User talk:MFTP Dan/2022 Archives

Archives

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 when active, I archive this after every year ends.

"Never underestimate stupid people in large numbers." ~dannymusiceditor's Dad

I tend to ramble a lot to the point I get incoherent in content debates sometimes. If I say anything totally confusing or even mean-sounding, I probably didn't mean it that way, so just let me know and we'll work it out.

I think this image is eligible for Wikimedia Commons as far as the content is concerned. The pertinent question, however, is who took the photograph? Commons:Freedom of panorama is pretty wide in the US, but the photographer may hold certain rights. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took this photo. It hangs on the wall at my workplace. However, I have been told it is a derivative work violation due to the cover art appearing on it. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Binksternet isn’t replying and I think you’d agree we should get a consensus soon, comment if you can. TheXuitts (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, DannyMusicEditor! The article you nominated, Tell All Your Friends, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: your patience with this article's candidacy is beyond what I can express with simple thanks. I'm so happy you held onto faith we could get it done. I think you should probably send the same to MusicforthePeople - they did a heavy share of the work behind the scenes that the article would not have passed without. Truly, I am thankful for you and your patience with my first featured article. dannymusiceditor ^oops 14:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:In the End. I reverted the edit and explained to the user who removed Billboard in the first place on the talk page. We really should be discussing this for removal first before even attempting to think about removing notability such as Billboard. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you noticed, but this is Kokoro20, under a new name. As you can see, I'm back on Wikipedia, after an extended break. I thought I needed one, as it was getting really tiresome for me to go through my watch list and keep an eye on certain articles that got any recent edits that may have needed to get reverted.

But I'm back, at least for the time being. I might want to try an get another article or two to GA, which I know you've also done before with All We Know is Falling. I had gotten another Paramore album to GA, that being their self-titled album. I also had been meaning to get After Laughter to GA, but never got around to it. MoonJet (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MoonJet, it's good to see you back. Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. If you have that in you, go for it - Brand New Eyes would be the one I would most like to see get up there myself, if I ever get to it. I haven't touched Paramore's stuff in a while. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I didn't get a notification. But yeah, I do want to try and get After Laughter to GA. You can do Brand New Eyes. If both of those to get GA, all we have left to get to GA is Riot. In fact, maybe you could end up reviewing After Laughter for me, and in turn, I could review Brand New Eyes for you, should you try getting that to GA. MoonJet (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danny – I saw the release dates for singles that you added to Brothers in Arms, and I wondered what reason we have for believing the accuracy of the release dates on the Hung Medien websites, which were used to source these dates. I say this because I can say with 100% certainty that "Money for Nothing", "Walk of Life" and "Your Latest Trick" were definitely not released on those dates in the UK, at least – indeed, in the UK "Your Latest Trick" charted in the week commencing 28 May 1986, so it must have been released on 21 May 1986 at the very latest. Richard3120 (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120, I'm slightly confused as to which example you refer to in this discussion. Both "Money for Nothing" and "Your Latest Trick", as they currently stand, were released on the 28th of their respective months, but the former was May 1985, while the latter was April 1986. Neither were on 28 May 1986. Why is it that you don't believe the others? Not trying to pick a fight here or anything, I just am not sure how to word the question any better.

To be honest with you, those dates on the singles (excluding Money) were there/cited by Ultratop before I cited them with a reference, so honestly I just pulled something of similar value that looked more accessible to me. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mixed up the dates, which confused things somewhat. But what I mean is I don't believe ANY of the release dates cited on the Hung Medien sites, including Ultratop, going by the release dates quoted for the Brothers in Arms singles. How do we know the dates added on Hung Medien are not added by users and therefore fail WP:USERG?

To go into more detail:

• "Money for Nothing" was supposedly released on 28 May 1985. But it didn't chart in the UK until w/e 6 July, which is consistent with a release date of 24 June 1985. This is the date stated for other releases for this single on Hung Medien. The 28 May date is supposedly for the German release, but the song didn't chart in Germany until October 1985, six months later, so clearly this is wrong.
• "Walk of Life" was supposedly released on 29 November 1985, but didn't chart in the UK until w/e 11 January 1986, which is consistent with a release date of 30 December 1985 for the UK. It did chart in Belgium w/e 21 December, so obviously it was released there earlier, but 29 November still seems too early because there's no reason the song should have taken over three weeks to chart... 9 December seems more likely to me.
• If "Your Latest Trick" was already in the chart on 28 April 1986 (which it was), it's totally impossible it could have been released the same day... at the time it took Gallup a week to collect the sales data, in order to publish the following week's chart.

In short, release dates from the Hung Medien sites look totally unreliable to me and should not be used. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the impression I got was that these dates were not user-generated, but I suppose it's possible. They do have a forum component (not sure if it's still active?) but I was just using the existing sources for the others, and Money I was just making consistent with that use. Would I be able to change these myself on the Hung Medien sites? 🤔 I didn't think it possible. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you can change them – I guess that was my original question, where do Hung Medien get these dates from... do they get them from the record companies themselves (unlikely), do they get them from an unreliable source similar to Discogs, or do users input them? I just wondered how much faith we should put in them, and from what I'm seeing, my personal opinion would be "not very much". But I'm not going to make a big song and dance about it – I'll leave those dates in there for now, and hopefully in the future we can find more reliable sources like old copies of Music Week or the British music press which state the release dates. Richard3120 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i'm trying to start a talk page discussion about CoF finally having a genre, given that peolpe agreed to it for evanescence. you can join the talk page if you want to. Statik N (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. It's possible that you didn't read past edit-summaries. But to repeat - "We don't use diacritics in player names, on NHL team articles". GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, I didn't see any recent edit that said that, so I apologize, I would have debated it. That doesn't make any sense - the standard should reflect how the player is represented by NHL media, and Tim is one of the few. I believe players can now request their names bear diacritics now, and he's not the only one - Vancouver's Nils Höglander also does this. Why shouldn't we follow their preference? dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOCKEY reached a compromise years ago, to leave diacritics out of players names on NHL/AHL/OHL/WHL team articles, etc. But allow them on player articles. Best to leave that compromise in place & not stir up a hornet's nest. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, a hornet's nest, you say? How old is this consensus? This trend is only maybe two years old, no older than that. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to a decade old. I'm asking you to let it go & move on. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is it forbidden to have open discourse about Wikipedia practices, especially one this old? Has it been discussed since then? I earnestly believe the situation and attitudes toward use of diacritics in the NHL especially have relaxed. What would be wrong with me asking about something that old now? Back then, use of such characters in the media, let alone on their jerseys, was unheard of in North America. Now it's becoming an accepted practice. This isn't just about the Senators and Tim to me. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm asking you to drop it & leave it at that. He last name is shown without diacritics in the Senators roster & in the NHL draft. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be part of what I'm asking to change, not just this one place. I, like you, am a fan of consistency when it is possible. But since you seem unwilling to answer the full question, I'm just going to take it to the Wikiproject tomorrow when I have time. If you didn't want to discuss it, simply don't participate. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have contacted you. Seeing as you're going to push this simply because somebody asked you not to. You're choice then. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to affirm that I'm not doing this because you told me not to, though I do think you making such a request without really explaining why is bizarre, if I'm being honest. I genuinely think our situation is different now than it was ten years ago. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WRT https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eighteen_Visions&oldid=prev&diff=1084156322: Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts states that associations are only to be "professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career". Yes, that can include when members intersect, but MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored...)" That key element is neither discussed nor sourced in the article and so while the rules have not changed recently, the purpose has bee usurped. I trust you to fix it in due time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting the MOS guideline necessarily overrides the other? Because I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I am aware that the infobox's purpose is not to be the only link to any given information and that the goal is to mention them, but I do not think it is easily possible to do so in this case, and I do not think that means it cannot be done; rather, I think that it is a standard to reach toward. With that being said, thank you for being gracious enough to allow it to stay, I will try to follow your advice and find a way to mention them anyway. Can't be sure if I'll have much success, I would guess the most ideal sources would be in print and I'm not interested in buying any, but I will give it a shot. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before you accuse me of challenging Music Week, perhaps you should actually take a look at the source yourself, because it's pretty obvious that you didn't. The issue of September 24 mentions nothing about "Star 69" being a single. Page 27 is a advert for Music Relief. The IP that added this information clearly didn't know what they were doing. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

• I didn't actually have access to the source, so I appreciate you checking it - my apologies. The reason it was removed just didn't sell it very well to me, and it having been in the source listed (at least, presumably) should have qualified it.
• Thank you for sharing where you found this, I had no idea this even existed! I will use this going forward to check.

dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hide (musician) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hide (musician) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hide (musician) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, DannyMusicEditor! The article you nominated, Bleed American, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You reverted my edit as “not necessary”, but I beg to differ. When I first read the track listing it was completely unclear to me why Chet Powers was listed as a writer and it took me quite a bit of searching before I was able to make sense of it. At the very least, it should have an explanatory footnote. the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 15:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry about that! I meant to remedy this myself, but due to the way Nevermind is written, I had a hard time finding where that would be an appropriate detail to include in the article. If you look at the talk page for the article, I did add a reference that could be used to support the statement. A footnote seems like a good fix in the short run, but it just needs done a little differently than the way you originally added it. Thank you for reminding me about this! dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMusicEditor, it'll be eight weeks tomorrow since you opened this review, and haven't yet posted anything significant to it. Do you plan to, or do you think it might be better to delete the page and put the nomination back into the pool of those awaiting review with no loss of seniority? Thanks for giving this your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you mention this. I've been thinking about this since Christmas eve, and I was sure a message from you was imminent; sure enough, here we are. I was actually planning on doing that tonight. I don't think it passes, if I'm being honest. I have been trying to think of ways to find this information from suitable sources, but it doesn't seem to be on the internet in acceptable places. I want to give a thorough review of this that actually explains what needs to be done better, but I don't know what that is. I'm worried that there might not *be* anything. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]