User talk:Richard3120

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Hi Richard,

I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, but am a massive fan of your input to the UK chart sections of songs. I have been researching year-end singles charts and have found myself frustrated at the lack of available information for the 1990s: can I ask how many Music Week editions you have with 90s year-end charts, and if you could share the top 100 data for these years?

Kind regards,

Ben :) 83.244.233.102 (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, thank you for the compliment – it's not a proper source, but scans from Record Mirror and Music Week are available at http://scans.chartarchive.org/UK/ ... pick the year and then the PDF file at the top of the list that says "UK charts 199x – Singles and albums". Please note, however, that the OCC have retrospectively changed some of these charts in the latter half of the decade, so they may not match what is on the OCC's website. Richard3120 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is brilliant, thank you! I feel like for my purposes I'll just go off the lists as they were at the time :)

Hi. I saw that you edited Briana Buckmaster's talk page. However, that deletion request was from 2016, whereas the page was made in 2021 and I believe has more information including her theater work as well as an album she released. Can you delete that request since it's an old request or if you believe it should be deleted make a new discussion? Thanks.- J (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacyf02: well, all I did was to add relevant WikiProject tags. You shouldn't remove any previous comments or deletion processes from any talk page, because they provide a history of the article. The fact that it was nominated and deleted in 2016 doesn't have any bearing on its recreation in 2021 and current state of the article, so I don't see why it's a problem to keep the old history. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so does this mean that the current article is re-nominated? It just feels weird that an old deletion nomination on a current article. If it was a new deletion request, that would make sense, but this makes it seem that the current article is nominated for deletion. - J (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacyf02: no it's not being nominated – it says quite clearly that the nomination and deletion was from September 2016. But it's necessary to keep the notice, because if an article gets nominated for deletion again, the nominator needs to know if it's been nominated before. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to talk to you in regards to having my page redirected after 14 years. My work has been mainly from the band Human Drama for 35 years. We have fans in over 80 countries. I have also recorded with Gene Loves Jezabel that was also included on one of the episodes on the series Everwood. Please reconsider. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:290:60e0:d534:1623:76fc:50ee (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing by the fact you say "my page" that you are Mark Balderas. Firstly, the page for Human Drama is still there, it hasn't been deleted, and I have no intention of deleting it as the band clearly passes WP:BAND, in my opnion. Secondly, if you mean the separate article for Mark Balderas, please note that WP:BANDMEMBER states "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability.". And "individual notability" means that someone has discussed said notability outside of the band at length. Simply having a credit on a record sleeve isn't enough (thousands of musicians have that), or having the song played on a TV program... it's not particularly rare for an artist, even a completely unknown artist, to have their music played in the background of a TV episode. The sources in the original article were simply links to online record stores, blogs (which fail WP:RS), or talked about Human Drama. If you can find me any reliable independent sources which discuss your work outside of Human Drama in depth I will happily reconsider. Richard3120 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you've replied to an earlier thread on Template talk:Album chart. Would you consider offering your perspective, whatever it may be, at Template talk:Album chart#RfC on this template's format. Thanks. Ss112 12:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i wish there was more sources to the Mikey D albums so I could add on reliable sources but this is all I could find. Record reviews? No where to be found. But I don't want these articles to disappear. Ceedub88 (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceedub88: And that's the problem, there are no reliable sources, so these albums fail WP:V and WP:NALBUM. And we don't keep articles on Wikipedia just because an editor wants them, otherwise anybody could add anything they wanted, and that's not what an encyclopedia is about. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Richard! Since you tag WikiProjects, I just wanted to give you an update on the Latin music project. Per this discussion, the Latin music project now covers all Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking recordings from around the world regardless of release. Previously, only those released in Ibero-America or the US was eligible. So whether it was only released in Greece, Angola, or whatever, if the album/song is in Spanish or Portuguese, it falls under the project scope. Thanks again as always for banner tags. Erick (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: thanks for the heads up, I'll try and remember that in future (it doesn't automatically come to mind when you see a Japan-only release...). Richard3120 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I forgot to mention that indigenous and other dialects from Ibero-American countries falls under the scope as well so that would include the languages from the native people of Colombia. For instrumental music, Ibero-America (which includes Spain and Portugal) is still main focus of the project and it's somewhat complicated, so I'll do my best to explain. An Albanian instrumental group that performs vallenato would be included just as an instrumental Colombian rock group would be as that genre is popular in Colombia. But a Colombian instrumental group performing Arabic music wouldn't be included. I use the same criteria for Latin instrumental music the Latin Grammy does on their website (the description is under Best Instrumental Album). I hope that helped at least somewhat on how instrumental music articles are tagged on the Latin music project. Erick (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: yep, got it, thanks. Now you've got me thinking what an Albanian group performing vallenato would sound like... Richard3120 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Richard. Well. As I mentioned before, it seems that the official title is The Cruel Angel's Thesis. You can read it in the title of the 2018 re-release and the official YT video by King Records. I'm gonna request to move the article accordingly. I forgot to do this before since I'm kinda busy in RL. Or you want to do this on your own?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenAngels1234: no, go ahead when you have the time... I'm also busy! Richard3120 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Richard. I saw you moved the "Est-ce que tu viens pour les vacances?" page, with the comment: "there shouldn't be a space before the question mark". I'm not familiar with WP rules on this issue, but it's a song in French-language, and Question mark#Stylistic variants says: "French usage should include a narrow non-breaking space before the question mark. (For example, "Que voulez-vous boire ?")" (see also fr:Wikipédia:Conventions typographiques#Signes de ponctuation on the French WP). Regards, Europe22 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Europe22: I had no idea about that, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'll revert it right away, and let other editors argue over whether it should have a space or not. Richard3120 (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Clovermoss submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Richard3120 for Editor of the Week consideration. I first encountered him after I created a few articles about songs; I didn't previously have any experience editing articles about music, so I really appreciated his help in fixing things up. I've since learned that he's been editing music-related articles for more than a decade! Therefore, I think it would be a good idea to recognize his contributions (more than 80,000 edits!) to Wikipedia.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

A World Citizen

Richard3120

Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 7. 2011

Richard3120 creates articles about songs and music and helps fellow editors do the same. He has been at work on Wikipedia for more than a decade and has over 80,000 edits.

Recognized for

quality editing

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow – I am genuinely gobsmacked by this. Thank you to Buster7 for the award, and thank you to Clovermoss for the kind nomination... I'm glad I could be of help. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - well deserved. Btljs (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Las Leyendas Nunca Mueren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mets de Guaynabo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HI @Richard3120: Are you up for taking a look at these albums and telling me if you think their kosher. Toby Arrives, Truth (Guy King album) and Plays Well with Others (Greg Koch album). Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 23:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep... you're not the first person to have questioned the editor who wrote these articles, but they don't seem very interested in responding [1]. It's difficult to say: Plays Well with Others only has two sources, but they are both from proper magazines, so I don't think this would be deleted at AfD. For Toby Arrives, I think American Blues Scene would just about pass as a reliable source, but I don't like the look of the others. For Truth Vintage Guitar and Blues Blast are real magazines, and Elmore might be as well, I'm not sure. Bluesdoodles and CBG definitely won't pass RS though, neither will the roots charts that are quoted. Richard3120 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: That is a good review. Personally, I don't have much experience with these types of muscians scope_creep^Talk 13:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: No Afd I guess. scope_creep^Talk 13:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: yeah, I don't think these albums are certain to be deleted at AfD... the sourcing is bad at the moment, but Greg Koch is quite well known as a blues guitarist, and there are some famous guest musicians on these albums, so it's likely that more sources exist. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Thankfully I never posted them to Afd. I don't even recognise the guys name. I don't know if he is famous in the UK or Europe or what, or was famous. Years ago, in the 90's when I stayed in student digs, we always listened to loads of blues albums, and you would expect some inkling of the dude but no clue. Thanks for doing the review. scope_creep^Talk 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the page for the Band Aid song, you took out the genre Christmas, which, because the song is clearly themed around Christmas, makes no sense. Why would it need a source? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because all genres need a source. You can put it back and I won't revert it, but if it ever goes up for a review, I doubt anyone would let it be included without a source, and it's quite possible it will get removed again by another editor. Richard3120 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have noticed that Dirth page has been recently delated. I was a member of this band but I have to agree that whoever did the page did not provide all information and links available.

I was trying to update the Dirth page yesterday but it was too late.

So the Dirth band existed, we have recorded 2 albums and played gigs in London for 3 years. Then in 2008 the the group has stopped. Members Alec Whittier, John Moss, Mat Drozd, Gerald Lim.

(I have all live shows recorded as well as all songs ever created on my hard disc and there is a plan to release the albums this year.)

Can the Dirth Wikipedia page be live again?

Please let me know.

Kind regards Mat

www.mdmusicproducer.com Musicfanatic007 (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mat – basically you would have to be able to show that the band passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The existence of albums and live shows isn't enough... you would need to provide evidence that the band was notable. This means things like articles about the band or reviews of the albums in reputable music magazines like NME or The Skinny, or established online music websites like The Line of Best Fit or Clash. Blogs or anything directly related to the band or their record label management would not be considered independent and impartial, so official websites or social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) don't prove the band was notable either. If you have any magazine clippings that can be cited, they are acceptable... sources don't have to be online to be acceptable. Hope this helps. Richard3120 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard! I will have look at this and ask other members for sources but Gerald is in Singapore, Alec in Florida and I have not heard from them as they have changed their numbers due to other countries roaming. John Moss is still in London, I am in Nottingham we are all busy with current projects so it might take some time...

Regards Mateusz

www.mdmusicproducer.com Musicfanatic007 (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can tell me something like "I remember we were interviewed by The Guardian and Q magazine around the time the first album came out" then I can have a look in the British Library archives next time I'm in the UK... they have copies of almost all the British newspapers and music magazines from the past. So if you recall any interviews with journalists, that would be helpful for the future. Richard3120 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard3120,

    I wanted to thank you for letting me know about what is missing for the article "Utopía Live from MetLife Stadium". This album is from one of the most famous Latin music artist in history. So I will try to add more info about the live album. Please don't remove it nor redirect it. The album came out last year so it is a little hard to find more information about it. I can add the "needs more citation and verification" tag that some articles have or I can save this as a draft. This album is from a notable musician which is one of the requirements from the WP:NALBUM. I will add more to it. Soon there should be a few music charts in which the album has on. I think the album itself had less advertisement then it's film version. But I know I will get more info on it since it's from one of the greatest in Latin Music. Everything he releases always makes it to mainstream articles and I know I can make sure it has valid reasons to be kept on Wikipedia. I actually created another album article of his a few years back when he was with his group known as  Aventura. It took me three tries and it was finally approved because I showed the proper proof of articles. It was based on a 1995 album the group did before being famous. The Spanish Wikipedia also has the same article. I know from experience how it's like to try to keep an article and it ends up getting removed at the end. I actually created an album article for a another bachata group call Xtreme. It was not approved by other Wiki users because of lack of resources. So I do understand your point of view about Romeo Santos's live album. I will try my best to make sure it fits the WP:NALBUM rules. My first few edits were when I first started editing on Wiki were questioned by other users but eventually I got to learn to add sources and continue to show the right proof. So once I again I thank you for letting me know more or less what is missing for the live album. 

Thank You,

DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk). 12:54pm est, 10 January 2022

Hi DominicanWikiEdit1996... I live in Colombia, so I am very familiar with the music of Romeo Santos and Aventura, and of course he is a very famous artist in Latin music, as you say. But being a famous artist doesn't mean that all his records are automatically notable and deserve a Wikipedia article... as it states at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." And this is the problem here: I can't find any reliable sources about the album itself. I had a look on the Billboard website, and it doesn't seem like this album charted in the USA, not even on the Latin Albums chart. And it's very unlikely to appear on any charts in the future, because it has already been released for seven months. So if it has charted anywhere, you will have to search the archives of the album charts of various Latin American countries.

If I were you, I think I would move the article to draft space while you look for sources, because it's very likely that another editor will come along, look at this article, and reach the same conclusion that the album is not notable and doesn't have any good sources, and they will redirect it again. Richard3120 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It has been like seven month and for some reason it's not on a billboard chart in which I find strange. But it's like I mention before, I don't think the album itself got promoted as much as the film did. I may turn the article in to a film article of the concert instead of an album article. I may keep it as a draft per now until further notice. Thank You ones again Richard3120. I didn't have this problem with Trampa de Amor by Aventura. I think it was because it did end up getting approved and also since it was made before they had changed there name and before being signed to a record label, I guess no proof of the album being on the music charts was needed since it never made it to one. But it does have notability on it's own since it has been documented of it's existence and I did provided the articles to back up. I guess for the live album of Utopia, the situation is a little different even though it is Romeo Santos most recent released. I'm surprise it's not on any charts but it's like I mention before, it was barely promoted. I bet you are a little surprised as well about it. It is available all Anyways I'll see what I can do, but possibly this page may not last long based on what you have told me. It may stay permanently if I make it an article about the film of the concert instead or talk about his Utopia Tour since I don't see an article about it. Even though a link was added to his Bio page, it only redirects you to the studio album Utopia, which is what the concert was based on. Anyways, one again, thanks for the warning Richard3120. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk). 3:33pm est, 10 January 2022

@DominicanWikiEdit1996: I think you are right, this article has a much better chance of surviving as an article about the concert or the film of the concert, because all the sources are about that. Richard3120 (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard3120 I will make some changes to make sure it the article survives and maybe in the future converted back to a live album article or make a new one that does comply with the WP:NALBUM standards. On a side note, I made a mistake. The film was released back in June 25, 2021. The album was actually released on September 10, 2021. Anyways I am going to make sure both the film and album information is added and proven with sources. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 9:26pm est, 11 January 2022

Hello Richard! I noticed you moved an article about the forthcoming Roger Waters tour, This Is Not a Drill, redirecting to his. I have been working on a draft about the tour since it was announced back in January 2020. I submitted it once to AfC in April 2020, and since the first concert is near, I resubmitted it. I would like you to read it and let me know what you think about it. It has a background section and other information about the show, besides the list of dates. Any suggestion is well received. Thank you! --Mr00Mister (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you sure it is a personal site?--Potenza2021 (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100% - it's listed at WP:BADCHARTSAVOID, and on the introduction page the author clearly states that none of the data is official, it's a mixture of available chart data and personal memories supplied by him and other people who write into the website. The website has been discussed before, and the consensus was that it's not reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry--Potenza2021 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my other edits about this add.--Potenza2021 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Potenza2021: no problem, you weren't to know. And thank you for taking the time to revert your changes. I think there's valid issue here regarding Italian charts, though – we only have FIMI charts from 2000 onwards. But although the Hit Parade Italia "charts" are fictional, I need to investigate the Musica e dischi charts (and certifications) more thoroughly... I have a feeling these could be considered valid Italian charts for the 20th century. Richard3120 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richard – I have three sources that were reviewed by escxtra.com, wiwibloggs.com and musicity.gr. Eleonorazoe (talk) 1:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Water (Water Saigon Kick album)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you get the chance, can you look at this merge proposal and make a close. Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GenQuest, I've just come back from vacation, which is why I've barely been on Wikipedia for the last month. Of course I don't mind closing the proposal (I understand that as the proposer, you can't do it yourself), but I need to get up to speed with work first and other priorities, so it may take a few days before I can really come back to Wikipedia and look at it properly. Richard3120 (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fine. Wikipedia has no deadlines, or so I'm told (try and take that to ANI or the other drama scenes). Whenever you can get to it is fine. It's been sitting for a while anyway, and not going anywhere. Hope you had a great vaca! Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GenQuest: thank you... first time back seeing my family in the UK since 2018! Sure, I just wanted to leave you a message to show I wasn't ignoring you. Glad to see you back on the WP:PAM page – I was getting a bit concerned about the lengthy list of proposals still awaiting closure on there, but didn't have time to do it myself. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad they got to see you! Yes, I've been trying to get back to WP, as time allows. Thanks in advance! GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi richard, i'm not an user here but i've seen wikipedia talk pages a lot and seen that you are very likely prestigious here, you are an administrator and i'd like to know if there's any possibility that in the page of best-selling girl groups can be Fifth Harmony's Work From Home include in the top of the table of best-selling singles worlwide, the user Moonlight provided a source in Spanish from a latin radio station which comes Planet Radio but from Peru, so i don't know why they considered it unreliable, which they provided a 10 million claim, however some rude editors reverted it, despite the song having certified more than 8 million units which is very close and not exaggerated at all, ever since the song became a smash hit, everyone knows the song is pretty much the best selling from a girl group and this come from pure subjectivity i swear but there aren't other sources saying it cause they are disbanded and they are not as talked about as before? I was about to comment it to the user Moonlight to see what we can do but she has a block in her main page, so apparently she would not comeback for a while. 200.88.210.122 (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, so I can't make anybody do anything. This is the problem with the article, everybody wants to decide which sources to accept in order to justify their beliefs about what certain records have sold... we should only state what reliable sources have claimed, and nothing more. Richard3120 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Richard. I see you've been replacing Ireland2 entries (which are sourced from irish-charts.com) with archived Chart-Track links in album articles, stating that Ireland2 no longer shows chart positions. Irish-charts.com still displays chart positions for me, though – see The Killers' page for instance. What gives? snapsnap ^(talk) 23:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SnapSnap: Oh well, that's interesting... This stems from a FAC a couple of weeks ago for Late Registration where the reviewer was concerned that the Irish chart positions couldn't be verified - at that point irish-charts.com wasn't showing any chart positions. So to help the FAC I found an archived version of the old chart to confirm the position, and then started to change others because I thought all the chart positions were lost. But thank you for letting me know, and you're right, there's no point changing the source if irish-charts.com shows them all, it's a waste of time. Richard3120 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problems! When I saw your edits, I feared that irish-charts.com had decided all of a sudden to remove all chart positions – which thankfully wasn't the case. By the way, you're probably aware of this, but the original Ireland ID from {{Album chart}} contains archives of most (if not all) Chart-Track chart weeks, so you don't have to manually add the chart in case you'd like to use the old Chart-Track chart. snapsnap ^(talk) 04:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SnapSnap: No, thank you for letting me know, otherwise I would have just carried on and wasted weeks of unnecessary work. To be honest, the irish-charts.com site, if it stays up, is the best option, as some weeks of the GfK chart have not been archived, and the OCC website only archives the top 50, so any album that peaked between nos. 51 and 100 in the last four years can't use the Ireland3 parameter. Richard3120 (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. And you're right, irish-charts.com is currently the best option, especially for post-2016 albums that peaked outside the top 50. There are a few exceptions apparently, though. For instance, Fleetwood Mac's page at irish-charts.com does not show the peak position for Tango in the Night's 2017 reissue, so the OCC website came in handy in this particular case. snapsnap ^(talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just need help with two of my sources that I’m using. One is a citation for Discogs, the other is for Billboard. KevinML (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinML: I can help with that, but note that Discogs doesn't help with demonstrating notability... it only proves the single exists. It's also edited by anyone, so it fails WP:USERG as well, and isn't considered a reliable source, as anyone can change the information on there. Richard3120 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I added two new sections to the home tonight article. Are they enough to bump the article up to Start-class, or will still be considered a stub? KevinML (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard3120, is there any way you could possibly upload the album cover for Vértigo (Pablo Alborán album)? Or could you recommend someone so I could try asking them? Thanks! Pillowdelight (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) uploaded an album cover and added it to the article. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @Dreamy Jazz:! Pillowdelight (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope I didn't step on anything you were working on with regard to the Bordeaux Concert article. Thank you.Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Helen Puffer Thwait: no, not at all... if anything, I should probably apologise to you for jumping in early and removing the reception heading... I know you do a good job with jazz album articles and always add the prose, I should have waited. Richard3120 (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no need to apologize! Thank you for all your meticulous work.

Just out of curiosity: I was told on several occasions that the names of web sites should not be italicized, whereas the titles of books, encyclopedias, etc. should be italicized. Do you happen to know if there's a definitive source on this topic?

Thanks again, and best wishes. Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Helen Puffer Thwait: of course - the guidance you are looking for is at MOS:ITALIC and the subsequent section MOS:ITALICWEBSITE. For the type of articles you work on, the sources are generally long-established print titles like All About Jazz, Downbeat and Jazzwise, so there's no argument there, even though like all print media, their presence has largely moved online these days. But as MOS:ITALIC says, the publication format is not a factor. So online titles such as Pitchfork and PopMatters, which have never been available in any print format since their establishment, are still considered magazines and are therefore italicized because they still work in the same way as a traditional magazine: articles, features, reviews, interviews, etc. But AllMusic has never been a magazine: it's more like an online resource, so it's not italicised, and neither are aggregator websites like Metacritic. Richard3120 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again - that's very helpful information. I'll modify my editing habits going forward. Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to Twentytwenty (Sara Niemietz album). I am a COI editor and do not edit in the article space.

I notice that in the edit where you add your notability maintenance banner, you also removed a reference from Parade Magazine. I have an edit request to have it added back in. Talk:Twentytwenty_(Sara_Niemietz_album)

I also want to point out that BeondTV is owned by veteran journalist Carlos_Amezcua and should qualify as RS. I believe that AllMusic is also an RS source in some cases. Additionally, the album is reviewed on [Jazzrock.tv] I originally thought this was just a blog, but the page indicates that there is editorial controls as several levels.

Finally, I note that you did not start a discussion on the talk page per the removal guidance about your notability claim. This is a problematic habit because the banner provides no indication as to which editor placed the banner. It is extremely difficult to go through an edit history to find out who placed a maintenance banner after additional edits have been made and the banner goes stale.WP:RESPTAG

Thanks again!

Apriltools (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apriltools – I removed the Parade reference because it literally tells you nothing more than "the album was released". That's not evidence of notability, all albums are released. Likewise, a review from AllMusic counts towards notability, but a list of credits doesn't – this just tells you who played on the album, and can be found on the album sleeve anyway (which is most likely where AllMusic got them from in the first place). And the problem with BeondTV is not the source itself, but the fact that it's an interview with Ms. Niemietz – that makes it a WP:PRIMARY source where the whole point of the interview is to promote the record. So the article is still lacking in in-depth independent sources that demonstrate notability. Richard3120 (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Parade reference you removed, supports that the album charted on Billboard, I'd say that this reference is more than just "the album was released".

With the release of her album twentytwenty in October of 2020, Sara Niemietz’s music landed on the Billboard Charts and into her fans’ homes with weekly live streams, online benefits, and countless videos.

Also WP:NALBUM, which you cite in your edit says....

2. The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart.

and WP:CHART

It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan.

Yes, the Beond.tv video is an interview and is primary, but notability is established above and WP:PRIMARY says...

1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

We are not misusing the reputably published primary citation, we are documenting what is known as a publishing event, no more no less. The album is notable because it charted nationally.

Apriltools (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Apriltools: Yes, but the fact that it charted is already in the table at the bottom of the article, and sourced to Billboard itself – we don't need more references stating the same fact, it doesn't make the album more notable by having more duplicate references. I don't mind if you add the Parade reference back, but honestly, I think it's very likely that this album will get redirected one day by another editor who will come to the same conclusions. Richard3120 (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know about editing that box (5, 6, 7, 8's). That's the first time I've made such an edit - I was in the article, it caught my eye, and I just impulsively did it. Thnks for the information in your edit summary. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete Best Beatles - I assume you are talking about {{The 5.6.7.8's}}? Don’t worry, it's not a big deal. Yes, these templates at the bottom of the article are called navboxes, as you probably know, because that's what they are designed for: a navigation box between existing related articles... with the emphasis on "existing". If the article doesn't exist, there's nothing to navigate to, so there is no point in including it in a navbox. The relevant guideline for navigation templates is at WP:EXISTING, which states "Unlinked text should be avoided". If a complete discography is needed, it's mich better to have this as a section in the artist's article (as with the 5.6.7.8's), or as a separate article if it's long enough... the advantages being that a vertical discography list is easier to read than the horizontal list in the navbox, and also it provides the opportunity to add relevant information such as record label and release date, which you can't do in a navbox for reasons of space. Richard3120 (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit confused now...the two LPs and two EPs in the 5, 6, 7, 8's navbox are included in the vertical Discography section above it, and they're all linked to their articles. What then is the reason for the navbox? It's redundant, and hidden away also. I don't see how or why a reader would access it. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles: Because the navbox should appear on all the album and EP articles as well, which it does – if you go to the article for any of the LPs or EPs, you will see the navbox at the bottom of the article, with that article highlighted in bold text. You can now access any of the other LPs or EPs from the navbox, without having to go back to the discography. You're right, it's kind of redundant to have it on the artist's page as well, but editors often do add it to the artist article for completeness, and also it tells you that there is a navbox associated with this musical artist. Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2023 debut albums indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett (✉) 12:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkbrett: thank you so much! And the same to you – I hope you're enjoying it too, wherever you are. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: thank you very much, and the same to you... hoping you have an excellent 2023. Richard3120 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Moops, happy New Year to you too and best wishes for the coming year. Richard3120 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TY Richard! :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, not sure if you’re in the Headswim Facebook group? Saw your recent update re the reunion/re-issue and thought you may like this info re the correct bassist who proceeded Clovis in Headswim following the demise of Blinder? Clovis stated on the group that Paul Rimmer was the bassist that proceeded him. He’s credited on the Gone To Pot 12” single (see discogs) and is now his brother in law, having married his sister. I don’t think Matt Pegg was ever in Headswim given this info. Clovis joined in early 93, I believe based on Rook Randle (frontman of the end) saying his last gig with The End was 17/12/1992 see a link to his post to the group below. Also be great if you could credit the Facebook group which kickstarted the whole Headswim reunion and where Joel Clayton from Trapped Animal and Clovis became acquainted. The group consisted of 13 members for years before its growth, which led to the band finding out about it, joining up and the rest bud history. Cheers https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/the-end/1992/marquee-club-london-england-3bbc7c9c.html Ukpearljammer (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I don't use Facebook very much these days, but I am aware of the group. Clovis may well be correct (Paul Rimmer can't have been in the band for long), but the problem is that his words in a Facebook group chat wouldn't count as either a reliable or an independent source... it needs to have been reported in a widely available source like a music magazine like Kerrang! or Classic Rock. I think Matt Pegg was the bassist while the band were still known as Blinder... the group started out in their teens as Dan and Tom and their neighbour Chris Moore, Nick was then asked to join on keyboards, and then after Chris left to go to university, I think they went through a couple of bass players before settling on Matt.

And unfortunately Wikipedia is not in the business of crediting people for band reunions... again, if you could find a reliable source which says something like, "Headswim decided to reform for a reunion show after seeing interest in them on a Facebook page for fans of the band", then that could be used. Richard3120 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richard, quite some time ago you added an issue (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) to the page Teus Nobel that I started. I think I tried at that time to ask you to explain a bit which sources exactly you find unreliable, but I guess I didn't use the right way for that. So, another attempt.

Can you help me (I use Dutch Wikipedia a lot more than the EN) by pointing out which links you think are unreliable and for what reasons? Or just some rough guidance? Thanks in advance Yoozed (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I published this article recently - Draft:J.M.I. Recordings - and it was speedy deleted. I'm wondering if you might be able to review it this time around before I publish it again? Record labels seems a little tricky to have published sources where it is a primary subject, because most of the articles that discuss the label are discussing particular albums or artists the label has produced. Hexatekin (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexatekin: – hi, sorry for the late reply – I've been away from Wikipedia for quite a while due to personal issues. Your draft still has the problems that the references are either primary interviews with the people who run the label, or sources that show that there were albums released on the label, which confer notability to the albums themselves, but not to the label. I know that there are other editors such as Chubbles who believe that a label which releases music by notable artists should also be considered notable, and they do have a point. But current guidelines require independent sources for the label itself, and that's the issue here. Richard3120 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Richard3120. Take a look for which one you prefer at the "Release history" table: "Distributor", "Licensee", "Marketer" or "Promoter". 183.171.122.76 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, i found that the article List of best-selling music artists has some info that is not updated. I think it could be something good to try to update the article with consensus among wikieditors that are experts in music wiki and update that page. The page has several issues. Just to cite some:

• Outdated numbers.
• Outdated references.
• Irrelevant and/or wrong references.
• Artists with an estimation of total albums lower than the amount of units certified.
• And so on.

I am writing to you to advise me on how to proceed with this. How can I find qualified people to help me update the page and raise its quality standards?

We have had a brief conversation on Talk:List of best-selling music artists which you can join if you want and I have also left a message on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pop_music but so far they have not responded. Paladium (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claimed sales of the Beatles,which have been frequently disputed by editors in the past. I think i've solved the issue. Around the time the Beatles broke up at the start of the 1970s, the media tracked their record sales and put it at 133 million (74m singles / 56m albums / 3m LPs). Billboard [2] and other reliable sources stated that by the end of the 1970s the Beatles sales were between 200-210 million records worldwide (100m singles / 100m albums) Ebony Magazine - "Top Selling Artists of all time: The Beatles (210m), Elvis Presley (170m), Bing Crosby - 362m". By 2006 the IFPI reported the Beatles had sold 400 million records worldwide in a article that had Elvis at 300 million and Michael Jackson at 350 million. [3]. After this however, we begun getting reports citing that the Beatles had sold 500 million records and then after their record company claimed 600 million records the media begun also using that figure.

So where does the 600 million figure come from? Their record company combines the group sales of each individual Beatles member together. In the past during the 70s the media reported that their sales were previously inflated using single equivalent sales that counted a album sale as 6 units, which is how from the 133 million they claimed it represented 420 million units.

If you look at articles for Paul McCartney, who by himself has sold just over 100 million records [4]. Has various claims about him selling 500 million records [5][6], since we know he's sold nowhere near that much you have to wonder where that figure comes from. Well those numbers are actually the sales of the Beatles which are credited to him. When John Lennon died they also reported that he had sold over 200 million records, which is just the reported sales of the group at the time [7]. The real sales of the Beatles was 500 million records, they are inflated to 600 million by combining each individual Beatles members solo career sales.

The large discrepancies between these figures is easily explained when you realize it's the groups sales and then combined sales of each individual member. The disputed 750 million sales for Michael Jackson also come from a combined figure of Jackson 5 / Jacksons with his solo records, DVDs, VHS etc. Never17 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Never17, forgive me for not answering before, but I'm going to try and keep out of editing this list because as you have seen, it's an absolute minefield and I have other articles I prefer to concentrate on. Sincerely though, best of luck updating it and I hope it all becomes clearer with more data added.

One thing I found that you might be interested in... someone on a forum believes that Elvis Presley's 1 billion figure comes from the way album sales were calculated in the past... until the early 1960s, albums were very much the junior partner to singles. And apparently, album sales were calculated as being a "collection of singles", with two tracks being considered an A-side and a B-side. So a ten-track album would therefore be counted as five single sales rather than just one album sale. This is obviously a ludicrous way to consider album sales, but the result may be that as most of Presley's big albums were in the late 50s and early 60s, this has greatly inflated his sales figures. Of course, I have no idea how true this is and it's not verifiable, but it might be one explanation for that 1 billion figure. Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. What you stated was correct, they used "single equivalent sales" which is how they came up with the 1 billion figure for Elvis Presley and the Beatles, your assumption was spot on. It is very difficult to edit the page due to how many different contradictions we have been given. Not sure how it could be fixed. Never17 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Richard, a belated welcome back! During your absence, List of best-selling Latin music artists and List of best-selling Latin albums were made. What do you think of them? I don't have any plans to nominate either one for FL in the future though. Erick (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magiciandude, thank you very much, and nice work... this is what the List of best-selling music artists needs to looks like. A couple of questions: for the first article you say that 60% of the artist's work must be in Spanish or Portuguese to qualify... is that a level stated by a certifying body, or is it arbitrary? And I'm not sure I understand why some artists are over-certified due to streaming. Richard3120 (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I stole that from the Latin Grammys current linguistic requirement threshold. But I don't have any objections changing it. It was just something that came to my head. Basically, The idea is to not include artist who just released one single Latin album like JLo or Nelly Furtado. I'm always open to any suggestions. 😊 Erick (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: ah right... I just wonder if an arbritrary limit is the kind of thing someone might call out as original research... it was exactly the same issue that got the List of best-selling music artists into trouble in the first place. But I think it would be better if you can cite the Latin Grammys website to give it some credibility. Richard3120 (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I went ahead and did it! I honestly don't know how to handle the artists who are over-certified due to streaming. And what suggestions from this list did you had in mind for List of best-selling music artists? Erick (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: I just meant that this attention to detail that you have made to actually finding reliable sources is what "List of best-selling music artists" needs. I'm trying not to get too involved in that list because I think it is impossible to ever find accurate and independent sources for sales figures in general. Richard3120 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help.

Never17 (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's very kind. Richard3120 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard3120. In the recent discussion, Andrew318 said that those are distributors, not labels. So if you have any further comments. Regards. 2001:D08:2940:DF69:17DF:7DD7:C04D:55C3 (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]