Archives

Archive 1

Please do not edit or change articles as you did in Points of Authority. See WP:SECONDARY SOURCE 86.17.231.129 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD applies to your reverts, by the way, so don't edit war, and please be realistic. Two extra characters is not "bloating" anything by any definition. MOS:DATERANGE says it is "generally preferred" to keep the years full. We are not short of space considering chart names are always longer than any year span is going to be, e.g. "Chart (2023–2024)", and I've made sure sets of music articles are consistent in this regard. You don't need to make unnecessary changes because you prefer "2023–24". Ss112 04:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ss112, thanks for coming to my talk page. Perhaps "bloat" wasn't the right word to say, but I think you get what I'm trying to say. Personally, I would say that having it has "Chart (2023–24)" looks more concise, and if they aren't separated by decade or century or whatnot, then it looks better that way because I honestly think it looks more ugly otherwise when a full year doesn't need to be stated when you already have the full previous year stated. Kind of like how the English Premier League (or any other sports league for that matter) does it by seasons in "2023/24", I haven't seen it when it's "2023-2024". It is very worth noting that this isn't a Wikipedia mandate or rule to adhere to it, but rather a preference and we are arguing over a presentation issue as the same guideline literally says it doesn't mind it as long as the two years are consecutive to each other. I don't think I'm being unreasonable with what I'm saying, so I honestly think this is nonsensical and silly to want to fight over. You mention consistency, I generally haven't seen this outside of the music scope on Wikipedia at all, so would it not make more sense to do it that way anyway? At the end of the day, Wikipedia literally says this is merely down to preference, and you clearly prefer it the other way which is fine so maybe it would be great to have a conversation surrounding this with other editors in the music scope to see what they think also. I hope you had a fantastic New Year's and I wish you the best for the rest of the year. Kind regards. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of songs recorded by Bring Me the Horizon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halsey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had to correct four of your edits in a row (1, 2, 3, 4) so I thought I'll leave you a message. The footnotes on the bottom of the certification table, specified by {{Certification Table Bottom}}, must match the ones actually being used in the table itself. If you need help, I'd be happy to assist. Please {{ping}} me or leave a message at my talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: I always got confused by this to be honest, as I can't actually work it out. I use all the modern bottom template for the certifications, on those templates there are no issues but when I apply it for the early Sum 41 albums and 30 Seconds to Mars (album) for example, the proper way of the certification key never appears on the bottom notes section of the table. Safe to say, I probably need a little bit of a guide. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple really. The bottom should match the table. There are four types of footnotes, namely sales (*), shipments (^) sales+streaming (‡) and streaming-only (†). The default for {{Certification Table Bottom}} is to show sales (*) and shipments (^). Let's take 30 Seconds to Mars (album) as an example. If you look at the table itself, only sales (*) is used. Therefore, we need to remove shipments, hence, |noshipments=true is the correct usage. If we look at something like Die a Happy Man, the table uses sales (*) and streaming (‡), so we need to remove shipments (^) and add streaming (‡). Hence we use |noshipments=true and |streaming=true. If we look at Sex on the Radio, only shipments (^) are used by the table, hence we need |nosales=true, which removes sales (*). Finally, Addicted to You (Avicii song), the tables uses sales (*), sales+streaming (‡) and streaming-only (†). We therefore remove shipments (^, |noshipments=true) add streaming (‡, |streaming=true) and lastly, we add straming-only (†), which is |streamsonly=true. As a final note, if the table does not use any of the four footnotes, use can replace {{Certification Table Bottom}} with {{table end}}. I hope this short tutorial is helpful. Muhandes (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a massive help, and I shall incorporate this to the best of my ability in future. Many thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Leave a Light On - Papa Roach.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno what you were thinking with this edit but Wikipedia policy requires a source for a date of birth. You've been around long enough to know that. Toddst1 (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't exactly remember as I've had a lot going on lately, but I thought there was a source in the article for Joel Madden's Birthday at the time, and it was in the infobox, so I added it to the lead section per wikipedia standard unaware there wasn't a source for it when I thought there was. Probably just a sloppy edit from me not checking properly. Apologies. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back to the page and added Madden's birthday back in attributed to a Today.com article, which I have sourced. Apologies for my previous sloppy mistake of not checking, but have now fixed it. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely a bit skeptical about the source you've included on the page for "The American Dream is Killing Me", as it says that it's a subsidiary of World-DJ.net and not of the GfK Entertainment charts as you've included in the article. Additionally, just because other users have added the chart in the past doesn't guarantee that it's fit for inclusion in this article; especially since I'm going for GA, a higher editorial standard is needed for the charts. Can you give me any insight into why specifically you find this chart reliable, or at least tell me where to look which demonstrates these charts are part of GfK? Thanks. Leafy46 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Linkin Park - From Zero.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider WP:SONGTRIVIA; merely being in a movie or video game soundtrack isn't inherently notable, even if the movie itself was popular. The use of the song itself needs to have gained attention and been discussed (not in a passing way) by reliable sources. I'm not going to revert you, but I don't think you are correct in applying your own opinion as to notability. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not applying any opinion, I'm applying facts to how "What I've Done" is notable in other media, like Transformers which was the fifth highest-grossing film of 2007. Because of the usage in that film, the song has now been memed to death by being used in other films such as The Amazing Spider-Man, Jurassic Park, Batman Begins, and Top Gun: Maverick which have been showcased to have over millions of views on YouTube, as a meme that was popularised in 2022. Guitar Hero World Tour is a video game that is extremely popular and influential, so the mention of the song being in the game is notable. You argued notability, and I am showing you how that's just simply not the case by showing figures and how notable it is in other forms of media. I used those rhetorical questions in my edit summary to prove that point and make it explicitly clear that notability is not the issue. These things should be mentioned, not deleted. If you take issues with how it is written, by all means, then please feel free to rewrite it in a way which it feels more appropriate, in terms of sourcing etc. but this information shouldn't be deleted under any circumstances. It's not a constructive way to help the article.

To add to it, WP:SONGTRIVIA requires these things to not be mentioned in passing, but there was literally a full in-depth article about the song's impact and usage in meme culture with "but it was made in 2007." You deleted all of that. You in the process deleted information that explicitly clears the guidelines mentioned in those terms. Please apply the guidelines to where they matter, and instead of removing information which can harm articles, it doesn't take longer than five minutes to find more appropriate sources for these sorts of information when needed to help pass these guidelines. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ratatata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saitama.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Bitter Truth. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lapadite (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This notice is pertaining to you repeatedly changing & removing the writing credits for each song, which are printed in the album liner notes: [1] Lapadite (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lapadite, respectfully, I am currently EXTREMELY confused by your edits. I don't understand this level of accusing me of me being "disruptive", for merely putting the song's writers into the writers column? Per my understanding, the notes section are always ones only meant to be used for featured musicians. I look at all recent high-standard articles, which are nominated as good articles by Wikipedia. Examples: The Tortured Poets Department by Taylor Swift, 30 by Adele, Eternal Blue by Spiritbox, The Album by Jonas Brothers and Where the Angels Fall by The Cat Empire. They all feature the notes section for featured musicians if they are a guest artist credit on the song, and the writers section is used for where the writers go. If you were to nominate The Bitter Truth for a good article, then surely you would have to make sure that the writers are credited in the writers column instead of the notes section? In my opinion, in that way currently, it looks very condensed, claustrophobic and not very presentable for readers and doesn't seem like the appropriate part of the tracklisting section to put it in at all when there's literally a writers column for well.. songwriters. Additionally, the Japanese deluxe bonus tracks of The Bitter Truth literally already have the writers in the writing column for the Fleetwood Mac and Bananarama, making it very inconsistent.

As for the other edit, I'm even more confused. The only reason I then removed the songwriters was because you literally told me in your edit summary: "Not the writing credits stated on the album liner notes." By that, you literally say that they are NOT the writing credits stated on the album liner notes, by your own admission. I am then confused, as to why you wouldn't remove these even though you said these writing credits WEREN'T in the liner notes and not referenced anywhere else either. Dumbfounded, I was like "Okay, if that is the case then I guess I'll have to remove these if they are unsourced." As by your own edit summary, you told me that these WEREN'T in the liner notes... to then turn around to me and say they were in the liner notes all along? To me, I am baffled and confused, and it seems like you lied to my face to begin with about these writing credits NOT being in the liner notes? Why are you then turning around and telling me to not remove writing credits in the liner notes if they were actually then there to begin with all along? Tell me what I'm missing. Is there something I'm just not understanding? I see at face value that you lie to me about these writing credits not being in the liner notes, which I TOOK YOUR WORD ON, and then you revert your stance and say that they were actually always in the liner notes? You are leaving me confused, and baffled and accuse me of disrupting articles and threatening me with losing editing privileges? All over me just moving the writers of these songs to the writers column and removing seemingly unsourced album writers? I really don't understand, and I'd like a serious explanation for this please, if you were so kind to do so. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what I wrote. You changed the names on the writing credits and then removed the writing credits. Both incorrect, disruptive edits. Why did you change the names, when the correct credits are already present per the album liner notes? My comment did not mention you moving the credits to the writer parameter, which is fine; you can move the writing credits to the parameter and not change or remove the credits. My edit summary "Not the writing credits stated on the album liner notes" refers to your edit that I reverted, apologies if that was confusing; an edit summary for a revert will nearly always address the edit that was reverted. Btw, the note parameter can be used for exceptions to the all_writing parameter: Template:Track listing#Parameters. Lapadite (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about me using all of the band members individually as co-songwriters? There's nothing incorrect about that or inherently wrong with it, so I completely fail to see how that can be labelled as "disruptive." If the entire band are stated as writers, it means every single member would be credited as songwriters otherwise there would be members emitted from the credits if they weren't. The only reason I even removed them in the first place was because I had interpreted your comments in your edit summary as the writing credits being incorrect, to which I was confused as to why you hadn't already removed them if that was the case. You never clarified what it was that you meant, as removing the credits that were inherently correct indicated to me that they were false to begin with. For consistency, I believe every songwriter should be mentioned, and not one as just a whole band contribution otherwise a song writers column can become rather messy when using both units and individuals. If there was nothing wrong with the edit, then I don't see why you had to move it back to the notes section instead of just changing all the individual members back to the band name? As for the "can", doesn't mean that it "should" if the standard is already upheld.

All the examples above which are good nominated articles, have shown to use the writers for the writers column as per what seems to be a high standard, so there was no need for you to change that back, of which one could also be argued by some to be a "disruptive edit." All that needed to be done, even if I disagreed, was to just change all the band members into one singular unit under the band. All I see is all of this being made out of nothing, when this really could have just been as a simple edit to correct as what you saw to be what should be used as the whole band being credited in a grouped way rather than an individual way. I will ask you to please keep this in mind for future edits as to not to quickly and unfairly use Wikipedia buzzwords and warnings when they aren't warranted, as well as make things explicitly clear so things can't be misinterpreted as me thinking you were lying about writing credits to begin with so such a miscommunication can array in the first place. Wikipedia is about assuming good faith, and sending warnings to me assumes the opposite. You promote good faith on your own userpage, and I think this is a good conversation to keep in mind in the future. You should have just came to my talk page about using grouped writers vs individual writers which could have prompted a good discussion, instead of what you actually came with, which was a warning for "disruptive edits" due to my misinterpreted edits from your edit summaries. Please be careful how you phrase things. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We note the credits as they are stated in the album's liner notes, not how we think they should be. If the liner notes just state the band name in the writing credits, we just state the band name in the article. That album's liner notes specify the band name and/or the individual name(s) involved in the writing for each song. Just stick to the source (the liner notes). There's nothing more to it. Lapadite (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Special:Diff/1272925352, it has been under consensus for a long time not to add WW sales to discographies. You can find it as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style "worldwide sales" numbers are especially suspect and should not be added.. I know this was never voted in, but it has been de-facto what we do. Muhandes (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning the page up, was long overdue for some TLC. Noticed you recombined Three Six Five and Dance Kid Dance. While they were released together in the traditional single sense, they're both currently charting separately on Mediabase charts. Just curious as to whether there's precedent you're aware of for double singles like this, as you've far more editing experience than I. They're likely going to hit Billboard charts soon, and will need to be separated again to reflect separate chart positions. Don't want to step on any toes when that happens... IYoni (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I did so today after noticing the charting on the Official Charts website, the whole page needed a massive cleanup. In regards to the double single, it seems like they were released as a Double A-side single per iTunes and Spotify and I just used what has been the precedent of what I've seen on Wikipedia discography tables regarding Double A-side singles. The Official Charts website has both of the singles charted together under "Three Six Five", hence why I did it the way I did. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation. Guess the best way to handle this will be similarly to The Beatles singles discography, with two positions in the same box where applicable. IYoni (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to add a column for the US Mainstream Rock chart? Just hit #1 on there as well. Here is the citation. Thank you!

https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-beat/linkin-park-12th-mainstream-rock-airplay-number-1-heavy-is-the-crown-1235896105/ 2604:2D80:5B89:9E00:D68:8324:4517:73DD (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware, it was from that article where I got the updated US sales for From Zero. The column for the Mainstream Rock chart is already in the singles table in Linkin Park's discography indicating that the single has reached top of those charts. If you meant in regards to the song article, it can't be used because the song charted on the main Rock Airplay chart. Thanks for being vigilant though. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove a table caption from The Better Life when you are more than aware that table captions are required on articles per MOS:TABLECAPTION? You were even told about this a while ago by another editor, who clearly stated that a RfC consensus was established on this matter at WT:ACCESS. I noticed that you even recently made an edit where you inserted a certification table including a caption, so there's no excuse for someone like you who's been editing music articles for a while to not know better than this. Why didn't you add in captions for the other tables? Magatta (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 Doors Down's album article, there was only one table caption, and I removed it in my fix, simply because the weekly charting and certifications tables didn't have it, and it was jarring so I made it consistent with the tables in the article in question. I have not been the one to add headers to older song/album articles, though I don't stop others from adding them. In the same talk discussion that you pointed out, my response stated that I prioritised making sure that modern articles have a modern charting table look with captions. Hence why all the chart/certification tables I edit on modern music articles are up to date with the guidelines. I've been consistent on this, I even said in that discussion that "I generally don't remove them except for when I feel they look out of place". In this particular case, it was, as it stood out like a sore thumb as a presentation issue for the sake of inconsistency. I won't remove something unless I have a good reason to.

As for the "no excuse", I had a reason and an explanation for what I was doing, there's no excuse in that whatsoever. I was made aware of the guidelines at the time, and I made sure to keep it in mind, as I make sure to keep modern music articles up to date with these guidelines. I make sure to use my editing techniques and forte of them to keep these in the forefront. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you've said here, and on that previous discussion I linked, I am getting the impression that you feel table captions should only be included on articles of songs that came out after a consensus was made on this in 2020. Well, it applies to all articles, even if you think it feels out of place because it's too "modern" for them, and removing them from other articles for your own convenience is just showing blatant disregard for MOS guidelines. If including table captions in older song articles doesn't look right in your view, that's your problem, not the policy's. Again, why did you feel that removing something that's required for tables (per a 2020 consensus) was a better choice than to add in captions for the other ones, because you felt it "stood out like a sore thumb" and wanted it to look more "consistent" when it would have made much more sense to add in captions for the other tables? I also noticed you made an edit at System of a Down (album) a while ago where there were table captions labelleing the weekly, year-charts, and certifications table, but while acknowledging them, you went straight ahead and removed them, while making a slight change to the certifications header, so my point of you having no excuse to not know better than this still stands. If a seperate table exists in an, it requires a caption. Period. Magatta (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In situations where someone sees something out of balance in an inconsistent way, they will add or remove something based on what their natural brain response is. My default reaction was to remove it, though I know a lot of our brains work differently, and perhaps you probably would have added all of them in that situation which would have been your natural response. I wouldn't blame you for how you would react to that, that's your natural response, and that's absolutely fine.

Though, just because I stated previously that I wouldn't personally add headers to older song articles does not mean that I think they should not be added; anyone else is welcome to add them and I will make sure they won't be removed. That is fine, it's an editing preference, and an editing preference isn't against the guidelines. Feel free to add them wherever, and help Wikipedia as a whole. I'm not forced to add them if I don't want to, and that is okay. In response to your question, If I don't want to add them, anyone else, including yourself, I am happy to let them add it instead. I see and acknowledge that the SOAD album edit was wrong, and I apologise for that sloppy edit and removal in the cleanup. I though, am uncomfortable with you stalking my contributions page to catch me out on one sloppy edit (304 down, three 100-page clicks, from my most recent edit) just to prove a point, and I will kindly ask you to stop. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not even get a notification for this. You did this just to prove a WP:POINT, which should not be the reason you, or any editor, makes edits. Maybe you should not have spent all that time or "effort" linking to individual web pages when one comprehensive one contains all the information you presented. Be smarter with your time. Your insistence on manual citations on every article is completely unnecessary. I will continue to "revert all that effort" wherever I see fit just as you see fit to. Skyversay (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Linkin Park - FZ Deluxe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Time Flies has now gone 7 times platinum in the UK, that is sales of 2,100,000 but it is only marked down as 1.8 million on the bands discography on their wikipedia page. Can you update the sales on the page please ?. Kind Regards 178.167.174.19 (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove a table caption here at Animal I Have Become, without any proper explanation, after I added it in when you are more than aware of the policy about these? This is the third time you've been told about this on your talk page. Why is a user like you who's been editing for some time failing to follow this? I'm not going to waste any more time going over this again, as I have already done it in my last message, so if you do it again, I will take up a discussion at WP:ANI. Magatta (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring these guidelines. I am more than aware of these policies in regards to table headers as to WP:ACCESSIBILITY. However, you have ignored the fact when I have tried to clear things up and fix the charts section is PRESENTATION. When you have the weekly charts, you should only need to state that once, likewise with monthly or year-end charts. These need to be presently clearly and consistently. I have been vocal about Wikipedia lacking in keeping a solid and easily readible presentation for years, consistency as well for that matter. You say that I did it without "any proper explanation", even though in the edit of mine you shared with me, I explicitly stated that I was fixing the charting tables and correcting references to be in line with the page titles on the Billboard Year-End website with the 'fixes' as my edit summary. I keep on adding chart/certification headers when I see them in newer song articles, as I have done in this past week on: "The Less I Know the Better" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Less_I_Know_the_Better&oldid=1296073581) and "If You Can't Hang" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=If_You_Can%27t_Hang&oldid=1296075582), so to state I ingore these policies is an outright lie. Though, when I see presentation issues, I will do what I did at Speak Now (Taylor's Version) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speak_Now_(Taylor%27s_Version)&oldid=1296080851).

Remove one header, because the YE charting column already has a header, and it's pointless to have both for presentation as it's not concise and is straight up overkill and overstimulating for people on the spectrum (autism, dyslexia etc.) which also is to consider WP:ACCESSIBILITY in my opinion. I know this first hand, and I hope you can start to understand what I was trying to tell you on The Better Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Better_Life&oldid=1277240239). The Year-End column has the headers which is needed, which is great, but overstating it by adding a billion more captions added by the year in front of it looks horrid, especially when the tables themselves already tell you which years the charts are documenting. Could you honestly tell me the current state of the charts section in "Mr. Brightside" is good presentation? I look at that, and it is completely horrendous in its current state and gives me a headache and desperately needs a good clearup. I would trim all of that up by just keeping one consise chart header for the YE section. Let me send an example of what I recently did on that Taylor Swift album article, with trimmed down charts for the sake of keeping it as a brief point.

Speak Now (Taylor's Version) Before:

Speak Now (Taylor's Version) After:

Do you see what I mean now by what I'm trying to fix? It's about keeping things clean, consise and presentable, and not make it look like that Wikipedia has a massive fetish for chart headers for the sake of having chart headers for every single new charting table. I don't want overkill, I'm just trying to clear things up, and threatening me with administrative action just for trying to present chart sections in a better way doesn't help anyone. Going back to the WP:DTAB guidelines, it just says "A caption is a table's title, describing its nature. Data tables should always include a caption." This just talks about individual tables, but doesn't take into account the scenario over a swarm of loads of tables, and where table captions should be appropriately used. This is wheere we should be using WP:COMMONSENSE, and know when enough is enough and make sure everything is presentable for the average reader, including those who may have autism or dyslexia such as myself to keep in line with the WP:ACCESSIBILITY guidelines. Please try not to forget all of this, and please bring it on board in future, because one of the first sentences of that guideline is literaly: "Although primarily intended to support individuals with disabilities, it also benefits all readers." Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockmusicfanatic20: I strongly feel you are misunderstanding the point I made as to why each table, including multiple chart tables, need to have their own distinct and descriptive caption for WP:ACCESSIBILITY purposes. Again, WP:DTAB clearly says "Data tables should always include a caption." This is not conditional, and the policy does not say anything along the lines of "unless it looks cluttered" or "unless another heading exists above the table." Captions were introduced as part of the consensus made back in 2020 to aid visitors to the site with visual impairments, who are often overlooked and even forgotten about, who also rely on Screen readers to help them navigate certain sections in articles, especially tables and chart columns, which is also clearly stated at WP:DTAB ("The headers help screen readers render header information about data cells. For example, header information is spoken prior to the cell data, or header information is provided on request. Because the row header and column header may be spoken before the data in each cell when navigating in table mode, it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively). These captions are not put in for "decorative" or "aesthetic" purposes, but rather to support low-vision, and even blind users who rely on technologies such as screen readers, which in turn rely on captions to help these users navigate certain sections of the article. By removing these captions simply because you don't like them, you are effectively reducing, and even disabling access for screen reader users by removing structural cues like captions, which allows them to differntiate one table from the next. The reason why captions are added to such tables even though they already have a year in them is because captions are the very first thing a screen reader announces when reading over a table. They give context to what follows afterwards (Mr. Brightside's chart section contains a vast amount of chart entries, therefore table captions are especially essential for effective navigation in this case). Without these captions, a visually impaired reader may just hear row after row of unlabelled data with no context. Removing these captions because you don't like the look of them is not only blatantly going against guidelines backed by consensus of multiple editors, but it also goes against what MOS:ACCESS is supposed to protect, and thus generally undermines Wikipedia's ultimate goal of providing accessibility to visitors of all backgrounds. Users, regardless of learning disability, do not get to override these policies because they "don't like the look of them" or think that it makes the article layout look "untidy". Each table is still a separate element, and screen readers don’t know that they’re part of a group, only that they either have a caption, or they don't. Repeatedly removing these captions for your own convenience is not "fixing" the sections, it's disruptive editing, and it reduces accessibility by creating access for one group, while taking it away from the other, which is arguably grounds for ableism.

Also, while I understand that sensory overload is a valid experience for some users (such as those on the autism spectrum), I firmly believe that complete inaccessibility for blind or low-vision users using screen readers, who rely on captions to navigate the article, is a much bigger concern, and therefore WP:Presentation is secondary to accessibility. Your behaviour towards these guidelines speaks "this doesn’t work for me, so the community consensus must be wrong," and that you are misrepresenting WP:ACCESSIBILITY to justify non-compliance, which again, goes against Wikipedia’s policies. (You said "in my opinion" at one point in your reply, which strongly indicates you disagree with the consensus). Furthermore WP:COMMONSENSE does not allow for ignorance or overriding of policy because you don't like it, rather applies within the bounds of policy, not in opposition to it, especially when it involves core inclusion principles. If you feel that these guidelines need to be changed, then the correct thing to do would be to take up a discussion at WT:ACCESS, and not by going against policies that are backed by long-standing consensus based on your own preference.

So in compliance with these guidelines, I will reinsert the captions you have removed in the examples you provided, and will continue to insert missing captions at other articles. I strongly suggest you take the time to consider the needs of screen reader users, and how it helps them to navigate around wikipedia articles, and how their needs do not compare to people who simply don't like the look of article layouts. And once again, start a discussion at WT:ACCESS if you feel change is needed, but in the meantime, do not remove captions unless there is a policy-backed reason to do so, or I may end up reporting at WP:ANI. Magatta (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In no way is changing a template into a manual citation a "fix", nor is moving one of the Japanese charts out of alphabetical order a "fix" [2]. It's your personal preference and adds no benefit, so please stop leaving misleading edit summaries. Secondly, please stop changing charts only published by Billboard Japan to Billboard, which implies the original American publication. Also, PepeBonus already reverted your first "fix", so your manual re-revert was edit warring and disruptive. Any further manual reverts/"fixes" to things editors already reverted you for will be reported to an admin. Take it to the talk page per WP:BRD or leave it alone. Thank you. Skyversay (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to a manual citation, because the article for the Japanese Oricon Albums Chart exists. If the article exists, it is imperative we should be linking it. It's as simple as that. That's why I was fixing it... and you couldn't see any difference between the two edits if you compare the revisions? That is on the fault of the people who made the templates, not myself. I was merely correcting an edit to keep it up to date. Correcting that edit, that's all I did. Secondly, I'm not "changing" the chart for Billboard Japan. It still links to Billboard Japan directly, to state Japan twice in one chart row is ridiculous and redundant, and if I were to imply the main Billboard, I would have changed the links. The chart is already the Billboard Japan Hot Albums chart... as specifically stated... should that really be stated again in the bracketed parts that it's a Japanese chart? Maybe I should have made my edit more clear in the summary with what I was doing, and if I had caused any confusion, then I apologise. But nothing of anything I did is disruptive to the article. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockmusicfanatic20 Just 10 days after you recieved this noticed, you went ahead and used the same "fixes" excuse to restore the same disruptive edit that was reverted, and made the same unnecessary change to the Billboard World Albums chart entry. You've also done it with this edit at The Pretender (Foo Fighters song). You said in the summary you "fixed" the Ireland chart, when there was nothing even wrong with it in the first place. Please read MOS:CHARTS, which clearly states "Although the templates are not compulsory they are not to be reverted if they have been upgraded" in the notes section regarding automatic templates. Converting automatic chart entry templates to manual citations when there isn't anything wrong with them is disruptive and pointless, and will just be reverted by another editor sooner or later. You are aware that you don't get to override policies just because they you like them? Please stop wasting other users' time. Magatta (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I was sloppy and forgot to explain my "fixes" in my edit summary, and for that, I apologise. However, clearly anything I say to you falls on death ears, no matter what I say. IT IS ESSENTIAL TO LINK CHART ARTICLES IF THEY EXIST!!! If there is something wrong with the chart templates, we should fix them, it's as simple as that. Also, WP:IAR exists for a reason, as I'm invoking it to fix something that was broken. It's the fault of the people who made the templates, that fault is not mine. Did you notice I'm not changing all templates into manual ones? Or am I only doing it when it's essential to do so? Take your pick. You can claim that there's "nothing wrong" with certain templates, but that's just you being extremely ignorant and intentionally oblivious because you hate it when I make a good point. Also, don't use another section of my talk page, make another section, as I explained this to him, while he didn't respond back, I can imagine he thought I made a point because he wasn't the one who tried to revert me when I went to fix it the second time, and EXPLAINED everything in depth in my edit, though that's never good enough for you is it? I am tired of trying to explain myself to you and everything falling on death ears. Please treat me with a single ounce of respect, just one little bit is all I ask. All I'm trying to do is HELP. Yet you try to shit on me every single fucking time I try to do so to help the wikipedia articles and community. Also, the way you have treated me recently has particularly bugged me, you promote acting in good faith on your page, yet act in extremely bad faith towards me every single time you talk to me (and also threaten to report me) when all I'm trying to do is help, while it makes me feel like you make certain edits to spite me. (Redacted) I just need to quit wikipedia as no one understands me even when I'm just trying to make edits to help out this community.Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. I think we've crossed paths here and there, we both seem to edit articles in the rock music world, albeit in different capacities. Anyways, question for you - why do you keep on "un-templating" music charts in album chart lists - specifically, it seems like the Irish chart? For example, this month, you made this edit and this edit. You didn't leave an edit summary, and MOS:CHARTS says not to do this, so I haven't been able to figure it out.

If there's something I'm missing, please let me know. But if there isn't any reason...please stop doing this, as it goes against MOS:CHARTS. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sergecross73, first and foremost, I thank you for coming into my talk page to discuss this. This issue is relating to chart templates that I have fixed when I've came across this on several occasions, specifically I've seen it for the Irish IRMA/OCC and Japanese Oricon charts mostly. The templates don't use the chart articles that exist, Irish Albums Chart and Oricon Albums Chart. If the articles exist, it's extremely important that we should be using them, and if we don't link to them, then no one is able to access them. I've seen those on various occasions and have fixed them to include the chart articles for these regions. However, I'm a little confused that I'm having to explain this as I have explained this in the edit summaries in both the examples you provided... but you claim that I didn't leave an edit summary? I always make sure to leave edit summaries to show people what I'm doing/rationale for certain edits, so I'm a little bit dumbfounded that you're saying this to begin with.

McBusted edit summary: "Fixes (Added column scopes + headers + added chart articles where necessary + archives.)"

"Teenage Dirtbag" edit summary: "Fixes (Added access dates to templates + added singles charts articles where necessary + rename charts to be up to date and consistent with present.)"

I'm a little confused by that, and am wondering that there may be a glitch on Wikipedia on your end if you're not seeing these edit summaries? Do make sure to let me know, as now I'm getting concerned that no one is able to see my edit summaries, which might even explain why I'm getting reverted on several occasions even after explaining everything in-depth. However, going back to the chart templates issue, if you notice, I will never change any chart templates to manual citations unless I see a gaping issue with the template in the first place, and I will maintain that I'm only trying to help out and clean-up chart sections and fix them when needed. I don't want to have keep making these edits when there are issues with the templates in the first place, quite frankly if there's a way for people to change the automatic templates then that would make our jobs so much easier so I wouldn't have to be doing it manually. If you have any more questions or queries about anything, you're welcome to come back to my talkpage at any time. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I wrote that wrong. It wasn't that there was no edit summary, it was that there was nothing in the edit summary that was particularly helped me understand the "untemplating" aspect of your edit. (If "Adding chart where necessary" was in reference to that part, then that was not enough for me to understand the issue you outlined above.)

That part aside, can you bring this problem up on the MOS:CHARTS talk page (or any other sort of talk page that deals with this) so we can get this fixed, so there are no further misunderstandings on this? Seems like it would be better if we get this fixed at the source rather than "patching it up" like you are on an article by article basis? Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your urgency on trying to get this issue sorted out, I do appreciate it. I had a look at the MOSCHARTS and it's talk page, but I'm currently concerned by the lack of actvity I'm seeing, as it looks like one of those talk pages where nothing will be done, as such like the lack of action on certain talk pages which sometimes get no reply that I've had on a few occasions in the past. The one you've linked to being last from 2020. I'm not sure it's the right place for me to ask. I had a look at a couple of other places like WP:RECORD or WP:Charts being more appropriate as a place to bring this up, as well as more activity, and likely more of issue to be resolved. I'm just currently unsure of what you might think would be the better place to go to get things resolved. Any advice would be appreciated, thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd start the discussion itself on the MOSCHARTS talk page, and then post notification links to that discussion at a bunch of the music Wikiprojects (and RECORD, Charts, etc). Kind of like how you'd notify people of an WP:RFC - a quick "Hey, we have an issue with these music charts, and we're looking for input on how to fix it. See [LINK] for more details." Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make sense? Sergecross73 msg me 01:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, apologies for not responding sooner, was just not sure how to approach it at first, but have now started a new section at MOS:CHARTS and have done a notification section on those other respective talk pages as well. Thank you very much for your help, it is very much appreciated. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I write this message to you that someone changed a genre that you stated on this song. I'd like you to come and restore the correct genre, because I tried to do it and I was called disruptive. Thank you in advance Numetalindustry (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chapter Eight: The Rightside Up, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BMTH - Chelsea Smile.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]