was not aware of the exact difference. Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help out and I know that's all you were doing. Not sure what the guy who created them all was thinking. Were they ever populated? Looks like some just go from one sub-category to another. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of overspecialized silanes categories created by User:Plasmic Physics

Please, see the discussion on the talk page here (and also many discussions in the previous sections of the same page) Cleanup of overspecialized silanes categories created by User:Plasmic Physics.

The project Chemicals is faced with a big concern arising from the misguided actions of an isolated and obstinate contributor User:Plasmic Physics who started overcategorization of some chemical compounds, mainly silane and arsenic compounds. It makes these subcategories totally useless. Most often, they were filled with one or two compounds, maximum four. On the talk page, there was a request and a consensus to stop this overcategorisation and to restore categories as they were previously. I contribute to this cleanup effort. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to remove most of the overspecialized sub-silanes categories recently created by User:Plasmic Physics. I replaced most of them simply by Category:Silanes which is presently not too populated. It seems reasonable and now all silanes are easily seen together and the discovery of other similar molecules is much easier than with the exaggerated arborescence made by User:Plasmic Physics. I think the job should be almost done, but a quick control by other contributors would be appreciated. These empty categories are now labelled with the category Empty category waiting for deletion. I hope that some administrators will see it soon and delete them without too much waiting. Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Chikayo Fukuda albums

Do you think you could withdraw the CFD so I can empty the category and tag it for C1, since the only article in the category clearly doesn't fit? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Trooper

You are a trooper. I would give you a barnstar, but I hate those things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For unswerving dedication to ablumology. Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Take a peek at User:Rich Farmbrough/temp19. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Appreciating the love. Thanks guys. That's one hell of a list, Rich, but lists are good. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it raises some questions. For example I'm 90% convinced that Category:Clare Bowditch and the Feeding Set albums is the right name (in the sense that Clare Bowditch and the Feeding Set are the artiste), despite Clare Bowditch and the Feeding Set being a redirect to Clare Bowditch. So perhaps the redirects just need picking over one at a time. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

No need to db tag empty categories in Category:Empty categories at the moment, I will deal with them on a daily basis or more often. Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

• All the Saints - ok it's a split album but seems like they should have a category. Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  
  • Why? I don't think artists without an article (red-linked artists) need a category. If it wasn't for the album being a split with an artist that does have an article, that article wouldn't exist. Create article for artist then create category for artist - should go hand in hand. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • For albums it is standard practice to create the artist album cat even if the artist is red-linked, because Category:Albums by artist serves as an index to the albums articles (which we have) not the artist articles (which we may not). Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
      
      • For split albums, the article exists because the other artist is deemed notable and is thus already indexed. For those that aren't splits, in many cases they should just be deleted. I realize there are a number of album articles that would survive an A9 speedy request with a red-linked artist, and those should be the only exceptions. I do agree with you on artist albums cats being created if there isn't an article for the artist when there is an obvious redirect, such as the Clare Bowditch example. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
        • If an albums category for a redlinked artist came up for discussion at CFD, I would expect that it would be deleted. That's typically been the result in the past for redlinked producer and songwriter categories. I don't think it's necessarily to the point of there being a convention against having them, but it's probably not worth the bother. We have enough categories that need to be created for artists with articles that we don't need to worry about the redlinked ones at this stage. That's my opinion, at least. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Well I'm not that worried either way about split albums. Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
            
            • I suppose I simply fail to see any advantage of removing the categories in these cases. Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
              

Talkback

Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 04:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Vision of Love"

Hey there, thanks for those fixes. I was wondering from an outside point of view, what do you think of the article? Thanks! :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for you're detailed comments :) I have removed the succession box and will get to the rest. Thank you :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No One Is to Blame

I was kinda hoping you were going to stop doing that. 28bytes (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I have tried to avoid it overall. Since no consensus was achieved in the discussion, my focus has been to remove them only from articles in which they are added, and not from where they exist. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem we'll be able to get a consensus either way, it seems like the next best thing is to not add them if they're not there, and not remove them if they are. Since our first discussion, I've deliberately refrained from adding any, even in the new articles on #1 songs I've created. Sort of an olive branch, if you will. 28bytes (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback

Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

afd

thanks, that seems to happen to me a lot. cheers! Fixer23 (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Succession box RE

If the discussion was opended proposing their removal, and the discussion is still open, then no change should be made yet. The change (removing them) is still pending a consensus. Otherwise, with a consensus for their removal, they should be removed. Dan56 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Dan56 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call R&B

...was deleted per your nom. Per my comment on the nomination page, could you do the related cleanup work? It still appears in various articles, I am sure; I just found it still linked in the main discography basically anchoring to the same page when clicked. (Yes, I've deleted that one.) CycloneGU (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

LMAO, I saw it right before you deleted it. I was just about to do the same thing. =D Now can you fix the discography infoboxes? I'm not fully familiar with when the albums all came out. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Singles by certifier category tree

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I guess it wasn't clear what I'm trying to achieve with these categories. I am building a category tree which should exist in addition to the singles by certification, singles by certifier. The "by certification" is supposed to be sorted by the certification awarded, Gold, Platinum, Double Gold, etc. The "by certifier" tree is by the certifying authority. While for singles it might seem a bit redundant at this point, as there are few categories, my intention is to populated these categories from the {{Certification Table Entry}} template. You can see how it is going look at Category:Albums by certifier, as I'm starting with the albums. --Muhandes (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I just realized you opened a CfD, so I'm moving the discussion there, there is no point in having two discussions. Best regard. --Muhandes (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Now That's Music Series

Now That's What I Call the 1990s still points to the missing R&B article as I type this, and so does Now 37. It's important to clean up after a linked article gets deleted; I'm going to make the presumption that these two should now be linked, but per my comment in the nom., you should do the cleanup work in the future if you nominate something for deletion. While you did it in the main entry, it's sloppy leaving the chronology linking to it in the articles. CycloneGU (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been busy this week. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As, well, it happens. I only noticed it because I'm still looking at some things from the series. CycloneGU (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Scorpion781004

No need for ANI. I will take care of it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I was just headed there. Thanks for the assistance. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

R&B Albums category

I was not aware of the fact that the previous Billboard music categories related to albums were deleted. What I don't understand is the difference between deleting Billboard album categories and allowing Billboard singles categories to get a pass on Wikipedia. I'm puzzled by this. GETONERD84 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Chart runs

Where did you read that chart runs had to be sourced. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 19:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:V: "all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The peak and release dates should be sufficient in proving it's verifiability. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine if you are just verifying the peak and release dates. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Usually, all of those chart runs stem from a number one article (eg. List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)) Is that enough for you? All of the chart runs there are sourced, and all of the templates link back to their articles. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

True, although some are not quite as well referenced as the Hot 100 lists, so in those cases, the sources still won't exist. I'm also not sure if you're supposed to rely on other wiki-articles to use as verification for statements in another, no matter how well sourced the other may be. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Common sense applies. You can't cite the other article, but if the information is there, and it's cited, you can either use the same cite, or in the case of lists, reasonably leave the cite off. If it's not cited, then you need to consider if it's likely to be challenged - and whether it is likely to be verifiable from an RS. According to policy if it's likely to be challenged it should have an in-line source. I would not insist that the source be in-line in every case, but sourcing does become more important. Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

About your editions regarding chart succession

Hello there, I was navigating through (recent billboard hot100 number 1) articles then I noticed that you literally broke the order of precedence in some of them, then I must ask you, why? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 04:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But the discussion about chart succession hasn't come to a consensus, so you can't go through articles editing and removing the template, it is a POV edition and there is an explicit rule about that (WP:NPV), so, please revert your editions once the discussion come to a common sense, until that the template should remains on every article. Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the discussion is regarding their deprecation or removal, until that, the template remains. This is how it works here. Coz you could keep removing, then I could keep adding them back, per your statement: Since there is no consensus for them, how can you say that they should be removed from articles? So it's okay to remove them without achieving consensus, but I can't add them because there's no consensus. How does that make sense? Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Amiinas singles

Hello you deletionist, you. You motivate me to edit and contribute monetary to Wikipedia less. If you are going to f*ck up the Amiina discography, would you mind also fixing up the links to the pages you delete? There is no point in having a redirect page, just keep the item in their discography. Sebras (talk)

Sure, no problem. I'm glad to help. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Define help. As you are actively discouraging me from attempting to improve Wikipedia's aritcles I fail to equte this with what I define as help myself. I'm not normally a SoB, but I would sincerely have appreciated a heads up, or a discussion on the talk page before promptly removing the pages. I suggest using gentleness before throwing away other peoples work when participating in a collaborative project. I do appreciate the cleanup you've done for Slowblows discography though, how do we proceed to improve it? Sebras (talk)

You asked me to fix up the links, so I was glad to help. Regarding the redirect, the entire article consisted of one sentence:

• What are we waiting for?" is the second single from the album Puzzle released by Icelandic band Amiina.

I'm sure that took a lot of work to do that. It's also not hard to revert someone's changes to put an article back how you want it. However, I do expect you to provide sources for the article that also establishes the notability for the song so it passes both WP:N and WP:NSONGS, since part of being part of a community is respecting the policies laid forth for inclusion. Frankly, all the singles for the band need help in establishing notability. For example, Over & Again is not notable because it is only available at their concerts. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Award template format consideration

I have responded to your comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your engineer removal and am having second thoughts. I am contemplating hiding them with an asterisk *Engineers/mixers hidden unless notable. However, so many are linkable in the 2000s, I think that might be unfair. Feedback welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you reverted again. I responded by adding an asterisk. I have also varied column widths as needed by decade. I made the artist column very wide in the 1970s. Do you think this looks awkward on pages (E.g., Eric Clapton)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Still contemplating non-notables. Looking at {{TonyAward CostumeDesign 1976-2004}}, {{TonyAward Orchestrations}}, {{BAFTA Award for Best Adapted Screenplay}} and {{Academy Award Best Animated Short Film}}. It seems common to inlcude complete enumeration of award winners, even when they don't have articles. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hiding them is no help to readers. Readers should be directed to other articles to get more information, not to the "edit this page" tab. Hidden information is to help editors, not assist readers. The Grammy Award for Album of the Year page is ideally suited to include all this information you want to present.

The issue here is not only about the inclusion of items/individuals that don't have links, but to create a meaningful, useful template. When presenting a list of winning animated shorts in {{Academy Award Best Animated Short Film}}, it's a great template to navigate from one short to another. Are you planning to convolute these as well by including the names of the individuals who were the actual recipients of the award, too? If I want to find out more about the films that won, I'd go to Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film; if I wanted to find out more about a film itself, I'd click the appropriate link in the navbox. A few red links just points out that some notable films don't have articles, but I wouldn't want to see an unlinked "John Minnis" on the Best Animated Shorts template for winning for Charade (1984 film) any more than I want to see every member of a band or every engineer who worked on an album just for being a named recipient of the award on the Album of the Year template. That's information I can find out by navigating from one award-winning album to the next or to the list of winners using the navbox.

Part of the purpose I redesigned the template was to align columns. If you're going to keep all that info in them, it should presented in an organized columnar format. I do appreciate the time you're taking to discuss these issues with me and at large. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the conversation to Talk:Grammy_Award#Formatting_for_Grammy_Award_for_Album_of_the_Year_and_Grammy_Award_for_Song_of_the_Year_decade_templates. I will not be following here any longer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for helping clean up Frankie Teardrop. Obvs the more help I get as a new bod, the better my furure ones will be! Any tips welcome! Bennydigital (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please Help!

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars! You have kindly contributed on the The Tides Of Time article in the past so I wonder if you could help me with a small technical problem I've got: I have uploaded an image from Wikimedia Commons to that article today. Unfortunately the following appears on the article page, above the image: |frameless|alt=|. I have no idea how to get rid of it. I guess, I must be doing something wrong? Please help! Magiko (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Much appreciated. Magiko (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cats

You have new messages

Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  06:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Stateless songs

Concerning your request for deletion of the article List of Stateless songs.

1. As far as I can tell there are no official rules or regulations on when an artist can have a 'list of songs'-page. Not in the music projects, nor the discography projects - at least to my knowledge since I last checked some time ago.
2. Stateless (band) have two albums and one EP but because of a lot of trouble they had with labels and stuff, several songs got rereleased from old singles and their ep on their debut album etc. They do not have a straightforward discography and for people new to them this could be quite confusing (as it was to me).
3. They are about to relase an extra ep with new material in May and thus extra songs that need to be listed as the EP might not be notable enough to merit it's own page or is likely never to progress from the eternal stubb-status and there is no room for tracklists in the main Stateless article. I felt there was a need for a list of songs, and I strongly believe there still is one.
4. There are plenty of bands with "list of songs" that even only have 1 album, for example List of Beady Eye songs among others, or even bands with a very straightforward discography.
5. I don't see any harm in having this article even if Stateless aren't the biggest band around. I'm really sick of the mentality that lesser known artists shouldn't have a very well documented wiki entry just because a lot of the bigger more and important bands have limited, highly incomplete or very amateurish entries.
6. Just because they NOW only have two albums is no reason whatsoever to have it deleted. You have to give articles time to grow. It's a list-class for god's sake! I want a better wikipedia for everyone, and this is the reason why so few people actually dare to edit or make pages. Even if they put REALLY a lot of effort in it, chances are very high some vigilante beats them down before they even properly started. I've been an editor for more than 5 years now and I really do my best to be very cautious and all, but come on, give articles time to develop for years to come. This article does no harm to anyone and is only meant to be a bit more exhaustive.
7. I'm not affliated to the band whatsoever. I won't deny I'm a superfan though. So yes, I kind of take this very personal as I have spend so many many many hours reading up on the official guidelines, working on the main and other articles, finding good new source material, ... even making my own pictures of the band and releasing them to commons.

I just don't see why this article should REALLY be deleted besides some sort of unneccesary strictness, the article by no means lacks effort nor is it unneeded or unneccesary.

Thanks. H14 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a proposed deletion, just remove the deletion template. Simple as that. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

List of songs by Elvis Presley

Please don't remove links, If they are the wrong links please create disambiugation for them and red link them correctly. The songs wer estarted to be expanded, redirecting completely defeats the object of them. i've reverted your edits.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Every song by the Beatles is notable. Same with Elvis. they can all easily be expanded like Ain't That Lovin' You, Baby and are likely to be given his popularity. Redirecting completely defeats the object of building material when adequate sources can be found to expand the, which would be much more beneficial in the long term. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't inherited. I will continue the redirects unless you can prove each song's independent notability that legitimately passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus I believe it is your responsibility to ensure links are correct if you are going to add them, rather than just haphazardly adding links to disambiguation pages such as Angel and Animal Instinct. Don't put it on other people to correct your mistakes, which I had actually started doing. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Traxsource

Traxsource is a U.S. leading music download provider which is verifiable, so why don't accept their charts. Or the download sale is not official?? Uzerakount (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the source from the text, just removed the chart section. Those should be reserved for officially compiled national charts. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Speaking of stubs articles, I would welcome if some of you guys could update quality scale of CCP discography. It is complete, there is no more to add as all the available information was collected yet. I don't expect much but I don't wanna rate the article myself. Still I'd appreciate if 'start-class' was changed yet. Thanks for a thought again. Uzerakount (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A thankyou with a barnstar!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For doing some of the least appreciated, but most necessary work - assessing unassessed song articles. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Cars

Although i totally agree "My Best Friends Girl" is a rock song, sources say different, and whether the sources are right or wrong, Wikipedia uses them as facts. What most reviewers do is they tell the genre of a song by what the band's singles genre is, and never even put there own opinion in it. And the bad part about that is, well, The Cars use a lot of genres unlike Rock or New Wave bands like Human League, Cheap Trick (who mostly look upon Power Pop and Hard Rock). and each single has a different sound, which is why it's hard to classify some of The Cars songs, so most reviewers like to go straight from the bands most unique sound, which for The Cars would be Synthpop. The amazing thing about The Cars is there ability to mix Synthpop, poprock and power pop with full throttle Rock and roll, hard rock, Art rock and rockabilly. And the crazy thing is, the songs are appealing. Take care! MajorHawke (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Miriam Yeung Stub Albums

While I understand tiny bit of why you do so, but that is the whole point of stub. As a creator I can provide the best to my knowledge and yet it's not enoguh to be wikipedia article standard. Rome isnt build in one day and neither is any of the Wikipedia articles, we all start something and let them grow.

And I'd appreciate if you at least talk to me via PM than to just wipe the whole content. ~E (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Modus (band)

This category is about to be deleted, see its nomination, so why do you include 'Modus (band) songs' to the band's articles. I don't get it, sorry Uzerakount (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case it is quite considerable why a main category is nominated for deletion when it includes subcategories NOT nominated for deletion. I would expect the opposite myself Uzerakount (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, got it now. Thanks for letting me know and time Uzerakount (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dream With Me Notability

What is the point of tagging the upcoming album of an artist whose debut EP (I'm discounting the independent release in this) put her at #2 on the Billboard 200? Regardless of how this specific album performs, putting a notability tag on the article seems like an excuse for saying, "I suggest to remove this from her discography because I don't see proof that the album is worth having an article for yet." The album isn't out until June; I can't post predictions per WP:CRYSTAL, and it's not going to likely be reviewed in general sources (i.e. review websites) until June as a result. Further, if the album DOES somehow prove to be a flop, we can always tag it for deletion later.

I think it can be reasonably assumed, due to past performance, that this album will also do well, or at least chart. If you need something, though, a quick Google search brings up this, though I clearly haven't used it in the article. So I am once again removing the notability tag. CycloneGU (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a press release. CycloneGU (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would say it would be more along the lines of this: "I suggest to remove redirect this from to her discography because I don't see proof that the album is worth having an article for yet." Two sentences on the Jackie Evancho article would seem to suffice at this time until more reliable sources become available. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the talk page template: I was already on top of the deletion page, I have already posted my comment. CycloneGU (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Sebastian albums

Category:Sebastian albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

reformatting

I don't mind you reformatting some of the templates, but please retain all band member names for navbox purposes, unless you have a good reason not to. The templates were created to link articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) at 06:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw your message at Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal and replied there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Music genre category removal from music albums

Your reasons for doing this are........? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I hope my summaries in my re-edits explains the redundant categorization scheme that these were being placed in. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, whilst categorisation by genre may seem redundant, it is clearly stated on this section of WikiProject Albums that genre should be the third most prevalent category following "albums by artist" and "albums by year". So why not adhere to that and keep them as they were? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not being altered at all. Please look at the example for Reign in Blood at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body#Categories. It would be categorized under Category:1996 albums and Category:Slayer albums in the article, while Category:Slayer albums is a sub-category of Category:Thrash metal albums, thus meeting the genre categorization requirement. That's how it says to do it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tarzan Boy (1985)

Hi Star, I have merged information from Tarzan Boy (1985) with Tarzan Boy, as you requested per the following rationale:

Merged with Tarzan Boy per suggestion, this is an article about the cover. The mentioned article has a section about covers, where this fits nicely. I have added the information in this article with this edit. The other information in this article is already in the Modern Romance article. Now this article does not have any added value.

Is this okay with you, and would you care update the Tarzan Boy page with any information you deem important? Thanks, Pim Rijkee (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page tags

Thanks for checking my work. I kind of rushed through a whole bunch of cats, articles and templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mystera

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Mystera, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Hutchings

Hi, I see that you are removing Category:Ashley Hutchings from albums upon which he appeared... why are you not adding Category:Ashley Hutchings albums in direct replacement? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be like adding Category:David Lee Roth albums to Van Halen (album) and so on? Those albums are albums by the band not every individual who was a part of the band. That would lead to overcategorization. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

10 Great Songs

I have reverted your recent edit on this article, because there are over 50 upcoming albums like "10 Great Songs", and none of them are tag un-notable. Secondly, the album hasn't been released it, give it time before tagging it again, thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cats

hello,

thank you for your contribution on cats. But the subcats in Category:Chamber jazz albums by artist nationality are empty. Can you fill them like Category:New Age albums by artist nationality? Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 13:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation! Regarding your contributions to cats, I will ask you everything about them, if possible! You are now inducted into my "remember list" :P. Regards :).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 19:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Undefeated (song)

Hi there. Since you'd previously cut that article down to a redirect, I'm letting you know that I recreated it into a proper article, and was wondering if you thought it was good enough to keep around. Cheers, C628 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Elvis Presley songs

Both of us have been changing these into redirects where appropriate, but I note you have been reverted by the article's creator (probably me, too, but I haven't seen an example yet). If he does it again, I shall take straight to AfD. Here's an example. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unassessed song articles.

Thanks for the note. I must admit I nearly gave up a couple of times, but seeing you in there gave me encouragement - hence the thanks above. All the way down from 8,000 plus, then all the additions in the past year! Ouch! Somewhere, way back I read that for WPSongs all redirects should be classified as NA. Can't say I really have an opinion whether that should stand. Probably means much the same thing. If you have a different opinion feel free to act on the opinion. Now going through all the stubs and see what can be done there. However, there is a ulterior motive behind all this, to populate Category:Songs by songwriter, which actually looks like a reasonable category these days. Everybody is on about the artist, very few about those supporting the artists. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

???s

Yes, please It makes sense to remove these question marks--Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and it's not necessary to explicitly mention all of the things that it doesn't have. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Category speedy deletion

In response to your edit summary: no, I've been working on adding pages to all of the empty ones, but when I see on my watchlist that you requested speedy, of course I'm going to go and fill it faster right away! Theking17825 14:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

IP vandal you reported

If you really want to stop this guy, you might want to collect all the IPs he's used into a list and see if we can do a rangeblock. As you observed, protection doesn't last long (although if you want, I'll give the articles more than a week if you want), but a rangeblock would frustrate the apparent use of dynamic IP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I blocked that specific IP. Is the disruption just on those 3 articles (NTWICM 77-79), or does it occur across the whole catalog? If the disruption is ongoing, we can make the semi-protections longer; alternatively, Daniel Case's suggestion of a rangeblock is good if they're editing from a narrow range. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Multi-platinum lists

Hi there. First, you missed Category:Albums certified septuple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America and Category:Albums certified novemdecuple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America in your CfD, I went ahead and removed them manually.

I suppose now you are going to create that list, to be placed at the top of this category. I'm not sure how this is going to be accomplished, but I'm sure you have some idea. Or maybe User:Koavf which also suggested it has some ideas. Although the categories were already destroyed, I think I can program the template to create temporary cats again from which this could be inferred, let me know if this is of any interest to you. Anyway, I'd be happy to assist. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Any plans of moving on with this? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nazareth (band)

Edit summaries save time for everyone. Mind reading is just a myth. [1]. Mlpearc powwow 22:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I re-edited with an edit summary. Hotcat allows one-click editing, so I apologize. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Populating Category:Redirect-Class song articles

Butting in I happened to notice that you posted to another user's talk asking how to populate this category. That would be done by modifying {{song}} to use the redirect parameter. I have personally added that pseudo-class to several hundred redirects myself, so they should instantly pop up in that category if the banner is changed. That having been said, {{song}} is based on a more generic WikiProject banner template that only excludes Category:Redirect-Class X articles if it is explicitly told to exclude it. This is to say, it appears that WP:SONG members deliberately chose to not use this parameter (why and when is beyond me--I suppose if you're really interested, you can check WT:SONG's archives.) Personally, I think that adding the redirect functionality makes infinitely more sense than having a whole bunch of NA-Class articles, but I suppose that's up to WP:SONG to decide. As always, let me know if I can be of assistance to you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

UK Compilation Chart number ones lists

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with your decision to move the "List of UK Compilation Chart number ones" articles to "List of UK Compilation Chart number-one albums". Unlike the Official Download Chart, Dance Chart, Indie Chart, Rock Chart, R&B Chart, etc., the UK Compilation Chart lists only albums, and doesn't have an equivalent singles chart. For that reason, I don't think it's entirely necessary to specify in the article title that it's a list of the Compilation Chart's number-one albums, because albums are all that it could be. Personally, I'd prefer to change the titles back, but I wanted to speak to you first. Thanks very much, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be clear to the reader as to what the list is for. In this case, it is a list of albums, just as List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.) is a list of singles/songs, but there is no Hot 100 albums chart. Can't expect people to just know that. It's ambiguous to just say "number ones", while "number-one albums" is consistent with the naming conventions of titles to similar lists. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... Okay, fair enough then. Thanks for the response. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Decategorisation

Can you please explain why you've made changes like:

• (cur | prev) 17:07, 20 August 2011 Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk | contribs) (2,760 bytes) (removed Category:Dave Seaman mixtape albums; added Category:Dave Seaman albums using HotCat) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 17:07, 20 August 2011 Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk | contribs) (2,768 bytes) (removed Category:1999 mixtape albums; added Category:Mixtape albums using HotCat) (undo)

on Global Underground 012: Buenos Aires without any discussion or explanation? Why do you think it's ok to categorise compilation albums, live albums and EPs (which you haven't attempted to change), but not mixtape albums? Many of the compilations seem to be miscategorised mixtapes as it is. Gnu andrew (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

First, there are less than 250 articles categorized as mixtape albums, definitely not enough to warrant an entire subcategorization scheme that will place a half dozen or less articles in any one category. Second, most mixtape albums are not notable, so again a subdivision is not necessary as it is a category that won't rapidly expand. And third, you were being bold by creating it without discussion and I was doing the same by removing them. You could have readded the categories (hardly a 3RR violation, let them be, or contact me as you did. I offer you my explanation and you may do with it what you will. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Jo Stafford albums

I think as she was a popular and prolific artist articles about her albums are notable enough to stand alone. I've removed the PRODs, but requested references as there's a guy who's quite good at finding these (oh, and I've tidied your ref requests too). If you're that bothered about them though, I suggest merging some into a Jo Stafford discography page. Let me know if you have any thoughts and I'll look into it. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Some Kenny Rogers budget compilation albums went through a similar process. Someone thought any album having Kenny Rogers name on it deserved an article. Without coverage in some reliable sources, that is just not so. AFDs resulted in deletion or redirects. Here's a couple:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucille and Other Classics
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For the Good Times (Kenny Rogers)

These Jo Stafford comps with a source that provides only a track listing are simply not notable, regardless of how popular or prolific an artist was. With the number of albums released, I'm surprised there isn't a Jo Stafford discography page, but I'm inclined to think that all the albums released after 2000 (except for any that can pass notability requirements) should be redirected to her discography section where a link can be provided in the list to the CMT site for those who want a track list. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, I notice you haven't done the same thing to a Sinatra album which has no refs. If this can't be sourced then it should go the same way, shouldn't it? But in any case, give me a few days and I'll create a discography page for some of them. In the interest of saving all my hard work, I think I'll add the tracks to it (using the show/hide gadget) and ref them from CMT and anything else I can find. I need to look into how to approach this though. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Think I'll use this article as a basis for creating the Jo Stafford one. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, and if I saw the Sinatra one first and did the same thing, someone would come to me and say "I noticed you didn't do the same thing to those Jo Stafford albums". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Very true, such is life I guess :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ok, just found out how to {{subst}} articles so this should speed things up a bit. I can start tomorrow, get them all into one article, then redirect each to the appropriate section. The same thing could be done for some of the Sinatra stuff as well, but I'll take a look through these and see what I can do. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of errors advice

Thank you so much for the good advice. Maile66 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks (talkback)

Hello, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 19:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A cup of coffee for you!

Just wanted to apologize this way. I didn't mean that your word was funny. (Something else was funny.) It has been bothering me ever since I made that ambiguous comment in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 18. I'm really sorry. Fleet Command (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Jo Stafford compilation albums

Hi, I don't know if you've been keeping an eye on this since last week, but along with another editor I have now created a discography of compilation albums for Jo Stafford. I merged the vast majority into this, keeping just a few which seem to have particular notability. However, AllMusic reviews have since been added to many of them and it has been suggested that some of the higher rated ones may now be notable to stand alone once again. Any thoughts you have on this would be welcome. Give me a few minutes to set it up, and I'll open a discussion at the list's talk page if you want to add an opinion. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing album redirects

Please stop If you change an album stub to a redirect (e.g.), please do not remove the categories. Consensus at CfD was to keep album categories even if they are exclusively redirects (e.g. Category:The Balham Alligators albums.) Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What does it matter if I do or it not, if you are there to clean up after me. :) --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure I certainly don't mind doing it--I just got lucky and saw you. Are you sure about these? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BG_and_Big_Tea_in_NYC&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benny_Goodman_and_the_Giants_of_Swing&action=history -- they were released in 1992? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I have noticed that it is particularly common for jazz albums to be categorized by year of recording rather than release and by artists featured on the album rather than the credited artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Note From TheBog1984

You edited back most of the changes I did for some of the Now Albums (US Series). I'd like to know why - I edited them to directly reflect what it says off the back of their CD's. For example, Pink's name is not spelled with an 'i' - it is and as near as I can tell, always has been, spelled with an '!' in place of the 'i'. Editing the name to reflect such visually, but leaving the link, does not detrimentalize or otherwise harm the album information and if anything, enures Wikipedia has the most accurate information regarding those albums. Thebog1984 (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You also re-added notes stating certain artists are 'featured' in songs that otherwise are NOT displayed in the song descriptions directly off the back of the CD's, which I fail to see as uncredible. Example is 'Now That's What I Call The 80's Hits', Track 11 - you re-added a note for Ronnie Spector but Ronnie Spector is NOT mentioned anywhere on the CD, either directly on it or on any information/included documentation that comes with the CD. I own it directly so the changes were made to reflect the most accurate information. If Ronnie Spector is indeed a part of the song and un-noted on the album itself, then the artist should only be noted on the song's page, not the album's. Thebog1984 (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

... my bad! Now I just feel blondish. I must have misread your edit. The changes I did/do directly reflect it, I think you just cleaned it up. I apologize and will undo it. Regarding Pink's name, should it be changed to reflect the '!' in place of the 'i'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebog1984 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Not a problem. Sorry for the confusion. I re-added Ronnie. I just thought it was one of the ones I'd removed when I saw the '-' on my edit and the plus on yours. A horrible blonde moment, and I'll cease editing the stylized names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebog1984 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User page

It's odd to see you in blue. Would you like your user page deleted again, and maybe salted against creation? Drmies (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think it mattered, so I never bothered. But since it is blue from unwanted actions by others, I will not object to deletion of my user page. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now you look like your old self again, all red and starry. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call…quacking

I've blocked 71.172.184.212 (talk · contribs) for one month. The edit patterns match Pierceybrian22 and his changes to the Now… articles; if it looks, swims, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Empty categories

I just noticed you submitted several empty categories for deletion. Some of these are administrative categories used to track things by a WikiProject and may be empty often or even most of the time. But they are used so deleting them will just cause me to have to recreate it which will annoy me greatly and waste my time. --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Category:People by nationality and region

I'd prefer to see a discussion on CfD. Could I ask that you consider nominating for CfD there, rather than speedying? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Pierceybrian and his IPs

I think I spelled it out pretty well in my last comment. I'd tried not to go down the competency route, but it just feels like nothing is registering with him. I'm done discussing the situation with him, though I'll continue to block as necessary if he keeps socking. I'm thinking it may be time to not respond to him for a while. Maybe he'll lose interest and move along. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree to not respond as well, but I don't think he'll lose interest. As his IP changes, I think he'll always try to edit again because he just doesn't know any better. His patterns are obvious so he'll be easy to spot. Thanks again for your help. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Pop punk albums category

Just wondering, why are you removing lots of albums from the Pop punk albums category? I reverted the Simple Plan album ones but you might be grouping Pop punk albums in [band albums] category or something. Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Album categorization talk

WT:ALBUM I'm assuming that you watch this page, but I wanted to make sure that you saw this response--maybe you can shed some light on something that I'm just missing here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

South Korean category removal

Why are you removing the categories? I see nothing wrong since I followed the same as the other South Korean record labels. Jay2kx (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Because that categorization scheme is incorrect. Don't worry, I fixed all the others. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? What is wrong with it? What does the scheme suppose to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay2kx (talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Items placed in Category:Talent agencies of South Korea, for example, should all be talent agencies of South Korea. The articles for Brave Entertainment and Starship Entertainment are correctly categorized here. The eponymous categories for those companies should not be because it implies everything within those categories are also talent agencies of South Korea. Brave Girls and Sistar are artists under those labels and categorized as such but under the scheme as you think it should be, all artists of these labels are talent agencies as well. They aren't, thus the categorization is incorrect and you only have the container category for "categories named after" whatever. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Thanks. Jay2kx (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Network Template TFD 2

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_7#Network_templates. A new discussion about the same templates has been restarted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_19#Network_templates_2. Feel free to express your thoughts at the new discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Moncton Miracles category

It's a category for players of a notable National Basketball League of Canada team...as more players get their own articles, the category will become populated (I even placed a template up there)-thanks for bringing it to my attention, but please remove the deletion tag. Tom Danson (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not how categories work. It's empty for now and should be deleted. You create articles for the players then you place them in appropriate categories. If an appropriate category doesn't exist, you create it at that time. Wikipedia does not need placeholders. I'll let an administrator decide whether the tag should be removed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

IIDY

Are you like a stalker? NYSMtalk page 09:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Taylor Swift

Please remove your tag for speedy-deletion you got two against your one. I showed my roommate what you did and even he agreed you had no reason to tag it as it's more specific. It's no recreation of music just cause she's an music artist. There's a difference. So please remove your tag thank you. JamesAlan1986 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:User no-0

I have closed the TfD you initiated about {{User no-0}}, because userboxes should be nominated at WP:MFD and not WP:TFD. Regards, Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 19:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Eclipse photo category removal

I notice you're removing categories for images to be moved to commons. This seems counter-productive when the identical categories exist under commons, like [2], and so these eventually moved photos will be left disconnected. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(diff | hist) . . File:Lunar Eclipse 05.41 UT.JPG‎; 02:01 . . (-46) . . Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk | contribs)‎ (removed Category:Solar eclipse of 2010 January 15 using HotCat)

(diff | hist) . . File:Tvmeclipses.jpg‎; 02:01 . . (-46) . . Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk | contribs)‎ (removed Category:Solar eclipse of 2010 January 15 using HotCat)

(diff | hist) . . File:20100115montage.jpg‎; 02:01 . . (-46) . . Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk | contribs)‎ (removed Category:Solar eclipse of 2010 January 15 using HotCat)

I don't know how commons works, but I haven't removed any categories from images. Categories are things that have been created and exist. I've removed things that could be categories if someone had created them, but since they don't exist, they serve no purpose on wikipedia. Thanks. --17:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

They still served a purpose of collecting common images together, even if nothing was written about the collection. In the eclipse case, they collected together photos from the same events. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your cat removal, so you can see on Category:Solar_eclipse_of_2010_January_15, Media in category "Solar eclipse of 2010 January 15", The following 3 files are in this category, out of 3 total. I agree it is better to add the category page, and link to article Solar eclipse of January 15, 2010, but it is still useful even without that, especially since some photos may be removed from the article itself and then there's no connection at all to find them. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I gave it a parent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

2012 In American Television AfD

I happened to look at the AfD again and I deeply apologize for removing your comments (though it was done by accident). I'll make sure it doesn't happen again.

Regards, Chris (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.)

Don't you hate when lists begin with "this is a list"? I know I do. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian level 0

As a courtesy, please do not edit other editors' user pages.

In particular, I have reverted your edit on my user page, restoring the Ukrainian-language level-0 user-box, which does not harm and some good on 10 editors' pages.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for editing your user page. It was my understanding that all 0-level language categories were deleted. I thought it may have been an oversight on your part. Note that I only removed the red-linked category and did not touch the userbox. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:2012 American television series endings

Since you are the original nominator of this category being deleted: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 30#Category:2012 American television series endings, I was wondering if I could get the go ahead to re-create it. The deletion of the category at the time was justified mostly because it was too soon, but 2012 is almost upon us and I don't see why the category cannot exist now as a companion to Category:2012 American television series debuts. QuasyBoy 15:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Knew you were going say that. I'll just wait longer, I guess. QuasyBoy 18:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your note on Tab Two

Hi, you left a note on Tab Two asking for further citations and proof of notability. Would you please add a message stating what exactly you are missing to Talk:Tab Two? Regarding notability, would this or this be of any help? -- 88.67.159.167 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Category deletion

Why are you deleting all of these categories from the Grammy Awards categories (Category:Awards established in 1994 for example), etc.? --Another Believer _(Talk) 08:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Because that categorization is incorrect. The article for Grammy Award for Best Polka Album is what should be categorized under Category:Awards disestablished in 2009 and Category:Awards established in 1986 not Category:Grammy Award for Best Polka Album. The category contains the award-winning albums, which would imply that those albums were also awards disestablished in 2009 and established in 1986, which is of course not true. Also, the actual award is the Grammy, so only Category:Grammy Awards really needs to be placed in Category:Categories named after awards. Best Polka Album, Best Rock Album, etc., are categories (in Grammy terms) of the award but its all the same award. Also, some of your categorization of performance categories is incorrect, which is one reason I brought it up on the Grammy task force talk page. For example, you have Category:Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance under Category:Lists of men, yet the category contains articles on songs, not lists of any men. Even if it contained performers, the lists of men category would be incorrect because individual artists, like Bruce Springsteen, aren't lists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a distracting side-note: being a WP-category junkie, I did a double take when I saw Category:Grammy Award categories. On the second take I realized that of course you had named it correctly. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I guess I will try to go back through the category lists and re-add years the awards were established and disestablished when I have the time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with that though. The award is the Grammy, which was established in 1958. Winners of specific categories are still receiving the same award that was established in 1958, regardless of what category they won in and when the category was created. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I will hold off on adding year established and disestablished for now, though I imagine some people may see the relevance in identifying the lifespan of award categories. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Autocreated babel categories

What made you tag some for deletion while keeping others? I don't oppose the deletions, but what made you keep 240 or so? — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The ones I marked for deletion had categories for each level; that is, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, N, and the main one. If the top level category existed with a template or a user page in it, I felt there was a place to put the rest of them, even if they were empty. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Pop 100

I removed the Pop 100 chart on the Bad Day (Daniel Powter song) page because the source that a past user had placed on there doesn't show it even charting on the Pop 100. That gave me a good reason to take it off of there. - Easy4me (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought that they had a different source for some reason. Sorry. - Easy4me (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Creeped out

STOP stalking me. Every time I make a new fucking page you immediately start screwing with it, and if you make pointless page moves like you did to the 2007 Alt Albums page, CHANGE the fucking template also. NYSMtalk page 00:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I so enjoy interacting with pleasant people like you on Wikipedia. Please don't comment on my talk page if you can't be civil. If you think I am stalking you, that is your problem. I watch all chart-related articles under Category:Record charts. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

CfRs

Wow I have no idea how I did Category:30 Rock episodes (season 1) episodes, etc. Amazing. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Please make the category first before adding it articles, thanks...Modernist (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Solar eclipses

If you're going to remove categories (that are apparently too specific?), at least consider changing it to a more general one like Category:Solar eclipses. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(diff | hist) . . File:Solar eclipse 1893Apr16-Corona Schaeberle.png‎; 15:23 . . (-44) . . Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk | contribs)‎ (removed Category:Solar eclipse of 1893 April 16 using HotCat)

diff | hist) . . File:Solar eclipse 1893Apr16-Corona-Schaeberle.png‎; 15:23 . . (-44) . . Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk | contribs)‎ (removed Category:Solar eclipse of 1893 April 16 using HotCat)

(diff | hist) . . File:Solar eclipse 1893Apr16-Corona predicted by Schaeberle.png‎; 15:22 . . (-44) . . Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk | contribs)‎ (removed Category:Solar eclipse of 1893 April 16 using HotCat)

• It has nothing to do with a category being too specific. It has to do with the category not even existing, thus there is no way to find these images through categorization. Category:Solar eclipses has no other images (except in the subcategory you made me create a couple months ago), so there is no existing scheme for categorizing similar images. It's up to you if you want all images of solar eclipses categorized, but if I see others in categories that were added over a year ago but as yet never created, I will continue to remove the red-linked categories until such a scheme is devised. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I forgot that. How's this Category:Solar_eclipse_of_1893_April_16. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)