This is an archive of past discussions with User:JohnFromPinckney. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
So? We're on the English Wikipedia. Go take a look at some of the German WP music articles; you'll have a heart attack seeing what passes for sourcing over there. The Spanish one is worse, as far as I can tell. There's a recent discussion here on en:WP about ringtones, and a couple editors chimed in against including them. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure! The pillars are the same, but think about how other guidelines are made: through consensus within the community. I'm not in the pt:WP community (and I don't speak Portuguese) so when there's a discussion about what charts to include on discographies, or whether references should be in columns or not, or whether aCharts.us is a reliable source, I won't be offering my invaluable advice. The Brazilians and Portuguese don't know about our discussions here on en:WP (except for those few folks who bounce back and forth).
I have edited at the German Wikipedia (and Spanish, I think), but it's tricky because I don't know all of their local rules and customs. It's kind of a re-learning process when I'm over there, because WP:DISCOGSTYLE and MOS:DASH are redlinks to them (probably). The es:WP folks do seem to have copied our WP:CHARTS page though.
Know that I can't verify Italy at all , so I don't know when it peaked. I'd be surprised if it hit big in Italy way before the rest of Europe got it, though, (and the ref points to August) so I assume it to be 2011.
Know that the Korean source is likewise useless to me. I have to hack the page just to see under the overlay, and then it doesn't seem to give me an actual chart position. When in doubt (I guess) assume it's 2011. I can't prove it even charted there, though. :-(
Remove NLD Single Top 100 (we've got the Dutch Top 40
Change Scotland date param to 2011-03-12 to support peak of 3
Change UK R&B date param to 2011-03-05 to support peak of 1
Think about changing the "Charts" sub-section heading to "Weekly charts", since there's a "Year-end charts" sub-section, too.
Look on the page for duplicate refs. I see several, as refs 31 to about 45 seem to overlap with the refs 96 to 124 or so. Check into reusing the named singlechart refs up in the article body.
It appears that on all of the charts where "S&M" appeared in 2010, the song later moved up at least a little during 2011. So no table splitting necessary. The stuff I mentioned above is a bit of work itself, but that needs to be done either way. Sorry you asked? Cheers (and good luck; lemme know if you want help) — JohnFromPinckney (talk)00:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well, er, no: There should be five tables: three for the weekly charts, and two for the year-end charts (plus Decade-end and certs). If you don't split them, look what happens to the middle headings when you sort. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)12:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yikes, no, it's not up for me at the moment, either. I've tried http://riaa.com/ and http://www.riaa.com/ both but they just time out. I hadn't heard about them getting hacked (although I can imagine the RIAA receives such attempts regularly). It would be nice if somebody would hack the site to allow title and artist parameter passing in the URLs, but leave the site up and running. I guess that'd be too much to hope for though. ;-) — JohnFromPinckney (talk)18:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Before I added the PROD to the article I made sure to search for other indications of notability outside the single, inadequate reference that was provided. I did indeed use Google as my search engine. I did not find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (phrase used at WP:GNG). In fact, I found almost nothing about this unfinished film. No critics have written articles about it. It isn't historically notable. It has not been widely distributed. It fetures not one single notable actor. In fact, even the director is a redlink on the article page. This is why my PROD mentioned that it failed bot WP:GNG and WP:NF.
I hope you will reread the PROD notice you deleted (I left a copy on your Talk page) and follow the links to the notability guidelines I provided. This film is not currently worth its own WP article. Now, if it wins an award at te Berlinale, then we've got something, but we don't even know if the film will be finished by then.
Finally, I'd like to say I don't appreciate your characterization of my PROD as "idiotic" in your edit summary. It feels like a personal attack to me and I hope you'll be more courteous in dealing with your fellow Wikipedians in the future.
Your question about whether I have heard of Google is hardly helpful, by the way. And if you have heard of Google you could surely use it to whip up a couple of example of notable critics' reviews of the work, or reliable, independent examination of the work underlining its notability. Currently, the article lacks this (even after your snide note here) and so you haven't dealt fulfilled what I consider your responsibility to prove notability. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Having looked through the generally sprawling, untidy and very-difficult-to-follow The Neptunes discography, I think that it may be an idea to establish some sort of design guidelines for production discographies as well, similar to WP:DISCOGSTYLE: apart from a few exceptions, most of them are simply written as plain lists, and are completely unsourced. I'm thinking of some ideas, but if you have any suggestions, they would be appreciated. Also, I am aware that we don't list US ringtone certifications in discographies currently. I can see why people wouldn't want them included, as it is unclear whether buying a ringtone is the same as buying an actual single, but I actually think they should be. The way I see it, a ringtone is just another format that music can be purchased as: besides, we list the "Standard" and "Digital" certifications under the same "RIAA" heading, as if they're the same sort of certification, when they're two completely different formats.UPDATE: Please ignore the crossed out bit: have read about this at the talk page of WP:DISCOGSTYLE. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing.16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That's just what I think, anyway. If I've missed some obvious logic here, please tell me. Thanks! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing.14:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The Neptunes produced Wasting Time by Brent Faiyaz & Drake, we need to stop deleting peoples post before researching it Dasmith32 (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial efforts that has contributed to the recent WP:FL promotion of Kanye West discography
I haven't crossed paths with you for a while. Thought you might want to be a guinea pig for {{BillboardURLbyName}}. While working my way through the last Billboard change, I figured that a couple of templates to help discography editors could be useful. {{BillboardChartNum|chart name}} will return the integer number associated with that BillboardChart, and {{BillboardURLbyName}} will return a URL for that chart for that artist, i.e. {{BillboardURLbyName|artist=Shakira|chart=Hot 100}} will generate https://www.billboard.com/artist/shakira/chart-history/hot-100. The chart name mapping is documented at {{BillboardChartNum}}. If you want to have real fun, peek under the hood of {{BillboardID}}: I'm truly ashamed of myself.
There's no fancy ref formatting or anything: just the raw URL. That way there shouldn't be any arguments about appearance to keep people from using them, and I can get them all to autoupdate the next time Billboard changes everything.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
List of awards and nominations received by Santana
Hello, JohnFromPinckney. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Hello, JohnFromPinckney. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hello, JohnFromPinckney. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
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.
