QuietHere

Hello there @QuietHere. Would you like to take a look at the recent discussion for track listing template? If you have time, your comments are always appreciated. 2001:D08:2933:E2D0:17AC:2096:62D3:57D1 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You commented at Jazz Recital that "It is my understanding that star ratings which aren't accompanied by prose are not allowed". I haven't heard that before; where does it come from? EddieHugh (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I remember it coming up in a discussion in either WT:ALBUMS or WT:WPMUSIC. Unfortunately I can't find any such discussion now, but I do know there's a general consensus that we shouldn't have ratings listed without also having a prose section referencing the attached reviews (mentioned here), and I think that could be extended to not including star ratings that aren't attached to reviews. Stars aren't exactly self-explanatory since everyone's understanding of what a given number represents differs from each other, so the prose is important context. If you wanna readd them though, I don't think I'd stop you, though I would consider bringing it to a query at WT:ALBUMS first just in case. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've looked at a couple of Featured Articles and they don't include text reviews for all entries in their tables. Late Registration and Aftermath (Rolling Stones album). I also see that your edit was reverted by Caro7200. I think it's better if you don't remove more unless you can point to a consensus. EddieHugh (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't assume people are a particular nationality just because of the place of birth. That's particularly relevant in the UK, where many will describe themselves as either British or one of their constituent nations - and there's no rhyme or reason as to that choice. Unless the subject has made a definitive statement on the point, just leave the status quo as it is. It's not something you can pigeonhole people with, so all those categories you've changed are now probably wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SchroCat I didn't assume it based on their place of birth. As I said, the one source that actually references their nationality says "English", not "British". It doesn't matter how the subject self-describes (assuming they actually do self-describe as such, which I haven't seen), it matters how the sources describe them. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, it’s not necessarily the sources. I’ll point you to Note A of the MOS on biographies:

There is no categorical preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality by which they identify.

Tldr: Don’t guess based on an ignorance of the subject, and go back and undo all the arbitrary (and probably incorrect) changes you’ve made over the last couple of days. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject" is exactly what I did, and "consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality by which they identify" doesn't apply if you haven't provided any sources showing the subject self-identifying. None of my changes were remotely arbitrary; they've all followed the same rules you're quoting. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

”particularly UK reliable sources”. I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe you checked. Which source describes Snakehips Johnson as English? Gelato is more likely to think of himself as British, given he has an American parent (and one with no nationality listed), which is more common with duo-nationality parents. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source where Gelato says that, or are you just assuming that given his parentage? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I left a notice on Gelato's talk page since this primarily regards his page, and I will also be leaving a notice at WT:ENGLAND since I can't imagine this discussion being settled between just the two of us. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi QuietHere, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the rcat you added to this category redirect, as the docs for {{R from alternative spelling}} say that it shouldn't be used on soft redirects.

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 22:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@A smart kitten where in the documentation are you seeing that? I can only see it saying "Use this rcat template in any namespace." QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the third banner from the top (or fourth, if you include the one saying This is a documentation subpage) in the documentation - "This template should not be...used to tag soft redirects". WP:REDCAT § When to categorize a redirect also says that soft-redirects shouldn't be tagged with rcats, with the exception (for categories) of {{R category with possibilities}}. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 07:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

QuietHere, you reverted an edit I made on Letter to Yu, where the original genre listing was shown as synthpop, but I converted it to match the genre article listing of synth-pop. I do not understand your reversion, as one is a misspelling and the other was the correct spelling, as shown by matching the article, Synth-pop. There was debate at the synth-pop article talk page about whether it should be synthpop or synth-pop, see Talk:Synth-pop/Archive 3#Requested move 19 February 2017, and it landed on naming the article synth-pop. Therefore, every time I see a misapplied synthpop, I correct it to synth-pop. I will probably be reverting your reversion at Letter to Yu, but I will pause to allow a discussion or debate why it should not be corrected. Mburrell (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The spelling "synthpop" appears six times in the genre's article and it is already an existing redirect. On Wiktionary, "synthpop" is regarded as the primary spelling and "synth-pop" as an alternate form. For all intents and purposes, both are correct spellings. Also, you only changed it in one place and missed multiple other instances of the term elsewhere in the article, and I'd rather it be consistent. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mburrell forgot to ping you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should in most cases be the most important value, because it's the rowheader [1]. That is not the year, which is less important than the title of the single. There is obviously no hard and fast rule about how to layout discography tables, but the title takes precedence over the year because it's a section about which singles were released, not when they were released. I know you think you do, but you do not need to take issue with literally almost every formatting-related edit I make to an article you have contributed to or created. Ss112 09:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You've already explained this before. I'm not taking issue with that, I just put the parameters in the first column as that's how I've always seen it done. I'm not aware of any documentation that says it is required to be on the most important information. And frankly, I find that a lot of edits you make seem to come out of nowhere. I have scoured up and down infobox-related documentation and seen nothing that says {{hlist}} isn't allowed, yet you remove them constantly. I've seen nothing that mentions the spacing inside of templates (beyond the slight convenience it can provide in some instances, a seemingly purely cosmetic change on your or any editor's part), yet you change them every time citing a policy for article titles which has nothing to do with your change. Even this most recent removal of empty parameters makes no sense to me; as I said, they do no harm just sitting there, waiting for whenever they may be useful. Many of the edits you make are useful, don't get me wrong (I especially appreciate the charting edits and the occasional addition of album covers as I've yet to figure out how to manage those myself), but it seems a lot are cosmetic changes per your preference which you haven't stopped doing because you claim nobody has disagreed with them before. But I disagree with them, and I think I've made that quite clear over the last several months or so of this back-and-forth between us. When I've called previously discussed edits pointless, or whatever word I used, that's what I meant. So this whole bit about me challenging you is mostly because you've annoyed me and wasted so much of my time and brain power on useless changes. If it had just been scope="row" and the like then I would have nothing to challenge because I have already ceded that you are correct on this and that it was something I didn't previously understand the function of. But there's a vast gap between that and random spaces next to equals signs that don't affect the way an article renders for viewers in the slightest. Those spaces are even the default in the samples on their respective documentation pages, which you can change if you really think it's necessary (it's not).

I apologize for the dump of a paragraph this is. I am very tired and have been frustrated for quite some time with our interactions, and have been holding this in for too long. I hope I made my case well; I don't have the brain power to edit myself much right now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Me typing "CONSISTENT" in all caps was just me capitalising that word because you put spaces between equals signs and the parameter content in the infobox, so I don't know why this doesn't apply to other templates on the article. I was literally not talking about WP:CONSISTENT. If I was, I would have linked that.

You've "scoured up and down" but haven't seen that Template:Infobox album and Template:Infobox song both state, under each parameter, "[For multiple entries] see notes for details", then by clicking on the footnote, it says: "For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists, format the items as a normal bulleted list; don't use other list templates or <br/>" (emphasis added)? OK, well now you know. I believe (but am not sure) the consensus for this was that nested hlists can cause an accessibility problem for screen readers inside of those templates. I believe I saw multiple editors summarise that this was the reason why when they began removing some of the flatlist or hlist formatting from articles. However, I was not part of the discussion and didn't even know until bullet-point listing became the default. Regardless of the reason, it tells us not to use list templates.

If you are referring to the example listed at Template:Music ratings#Example, there are spaces between the equals signs and what is listed in those example parameters... If you mean the copyable example, I don't even know why an experienced editor like yourself would still go there and copy that. I'm also not a template editor so I can't add spaces to it, and it's an example that somebody obviously didn't add consistent spaces for each parameter to. This is like saying all the other parameters listed on the copyable example at Template:Cite web should be present because "I just copied the example". Typing the template documentation "Music ratings", "rev1=", "rev1score=" takes only a matter of seconds and that's what I do. I never go to a template page and copy the example. Ss112 11:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:3RR. Stop reverting. Stop being condescending in your edit summaries. Oh and juust because something has been done a certain way for a period of time doesn't mean it always have to be that way. Things can change. Plus, you never directed to any discussion where consensus was reached. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 12:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mr. C.C. for the amount of time you spend editing list of 2024 albums and the like, there's no good excuse for you to not know why that entry doesn't have a reference. I apologize for coming off harsh, but you can understand where my frustration comes from, yes? And you should've brought the matter to the talk page after the first reversion anyway because I made my reasons for removal plenty clear. If you still disagree with them then it should go to discussion in the proper venue, not this back-and-forth. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I shouldn't have to link the discussions. I told you exactly where to find them. And sure, "things can change", but on Wikipedia they are changed by consensus garnered through new discussions, not by unilateral will and bullheadedness. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you added "This article uses they for consistency." to the refs but the page uses she and they pronouns interchangeably. Is this an oversight or am I missing something? Thanks. Estiblue (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Estiblue an IP editor changed the pronouns back to she/her after I made my edit. I have undone that. Thanks for pointing it out. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you know exactly where more citations are needed for Vended, why it looks like an ad, and how it needs cleanup? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jax 0677 responded at Talk:Vended#Maintenance. Next time, if it's related to one specific article, you should ask on the article's talk page, not a user's. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi QuietHere, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I saw your suggestion to me on the Super Magick page to add citations to info, which is fine. I don’t usually see citations in infoboxes, so I left them out. As there are only two citations on the page, I think it’d be a cool move to check those references for data suspected to not be sourced rather than removing the data as unsourced or suggesting someone’s making it up. It’s totally cool if you don’t want to do that, but I think in that case, it’s maybe more friendly to use the talk page to hash out a plan than to just remove data that you don’t want to verify in citations already present on the page. I appreciate you taking the time to sort that out, though! Louie Mantia (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Louiemantia I was working quickly and didn't see all the info in there that you included, so that's my mistake. As for sources in infoboxes, those can be left out if the info is sourced elsewhere (i.e. the lead or body of the article), but if the infobox is the only place where it's mentioned then you should include a source for it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @QuietHere. Take a look for which one you prefer at the "Release history" table: "Distributor", "Licensee", "Marketer" or "Promoter". 183.171.122.169 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, umm, can you please help me on something i am doing? Toby2023 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply