User talk:Blz 2049

This is Blz 2049's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

You've done a great job with the new material at Single (music)#In South Korea. Based on what you have found during your research, would you consider this material to be best placed where it is now, or possibly moved to a new section at Album, or perhaps even to become its own article? This matters for the links and redirects in the new Template "type" that we had implemented yesterday, just to wrap it all up. If you think it's best as-is, no problem. If you feel that one of the other options is valid, I can help out as needed. Thanks for your work on this topic and for your wise comments back in the original discussion at the Albums Project. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was an interesting (and really productive) discussion. I think it's probably best placed within Single (music). At most, I would include "single album" in the "see also" section of Album, where there is a link to extended play as well. At some point, "single album" could stand as its own article. It could even do so now, it would just be quite stubby. But I think "single albums" are better sorted onto the "single" page for the following reasons (I'm also using this as an opportunity to clear out any remaining thoughts I didn't publish on that talk page):

• The extent that single albums are "albums" relies on the Korean definition of the word, where album refers primarily to physical media. The western conception of "album" remains "a long-playing musical release, usually with multiple songs/compositions (or one very long song/composition), regardless of whether it is carried on physical or digital media".
• I don't think single albums are a subset of the western definition of "albums". Not the same way that categories like "studio album", "live album", "double album", even "mixtape", etc. are subsets of the western concept of an "album". I do think single albums are a distinct release type that happens to have "album" in its name.
• Putting aside the slippery "how is an album defined" question, a single album is an "album" with a primary purpose of promoting the single(s) it contains. The concept of a "single" is still more central than the definition of an album.
• Most importantly, there's the overlap. In the post-digital music market, "singles" and "single albums" are distinct "types" of releases; but in the analog era, my understanding is that Koreans would have called any single a "single album". Before some point in the 90s, and certainly in the era before CDs entered the music market, what westerners called "singles" and what Koreans called "single albums" would have referred to the same thing, and (from what I found) Koreans continue to use the phrase "single album" in historical/retrospective descriptions of such releases.

In my research, I found examples of pre-digital physical singles referred to as 싱글 음반 ("single album"). These uses of the phrase were from documents dated within the last 10 years or so, showing that the term is still used when describing historical singles on physical media—a time before Korea had developed a cognizable division between a "single" and "single album". "Strawberry Fields Forever" / "Penny Lane" would have been called a single album, and would still be called a single album today, as long as you're talking about the 7-inch record that was sold in 1967. The current Korean usage of "single" didn't arise until the digital music era.

So those are my reasons why it should be under the "Single" article. What's more: while I continue to believe that "single album" is best understood as its own distinct category of release, that differentiation seems like somewhat of a historical/linguistic accident or quirk. In addition to Korean Wikipedia, I consulted Namuwiki, a more freeform (but also, far more popular) Korean wiki. On that site's article 싱글(음악) ("Singles (Music)"), there is this interesting excerpt—roughly translated via Google, with some clean-ups and bracketed interventions on my part to reflect my interpretation, but you'll get the idea:

"The word 'single album' [to describe a previously mentioned release] is the wrong expression in the first place. I make a mistake of writing a single album in the media that deals with music ... This is because Koreans think of 'album' as the meaning of 'record'. There is a single in Korea because there were only regular albums without EP, there were many people who mistook 'album' for 'record', so it is wrong to say that 'single album' means 'single album'. Currently, the music market in Korea develops the concepts of singles and EPs, selling singles as digital singles and EPs as mini-albums. ...

"It is Korean music market to use the wrong term 'single album' without distinguishing genres. There is also a document called "single album" in the document about artists such as the US and Japan who use the album separately from the single. If you look at only a few representative documents that are registered on the tree wiki right now, you can clearly see that it is written as a single album.

"In Korea, a single record is often regarded as simply a record with few songs. Singles are not singles and singles, but singles are singles and albums are singles. Singles and singles are singles, singles are singles, and singles are singles. Reflect. [Though difficult to understand or translate coherently with only machine translation, I believe this paragraph is deliberately/humorously highlighting some of what the writer perceives as absurdities or inconsistencies in the Korean concept of "single album".]

"This is because there is no separate single chart in Korea. Because there are no single charts and no album charts, releasing new songs more than singing the songs in the album will be more profitable in the music charts ranking. In addition, if the same song is recorded simultaneously in a single album and a regular album, the sales volume is dispersed, and the music chart is damaged.

"Billboard and other overseas major music charts have separate charts and album charts as of 2010, both reflecting both physical and digital sales volume. This is a lot of misunderstanding because it is different from Korean music chart which is divided into 'sound source chart' and 'music chart'. It is a typical example of misinterpreting the album TOP200 as a music chart with the soundboard chart of the billboard single HOT100. [My interpretation of that somewhat garbled-in-machine-translation sentence: "A typical example of this misunderstanding by Koreans would be misinterpreting the album Top 200 chart as a 'records' chart and the Hot 100 as a 'digital sound' chart."]"

Of course, this source is an anonymous writer on a wiki, not a "reliable source", and to be taken with a grain of salt. But this anonymous editorializing, I think, suggests that even some Koreans perceive or, on the other hand, are confused by some of the same problems we were attempting to untangle in that discussion—and also the inverse, which is that Koreans often misinterpret the western/Billboard-style categorization of releases, just as we initially misunderstood the Korean perspective.

Again, this is my best understanding based on the research I was able to do. I don't speak Korean and I have little knowledge of Korean music/the Korean music marketplace. However, I did arrive at these conclusions based on the dialogue on that page with people who are much more knowledgable, and by consulting as many Korean sources (both in English and Korean) as I could find. I welcome clarification from someone with better knowledge or, especially, better sources.

Final thought: It may even be that, in the long run, WikiProject Singles takes jurisdiction of "single albums" from WikiProject Albums—even if they're not the same as "singles", even if they are still best sorted with the Album Infobox—since they are a closer cousin to "singles" than "albums" from an English-language perspective. For me, the key thing is recognizing them as their own category of release, not necessarily sorting them under a particular WikiProject. But honestly whatever people think is best is fine; either option (or even sorting "single album" releases into both projects) would be equally sensible, in my opinion. —BLZ · talk 20:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that! You have done a very impressive amount of research, especially into Korean sources. I am especially intrigued to learn that even Korean music fans find this term confusing. Concerning the next steps, I like the idea of a "see also" at the Album article. As determined in the original discussion at the Albums Project, the chart authorities in South Korea and Japan place these items in their respective "Album" charts. That justifies placing them in the jurisdiction of the Albums Project in Wikipedia, if anyone happens to object, or if they think the Singles Project would be better. When all is said and done, our recent actions were inspired by the fact that fans of Korean music are creating articles here and using the term "Single Album" which previously did not fit anywhere. We have implemented a solution for articles on these items and I believe that we have made the best of a confusing situation. Kudos all around! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'd like to email you about a proposition, if you're interested I'd like to know if there is a public email address I can contact you at. This is in regards to a topic relating to Oakland. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdpmw (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hdpmw: On the side panel on my user page, there is a link that says “Email this user”. I’ll receive the email and will be able to reply via email. —BLZ · talk 20:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BLZ. Thanks for adding the image – good call. Also for your comment about the "spectacular article". I'm going to put my hand up and take credit, because, although it made GA years ago (and Will Begone did a fine job back then), I gave the article a major overhaul/expansion early last year! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66: It really is quite amazing work! I've only read a fraction of your Beatles contributions but the ones I have are great. I've never felt steeped enough in Beatles history to contribute to Beatles articles much myself, but I am a big fan of their music and lore. You really should consider taking some to FA, many of them seem strong enough to qualify (including, I'd think, the Beatles in India). —BLZ · talk 20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too kind, BLZ. I've never felt the need to go for FA – I put so much work into getting something up at GAN (so much, in fact, that I just haven't had the energy to nominate anything for what must be about two years now), and I figure: Well, it's there, anyone can read it. What's the benefit in going through another, long process just to get the gold star and a spot on the home page ...? Of course, each article would be improved at FAC, and I'm sure I'd enjoy the collaborative side of it, too ...

One of these days perhaps. But your encouragement, and similar compliments from reviewers over the years, is much appreciated while I slum it with my green-blob GAs! JG66 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Have put "Cut the Crap" up for PR - probably against my better judgement. Seeing as how you are both forensic and astute, would appreciate input, no need to be civil. Ceoil (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have at it—probably won't get a chance for a really thorough dive until about a week from now, but I can start at the least. Following up from where we left off on Albini: he's definitely got his head in the sand a bit. I don't take much of what he says as gospel, but all the same I appreciate him being there—he's a character, like a goofy uncle set in his ways. As you said, a very insular attitude not to be emulated—but on the other hand, I can scarcely imagine how a Ramones record got to Montana in the 70s, let alone what effect that would have on a young man, and am continually fascinated to see the long-term results of this experiment.

I'll take all the techno recommendations ya got, btw. My entry point to techno of any kind (like many American hepsters of my age bracket) was thru canonized ambient techno/IDM like Aphex Twin or Boards of Canada. Then Wolfgang Voigt's albums as Gas, Richie Hawtin (Muzik and Consumed), Basic Channel. I also really like the Orb, who I got into sideways via the KLF articles on here, the latter being the peak example of a group I absolutely would never, could never have heard of without Wikipedia. Obviously Americans in general don't have as much history with electronic music as Europeans; We didn't get the memo on a second Summer of Love and rave didn't really arrive in the US (outside like Detroit, Chicago or New York) until about 2010, under the guise of "dubstep" and "EDM", right around when I went to college. Scare quotes aside, one of my favorite concert experiences was seeing Skrillex DJing til dawn for an ever-dwindling crowd at a small festival in the Arizona desert, looking up at Arcosanti (this was the exact view). When the audience thinned out to less than two dozen or so around 4 a.m.—long after Four Tet had called it quits—Skrillex invited us onstage and shared some of his liquor. —BLZ · talk 02:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, it sound like you are already deeply entrenched in electronic music, and even though we have a 20 year gap, the gist of the tunes you like sounds familiar, though I hadnt known Wolfgang Voigt or Basic Channel. Would be very interested in sharing choices, I may be somewhat out of touch these days. Yes "Consumed" is evil. A few tunes, [1] (takes a while to get going, but this converted a lot of my more dyed in the wool indie friends), definitive UK dupstep, Emerald Rush, and seeing as how you shared a really nice and evocative story, was at this Garnier gig [2] - skip to 36 mins and think of organically growing, spore-bearing fruiting bodies of a fungus that appear in the first week of October every year in Ireland. ::Thanks a bunch for you edits and suggestions on the Clash thing, looking over now; delighted. Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about this for quite some time today, going to go with this as one of the most essential listening pieces of the last god knows how many years. Albini and Hawtin aesthetics? Check. Vid's a bit silly so best listen rather than watch; its drone that slowly unwinds and evolves to a hell of a climax, so needs close listening. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue was huge for me, remains one of my favorite 21st-c albums. Grateful that its international acclaim happened right as I was broadening my horizons and beginning to read music press. At a time (2010–2011) just before the term "EDM" caught on in the US—meaning Americans (high-schoolers at least) would colloquially refer to any EDM with the umbrella-term "dubstep", regardless of style—arcane knowledge of UK dubstep via Burial allowed me to be That Kid who would dutifully inform my fellow American teens that Actually Skrillex or Deadmau5 or Whoever Are Not Dubstep. "Brostep" was a welcome descriptive development, but obviously my heart has softened to Skrillex over time, getting the impression of him as a sincere and good-humored musician. He got big right at the end of my high school years so his music will always be tied to that time in my life, and later tracks like "All Is Fair in Love and Brostep" (with the Ragga Twins!) are fun. Plus, I gathered over time that Burial's music, while of course stunning, is itself stylistically and emotionally distinct from most 00s dubstep, and thus doesn't serve as a good "generic" example of what "Dubstep" is. I had this idea of dubstep as a melancholy genre, which it can be, but obviously Burial's thing is his own thing. Kinda like thinking of Joy Division studio recordings as what "Punk" is.

If you're into minimal techno you will probably love Basic Channel. Deeply informed by dub. They have two compilations, BCD-1 and BCD-2, that I think span their entire recorded output. BCD-2 is perhaps the Smell the Glove of techno: "It's like, 'how much more minimal could this be?' and the answer is 'None. None more minimal.'" "Phylyps Trak II/II" does more with less than any techno I can think of. Really hypnotic arrangement; by about the nine-minute mark the few moving parts will seem to have taken the form of a synesthetic steam locomotive.

Gas's work is a bit like the immersive sound of Consumed but generally less sinister (although from time to time it does get there). His first four albums were later remastered and collected as Nah und Fern. The fourth in the series, Pop, is my favorite, although the techno elements have almost entirely melted into droney ambience by that point. The third, Königsforst, is a bit more percussive. He's made two new Gas albums in the last two years, both very good. There's some nice lighter fare from Voigt's label Kompakt.

Great vivid anecdote and imagery re: Garnier. That psychedelic/synesthetic element of post-rave music is probably my favorite part, it can go further "out there" than rock-forms are generally capable of. Listened to the Holmes set yesterday and really enjoyed it; incidentally, one of my biggest obstacle to appreciating electronic music fully may be my (rawkist??) aversion to DJ mixes. Not an aversion exactly, I enjoy them when I hear them, it's just rare that I think to seek them out—conditioned as I am by pedestaling of The Album. —BLZ · talk 00:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to unpack here and I'm not as articulate, so might take this reply in stages. Re the EDM/Dub-set revival in the US; I tried at the time to get into it, but it seemed too masculine, too aggressive, too middle-class (in the UK sense) and entitled (hence bro-step) and too hyperactive (changing beats every 20 seconds), for my taste. Felt the same way about Jungle in the 90s tbh, and have never gone back back to either tbh.

Listening to Consumed, and the like, to me (especially with the high treble tones) is like looking at Hubble vids of galaxys...unimaginably expansive and mind-bending brain food.

Re early rave, a huge amount of it is ground breaking, at the time I did think guitar was dead, until shoegazing and later Radiohead, but still I only ever hear things I din't hear before in electronic music. I love 80s Acid House, it still retained somewhat of an analogue sound and at least you could imagine the guys pressing buttons, rather than standing on stage pressing keys on a mini mac. Most of the, say, 1986-89 classic sound is minimilast, because they didn't have the technology to be anything but, and I love the way the spread out all the frequencies, in an overall warm "roomy" sound...as Albini might say. That said I' not sure that's an aesthetic preference, or just nostalgia. Either way, this is the best bridge between say Phuture and hardcore rave.

I lost interest in albums c Napster, when money fell out of the industry and it became about individual songs, touring and merch income only. Used to be that about half the songs on any decent band's LP were good, now its throw them at the wall early when they have really only matured to one or two good songs. Totally into DJ mixes; could name the techno albums I like on two hands; from a UK perspective it was always about the tune, never the artist. [3] This was my attempt at a shoegazing / acid cross over at the time. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Hollis' passing was a shock, "Spirit of Eden" is still one of those albums I listen to weekly. Its wiki article is in good health (cough). This had been rather under-looked in the last few weeks[4]. Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving this mind f??k here[5] Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been AWOL—started a new job in the last few weeks and have had no time to do wiki. I'm gonna pop back into the Cut the Crap PR sometime tonight (next few hours local time). It was shocking to hear the news about Hollis. Spirit of Eden and Laughing Stock are both all-time favorites of mine, impossible to decide between them. I've been listening to Colour of Spring a lot since he passed—mostly because it's better suited to casual listening than the other two, although I do think that record is generally overlooked. I think it's often seen as just a stepping stone on the way to the "post-rock" albums, rather than as an accomplishment in its own right; even then, it seems under-valued compared to other artists' "stepping stone" albums (The Bends, Isn't Anything, Rubber Soul). I had completely missed the new Rustin Man release, but I'll check it out soon; I listened to .O.rang's Herd of Instinct for the first time about a week ago and enjoyed it a lot. —BLZ · talk 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore the image. There is community consensus in line with our fair use policy that we wait for around 6 months after the death before uploading non-free images. And then only if efforts are made to source a free to use image. Stephen 22:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen: If that's the case, help me with a few things.

I'm not familiar with this supposed community consensus to wait six months after death before allowing a fair-use copyrighted image of the person. I'm not saying consensus about a six-month waiting period doesn't exist, necessarily. I would understand why such a rule would be established for most notable figures, for whom we'd presume to be able to find free-license photos. But this waiting-period "policy" doesn't seem to have been formalized into any Wikipedia policy pages and I've never encountered it elsewhere on the site. I'm familiar with WP:FAIR USE rules on Wikipedia and I understand the rule about avoiding the use of copyrighted images of living persons, but I have never seen any policies or guidelines on this six-month rule. I've searched for this rule after you mentioned it, and still haven't found it. It doesn't seem to appear in the Wikipedia namespace for any policy articles mentioning "six months" or "6 months", and interestingly the rule almost never pops up in archived file deletion discussions. The only place I found the rule invoked was in this discussion—where it was cited as a 3-to-6-month waiting period—and the discussion resulted in keeping this image anyway. I would appreciate any links you can provide about this consensus, so I can better understand this apparent rule. But to the extent that such a policy or consensus exists, nothing indicates it's an absolute rule.

The six-month waiting period seems to me a little dubious or arbitrary, but the requirement to show some "efforts ... to source a free to use image" makes sense. I can tell you what I've done so far—and I hope this should suffice to show I've done my homework.

• First, I've removed a phony image from the page, which I have nominated for deletion at Commons because it was falsely claimed as free license. A user claimed a photo as their own work when the photo had been previously published elsewhere. It would have been especially bad to have a fake free-license image at the time of his death, when many fans and journalists are turning to his Wikipedia page and would be liable to take that image's false license at face value and reuse the copyrighted image elsewhere.
• No free-licensed images of Hollis currently exist online. Several fansites dedicated to Hollis's band Talk Talk and his solo career have existed on the internet over the last 20 years, some of which are now defunct (but archived via Internet Archive); in searching through these sites, I have never once come across a fansite that used a photo of Hollis or the band that wasn't sourced from promotional material or press. There are virtually no "unofficial" photos of the band available, let alone free-licensed images.
• The reason there are so few available images of Hollis and Talk Talk is that Hollis was a famously reclusive man (you'll find roughly half his obits use the word "reclusive" if you google that word and his name). His period of fame, public exposure and touring was limited to roughly 1982–1986. The band retired from touring in 1986, continuing to record privately until 1991 but never making another live appearance. He released a solo album in 1998 and appeared for photo shoots with the press—but again, no live performances, no public appearances. No opportunities for photos. He has been completely retired from music and out of the public eye since 1998, and has been retired since 1986 from any activity that would provide an opportunity for members of the public to photograph him.
• While I can't absolutely rule out the possibility that someone, somewhere has a photo of Mark Hollis that they would be willing to freely license, it's unusually unlikely that such an image exists (as compared to other celebrities of Hollis's stature). There's no way to reach out to such a person. We would only know such a person exists after they make the decision to upload this hypothetical image, not before. It makes sense to delete a copyrighted image of him after a free-license image surfaces, but not before, especially because that is just so unlikely in his case (due to reclusiveness etc.).

All of this is to say: no free-license image of Hollis currently exists, and the likelihood that one will appear at any point in the future is slim-to-none. It's a bit like expecting a free-license image of J. D. Salinger to turn up.

Lastly: each time you've removed the image, you've simply removed it from the page and left it orphaned. It's more contrary to Wikipedia's fair-use policy to carelessly leave a copyrighted image uploaded but unused than it is to use it under a fair-use rationale. I've reinstated the image at the article. If you still do not believe the image should be used there, I advise you take the image to Wikipedia:Files for discussion before taking any further action. —BLZ · talk 21:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that anyone has searched for a free to use image. The community consensus is to wait for a period after death to see if one eventuates, after potentially reaching out to agents or family. There is a process that will delete unused non-free images, that's why the image is not immediately deleted. If you replace the image again you will be blocked. Stephen 21:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen: While I appreciate that you've elaborated a little more about the standard for use of copyrighted images of recently deceased persons, you still have not provided any resources establishing the existence of this rule as a matter of policy. I'm asking because I want to understand this policy, I really do. But understand my position here: I'm coming at this as an editor who contributes to subject matter that I'm knowledgeable about, not as an editor who deals with generalized issues across the whole encyclopedia (like handling deaths of public figures) on a frequent basis (as an administrator might). The only guidance I have access to is WP:FAIR USE, which doesn't describe this waiting-period consensus. I've made good-faith efforts to find out more about this rule and how it is applied, as detailed above, but that search frankly turns up very little, and what little I found seemed to differ somewhat from the rule as you first described it.

I want to know more about what kind of standards are in place so I can better understand what I can or should do, as a contributor, going forward. I'm not the bad guy here, really. Like I said above: I personally took the time to research a suspicious image and removed it when I determined its supposed free license was a lie—and I did so in a high-pressure moment right after this person had died and the potential for Wikipedia to inadvertently spread misuse of the image was very high. It's not like I don't care about policy or want to let copyright violations run rampant. I do care.

But again, consider my position: I had no way to understand how or why my action was wrong at the time I first uploaded the image, because this rule is almost nowhere to be found, even for someone with a general knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Even after I was corrected and told of this rule, you told me very little about it and cited no actual policy, other than reference to a vague consensus that I was apparently expected to take your word for. I was left without a clear standard to follow. I appreciate that you've now told me that a proper action to take before uploading again would be to reach out to family or an agent—I will do that before I make any future attempt to upload a copyrighted image of Hollis. But that's an example of something I had not been told before, and would have had no way to know was part of the standard without you telling me. And because this policy isn't spelled out—except as much as you see fit to inform me in a given reply—I still don't know how I'd have to prove that I had reached out and gotten a response. From where I'm sitting, I'm given enough of the policy at a time to continue being told I made a mistake, but not enough to empower me to avoid the mistake in the future.

One last thing: I feel it was disrespectful to outright delete the image as you did, without taking the image to a deletion discussion. In your deletion summary, you said it was an "unambiguous copyright violation" and cited the speedy deletion criterion F9. Well, by its own terms, F9 "applies to obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use." In other words, it's for situations when a user has uploaded a copyrighted file without even attempting to make a fair-use claim. But I did claim it was fair use! The image had a fair-use rationale, and I have made what I feel to be a good-faith claim that the image was fair use. I even found, and shared with you, a similar instance (Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_May_21#File:Reg_Grundy_20_September_2010.jpg) where a copyrighted image of a recently deceased public figure was permitted to remain in similar circumstances. Whether you personally felt my claim for fair use was adequate or not, I had still made a claim and there was room for reasonable disagreement on either side. I don't feel this was a blatant case of copyright violation and, respectfully, I don't feel that was a fair exercise of your administrative power. I'm not going to replace the image again, don't worry—I got the message. But please consider that I'm trying my best here, I meant well, and I feel a little bullied. —BLZ · talk 23:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dan56 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of music considered the worst. Legobot (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BLZ, how're things? I hope you're well. As for me, the Pod FAC is done, and I've finished a couple of reviews I was working on including my Cut the Crap review, so now I'm ready to start the PB collaboration we discussed, assuming you're still into it. I'll probably start by cleaning up the formatting, etc. in the existing refs, and read them to get a scope of the initial source info that's already there before doing any digging. One thing, I looked at some of your recent GAs just now and I think your referencing style is different from me. I wildly prefer Harvard referencing, but if it happens you're anti-Harvard, I can be flexible and try another way. One reason I'm not crazy about inline referencing is that it really breaks up the text and makes it harder to edit. But anyway, let me know what your thoughts are and we'll figure something out. Cheers, looking forward to working on the article. Moisejp (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Hey! Sorry for the delay, I just started a new job and have had less time for wiki stuff lately. I'm very down to collab on Paul's Boutique. I'm also very OK with Harvard formatting, I'm coming around to it more and more. On several projects I've used it in part (at least for books, journal articles, virtually anything with page numbers), and more recently on the article The California Field Atlas I used Harvard formatting for everything. It definitely makes it easier to build a library of references, plus as you said it makes the text more navigable/editable. —BLZ · talk 03:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi BLZ, how are you doing? I hope you've had a nice Easter weekend. I've been tinkering away at Paul's Boutique, slowly moving the refs over to Harvard style and trying to find replacements for refs that are obviously unusable (fan sites, etc.). I'm still working on this. Once I finish that stage, I'll start looking at the content. Ceoil has also done some edits, thanks Ceoil! Today I ordered that For Whom the Cowbell Tolls book we talked about a bit, so between your 33 1/3 book and my 66 2/3, we should have lots covered. Also there's some good bits in Beastie Boys Book (pp. 263–265, pp. 272–277, pp. 294–295)—some pages that are not available in Google Books I was able to find in the Amazon Look inside! feature. BTW, I know you subscribe the Rock's Back Pages, and I just recently signed up too (via Wikipedia Library) and found some reviews and stuff in there. (Incidentally, I also applied and was approved for the NewspaperARCHIVE.com, which I haven't gotten access to yet but am hoping will be useful for my music article editing in the future, like your Westlaw resource was useful for Pod.) From my reading so far, I've gotten quite excited about the possibilities of the article, because it looks like there are lots of interesting tidbits and anecdotes in various sources that will hopefully add up to a meaty, spicy whole. Take care, and talk again soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding HotNewHipHop should be count as an reliable source or not. If you want to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harry Potter influences and analogues. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for the extremely helpful edits, additions, and expansions made to the All Money Is Legal article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Jackson. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“Today” is one of my favourite songs, and you’ve more than done it justice. I usually avoid reading about songs and musicians I care about - what I learn tends to disappoint - but that was not the case here. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kafka Liz: Ahh thank you so much! It's been so long since I wrote that, high school for me. Unfortunately, things Billy Corgan has said since then have dulled my enthusiasm for his music—plus I got into Pavement shortly thereafter and felt an inexplicable need to take sides in an already years-old beef—but those first four Pumpkins albums are still great. And I discovered Loveless thanks to Billy, so he'll always have that. —BLZ · talk 21:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s disappointing to hear about Billy Corgan. Sort of proves my point about why I don’t like to read about people whose art I admire. They can go completely bonkers in their old age (not sure that article accurately reflects all the horrid things he’s said), or even return to some hideously cynical pseudo-religion as comfort for their grief. Distressing, and colours all that has gone before.

On a marginally happier note, I have fond memories of seeing Built to Spill doing a cover of “This Night Has Opened My Eyes” on 12 September 2001. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another favourite. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morrissey is another sad example of a great artist gone rotten, except both significantly greater to start, and even slightly more rotten now, than Corgan imo. What a conspicuous date for that concert, btw! Doug Martsch seems like a very gentle, kind, reassuring person, probably ideal for getting thru that moment. Pavement Ist Rad 4eva. —BLZ · talk 23:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say much more rotten, in part since I can’t even be sure he believes what he’s saying, which makes it worse, in my opinion. The 12 September show was a godsend, honestly, as we were all feeling so rotten and sad, and Doug M. showed amazing empathy. He didn’t make us happy, exactly, but he did help us feel that the burden was shared, that we weren’t alone. And it was nice to have something to do other than sit around and feel weird/depressed/frightened/angry. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke prematurely - can’t see link here :/ Kafka Liz (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go [6], eh sort of :) Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[7] time doesn’t seem to have touched them, although I suppose that happens when half of you move to LA. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you are having a great week! I was wondering if you would be willing to provide feedback for an article that I’m eyeing for an FA nomination in the future (no exact timeline, as work and other commitments have limited my activity on Wikipedia). A peer review has been open since mid-January to little commentary, and given the inactivity of WP:PR, I doubt it’ll inspire a more enthusiastic response than that. If you are not able to take up the task, I completely understand. Otherwise, whatever you can do would be greatly appreciated! DAP 💅 4:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@DAP388: I'd be happy to help! I'll probably get to it this weekend. Waiting since January is a long time to wait for PR without much response. I enjoyed Baby Driver and I'm a fan of Wright's films in general, especially the Simon Pegg collabs. I've also been told I look like Ansel Elgort a lot, which I have, eh, mixed feelings about. —BLZ · talk 23:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like Ansel well enough. Obnoxious, but a capable actor. I can do without him as a musician though. No bueno! An thank you so much! I love Wright’s work and Baby Driver in particular, and hopefully the Wiki article will do the film justice! DAP 💅 01:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foss (band) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyMusicEditor -- DannyMusicEditor (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Audrey's Dance you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Audrey's Dance you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Audrey's Dance for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Athens News. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the random message. I have a question about the All Money Is Legal article.

I currently use this source to support the release date for "4 da Fam" as a single. While it is published by a major publisher, I have noticed some red flags upon further research. These sources (1234) indicate the song charted on Billboard in July and August of 2000 before the supposed September release. Should I remove the current source and say that the song was released sometime in 2000 (with a footnote that it first appeared on a Billboard chart on July 29, 2000)?

I have unfortunately run into this issue. It seems that the exact release dates for singles around this time, particularly for the more obscure and less successful songs, are rarely documented. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: – Good q, and good find. I think it was reasonable to rely on the Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English as a reference for the release date, since you'd hope they'd be diligent and rigorous in their documenting of slang words. But those Billboard charts clearly contradict a September release date. If it had appeared on an airplay-based chart, I wouldn't change anything—the label may have released the tune to stations before releasing it to consumers. But by its own terms, the Hot Rap Singles chart is "compiled from a national sample of retail store sales reports" from SoundScan, so the single was commercially available in stores as of those dates.

I think I would use the month of the earliest documented charting on a Billboard retail chart. Although it's theoretically possible a single could have come out in the month before the week it first charted, especially if that week was early in a month, it's highly unlikely that a major-label single would altogether fail to chart in its first week of release. —BLZ · talk 23:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the answer. I will change the article and leave a footnote that it charted at that time, but the source mentions the specific September date. I think it would best to be as clear as possible there to avoid confusion. I would not be surprised if the song was originally intended for a compilation album, similar Young Money Entertainment's We Are Young Money, due to the amount of features and then given to Amil for her album later, but that is just speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you could probably drop the Routledge source. I think it was OK to cite in the absence of any other info, but with the contrary info from Billboard there are some other issues. The main one is that we don't know why they cited the September date. It's reasonable to assume it was a release date since it's just the song title and a date, but they don't actually specify. It's a dictionary attesting to real-world use of a word, so they're not necessarily saying that the song was released on that date. They're just citing the usage of the word in the song title—maybe an utterance on a verifiable date, like a day that they know for sure that the music video aired on a network. —BLZ · talk 04:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes sense to me. Thank you for the message. Aoba47 (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bond 25. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Audrey's Dance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Audrey's Dance for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The California Field Atlas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceoil -- Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I just wanted to let you know that I have updated and expanded the When You Get a Little Lonely article. I found several helpful sources on Newspapers.com so I had fun learning more about the album. I am currently taking a wikibreak, but I would like to try again for an FAC with the article as I feel that it is much more fleshed out. I just thought that you might be interested in the progress with that. I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Postmodern art. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this automatic shitpot stirring msg. I know certain admins types need oxygen to breath, DO NOT FEED. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like you to revisit this; I think I have met most of your demands except maybe I can't find anymore 1985 reviews. So there. All the ways through I have been asking myself "what would Wesleydodds think", and suppose its as best as I can do for that much missed dude. Obv your opinion means a lot also. Separately, am drawn to The California Field Atlas; its alien geography to me, but hear a lot about the area's climate from my parents in law; a lot of people have lost a lot of things. le meas. Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I need to unsubscribe from that RfC list. It is too bad that WesleyDodds is gone, his stuff was so good. If only we could put up a Bat Signal for him—I think he'd appreciate the reference, at the least. I checked the WestLaw news database and found some more sources that could be useful. I'll take another look at Cut the Crap soon, even at a glance it's clear you've done a ton of new work on it.

Thank you for the review! I was on a 10-hour road trip from San Diego back home to the bay on Sunday and I had limited Wikipedia time. But as thanks, here's a selection of California's geography as seen through my car window on that drive. I strongly recommend listening to Dear Nora's "The Freeway" as you look at those photos because its lyrics describe the exact same conditions: a northbound trip on the I-5. As for climate: the fires of the last two years have been truly devastating. I don't live close enough that my home was ever remotely in peril, but the smoke was awful. My lungs are sorta sensitive so I wore a N95 face mask for weeks and still felt terrible. This photo does a pretty good job of capturing how oppressive it was. —BLZ · talk 23:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the near ec tonight on this one - was following your contribs and had thought the recent edits were from yesterday - these things happen in old age. Bty, agree with this edit summ. I find the article very absorbing. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Not a problem! Per usual your edits have been insightful and tremendously helpful. And speaking of the naming (and renaming) of mountains: the (possibly apocryphal) story of how Mount Diablo got its name, and one man's quixotic campaign to change that name, are both pretty amusing. See Mount Diablo#Current name and just below, #Attempts to rename —BLZ · talk 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Quixotic" is too kind; try again. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

😈 —BLZ · talk 00:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is also [8], though the title is more apt the the lyrics. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shakespeare on the Saskatchewan. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Foss (band) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Foss (band) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyMusicEditor -- DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kodomo no Jikan. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the FA nomination for Almost There (album) got archived due to inactivity but I was wondering it you'd still be willing to look at it? I'm going to renominate the 17th and I'll ping you then if you'd prefer that, or if you just don't want to that's fine. I did fix the specific issue you noted in the featured article nom. Toa Nidhiki05 16:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Slowly I am getting there. A bass line for you [9]. About half ways in the whole thing sort of melts in on itself. Ceoil (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julian Assange. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:RT (TV network). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Wire (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BLZ, I want to review your two nominations at Template:Did you know nominations/The California Field Atlas. Please look for comments at that page now, and in the near future. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completed a review for both articles, and noted some minor quick fixes. Overall, both articles are very well written! I look forward to seeing these on the main page soon. Flibirigit (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Sometimes when reviewing/cleanup I can get into a zone. I was looking for .jpg tags, and missed the .svg. Again, thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Obi Kaufmann. However, please note we do not use primary public records such as birth records per WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY. If biographical information of living people can't be found in reliable, secondary sources, we simply don't add it to Wikipedia. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T. Rex (band). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror (poetry collection), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triple Crown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was scrolling his timeline tonight and found this, about Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies. You think it'd be appropriate to include, citing Twitter, in a featured article? Dan56 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan56: Whoa! That's so cool—his praise is very sincere. Is he right, have you written in to Xgau Sez before? I copyedited what you added a little, mostly to make the language less self-referential, but imo it absolutely should be in there. This bit—"I'm proud of all my books, but this convinces me that the '70s guide is the most influential"—pushes it over the edge and makes it clearly worth including in the article (per guidance at WP:SUBJECT). I think that takes it beyond merely a nice comment about the Wikipedia article to a new, noteworthy reflection from the author about the article subject. —BLZ · talk 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did submit a question once, and mentioned I often cite him here and had started an article on the book. Thanks :) Dan56 (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this guy serious? Dan56 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know for sure that you have a connection to the subject of Wayne Hsiung. See here. Your actions at Wayne Hsiung are highly inappropriate. Do not remove any warning tags from that article again. This issue is far from being resolved and is still under active investigation. 112.119.86.128 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Ngo. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Joe Biden (The Onion) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit surprised "public image of Joe Biden" does not have an article, as you suggested my edit to The Onion's version of him would be better served in one. I think it fit where it was, but I won't dispute it. Do you think it's worth it to create an article of Biden's public image, especially since he's still leading in the polls? Sirkh1 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirkh1: I definitely think he's notable enough for that. I pitched it recently at Talk:Joe Biden#Joe Biden (The Onion)—I assume there are other editors more active on monitoring Biden's page than I am. The main reason I took it out is that I've really tried to limit the scope of the "Onion Biden" article so that I only use sources that explicitly mention the Onion character. Otherwise it would grow rapidly with other "meme Bidens" that are related, but would be better treated as their own subject elsewhere. —BLZ · talk 18:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I hope you are having a good end to your week. I was wondering if you could do a source review for my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or would prefer not to, but I thought that I might as well ask. I am not in a rush with the FAC as it is always good to have as many editors look over it as possible. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Just thanks
	...for Nick Cave’s post about Morrissey. It’s what I’ve been telling myself, but it helps to hear it put so eloquently. Sorry about the delayed response: I only just saw it! Kafka Liz (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: See the talk page. Willbb234 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion regarding this website, if you interested in joining in and explain to another editors why this website should be reliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wikipedia. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I am currently trying a new citation while working on The Toy Wife article in my sandbox. I was wondering if you had the time to see if I am doing the citation style correctly? I understand if you are too busy. Either way, I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: No problem! Looks good for the most part. I'm glad I switched to the Harvard style, once I got used to it I prefer it immensely, it feels a lot less clunky. Other than the small corrections I already made, I have two other recommendations:

• #1: Based on Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template (and what I've personally found to be convenient), I would probably recommend switching from using the title for unattributed sources to using the publication name. So instead of:

• Luise Rainer - obituary 2014
• {{harvnb|Luise Rainer - obituary|2014}} & {{SfnRef|Luise Rainer - obituary|2014}})

... I would use...

• The Daily Telegraph 2014
• {{harvnb|''The Daily Telegraph''|2014}} & {{SfnRef|''The Daily Telegraph''|2014}}

(^Notice you have to put in the italics yourself both times.}

You can use titles if you'd like to, but if you do want to use them I'd recommend manually adding quotation marks so it looks like...

• "Luise Rainer" - obituary 2014
• {{harvnb|"Luise Rainer - obituary"|2014}} & {{SfnRef|"Luise Rainer - obituary"|2014}}

• #2: Something I really like about this citation style is that you don't even have to use ref tags (unless you want to). Instead of using Template:harvnb inside of ref tags, you can just use Template:Sfn. It looks a lot less cluttered and it frees you from having to manage and remember which refs you've named.

This is especially handy when you have to cite the same page from a book multiple times. So rather than defining a ref name and then using the tag, like...

• Something from page 38.<ref name="Whittaker p. 38"></ref> [...]

Something else from page 38.<ref name="Whittaker p. 38" />

... instead, you can just use...

• Something from page 38.{{sfn|Whittaker|1938|p=38}} [...]

Something else from page 38.{{sfn|Whittaker|1938|p=38}}

The only time I use ref tags now is if I want to use multiple sources. You can still just pile a few Sfn templates back to back, but it looks neater to have one footnote at the end of a line. The only tip I have there is that the Sfn template automatically adds a period, while harvnb doesn't, so you have to put it there yourself. Two ways of doing it, both work:

• Something from two sources.{{Sfn|Smith|2017}}{{Sfn|Jones|1979}}
• Something from two sources.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2017}}; {{harvnb|Jones|1979}}.</ref>

And of course if you have to use that pair multiple times, you would name the ref. Totally comes down to preference. There are a couple of other random tips at the page for Template:Sfn that are helpful, like what to do if you have two sources with the same author and the same year. —BLZ · talk 23:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the advice and the links! I only recently noticed the Harvard style, and I was interested in exploring it further. I prefer it to my older citation style; it will take some time to learn, but it is nice to try something new. I also prefer using the publication title over the article name so I made the recommended changes there. I am just so used to using reference tags, but I agree that the sfn templates are a lot neater. I will probably keep the same citation style on my previous projects, but I will be switching over to the Harvard style in the future. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion regarding this issue, if you interested in joining in and explain to another editor. 2402:1980:250:8411:78CB:7BF9:A978:4834 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that there is an ongoing RfC about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Since you are a previous participant in such discussions, you may be interested in participating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joe Biden (The Onion) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hunter Kahn -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 in film. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of music considered the worst. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joe Biden (The Onion) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joe Biden (The Onion) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hunter Kahn -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Propaganda. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This cheeseburger is for your enthusiasm with helping the DYK submission on Roar, and also for cheering me on for my work! Wikipedia just becomes so much better when people like you are here to help improve and be awesome at the same time! Looking forward to seeing your name again sometime in an article's contribution page. Cheers, buddy! NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 00:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Normani. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trap Back you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Morgan695 -- Morgan695 (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Trap Back you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trap Back for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Morgan695 -- Morgan695 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]