User talk:SnapSnap/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Anthony Fantano

A RfC has begun at WP:RSN regarding Anthony Fantano's reviews should be count as reliable. Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Dancing On My Own (edits)

No source I've seen that's clarified both Robyn and Patrik wrote and co-produced the track together has clarified a ratio of who did more than the other but the articles do mention both worked on it. Because there's not a more specific mention in anything I've seen of who did more by default is the toolbox only allowed to name one producer because that's technically not accurate? Onan808 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onan808: In the liner notes of Body Talk Pt. 1, Patrik is credited as a producer, while Robyn is listed as a co-producer. There's nothing wrong with listing more than one producer in the infobox, so long as they are all credited as main producers, not co-/additional/vocal producers, as stated at Template:Infobox song#producer. snapsnap ^(talk) 23:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Synth Pop album reference links (edits)

Why do you think we (Electrozombies) are not a serious source? We are one of the biggest international magazines in the Synth Pop niche and we have been around for a good 10 years. We don't have any dubious advertising on our site or sell shady stuff. We are 100% independent and not affiliated with any labels or promo agencies. We have an accurate imprint and a privacy page. We even have an official business registration. So, how do you define a serious magazine/website?

In the list of references (Spirit (Depeche Mode album)) I find many other links that are stuffed with advertising banners and whose content is much thinner. Some pages don't even have an SSL encrypted page. But these remain in. It gives me a little feeling of arbitrariness.

On your user page I see that you yourself are a big Depeche Mode and New Order fan. Shouldn't we rather work together? Censorship is really not a cool solution, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasfrenken (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thomasfrenken: This isn't about what I personally think. Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines regarding reliable sources (WP:RS), and your site simply does not seem to fit the criteria. All reviews used in Spirit (Depeche Mode album) are from major, established mainstream sources, regardless of advertising banners or SSL encryption. How are we supposed to determine your site's reliability? Is there any evidence of editorial oversight or writer credentials? Besides, the fact that you, the site's creator (or one of the creators), is trying to promote said site here on Wikipedia articles could generate a conflict of interest. You don't appear to be an active Wikipedia editor, so I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the guidelines. snapsnap ^(talk) 17:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@SnapSnap: I read through the article and the bottom line is that it is still arbitrary. Such a massive article is of course a great excuse, but it doesn't apply to everyone. I'm just summarising some thoughts because I don't want to let this get out of hand.

I have looked at other pages of bands and albums and find reference links from pages like Brutal Resonance (which is a friend of mine), Side-Line and also a fresh young magazine called Synthpop Fanatic has a news article in the reference links on the page of (X Marks the Pedwalk). So much for "reliable sources". And I only scratched the surface quickly.

On the subject of "neutral reporting": There is no such thing as neutral reporting per sé! Especially the biggest newspaper and magazine publishers are more opinion makers than neutral reporting. And you have to admit that neutral reporting is not possible in relation to music. Music is always purely a matter of taste. And that's exactly why diverse opinions are extremely important in reviews. So this point is completely out of the question.

Last point: Self-publication/Conflict of interest. Of course I would like to expand the relevant articles on Wikipedia with further resources to my site. Since I've been a Synth Pop fan for a good 35 years, I'm sure you'll grant me some expertise. If I understood the WP:RS article correctly and a renowned writer had added my review of the Spirit album, then that would have been okay!?

Please tell me specifically, without referring to a mile-long article, what I have to do to be considered a "reliable source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasfrenken (talk • contribs) 06:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thomasfrenken: I don't make the rules. Wikipedia articles should rely mostly on major mainstream sources and publications, whether you think it's arbitrary or not. Regarding the other music articles you came across, your argument falls mostly under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The use of relatively smaller sources could perhaps be excused for lesser-known subjects with not enough coverage from major sources, which is not the case with Depeche Mode, a well-known mainstream band. Plus, simply placing the reference at the top of the article like you did, without any text to accompany it, is not helpful nor proper formatting. You could try opening a discussion at WT:ALBUM, but I'm pretty certain they'll ask you the same questions I did: Does your site have any editorial oversight? Do you (and your staff) have any professional credentials? Anyone can go on Wikipedia and claim to be an expert. snapsnap ^(talk) 03:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tables now require captions per MOS:ACCESS

Hi. As I see you "copyediting" pages quite often, which usually requires you updating articles to the latest standards of hyphenating "access-date" and fixing links and what-not, just letting you know that you should probably also be adding captions to tables, as this is now a requirement per MOS:ACCESS. Ss112 16:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sky Rojo

Hey! How are you? I wanted to thank you for your edits on Sky Rojo ("Episode summaries must be expressed in your own words. Do NOT submit content you find from another web site as it is plagiarism and likely a copyright violation, which Wikipedia cannot accept and will be removed or reverted ..."). I truly did not know about this and thought everything on Wikipedia must be taken from another source. Now that I know this, I will gladly provide or translate a summary from another Wiki page. Thank you so much! --Swe97 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Swe97: No problems! Glad I could help. snapsnap ^(talk) 20:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Properly formatting a personnel section

Hey SnapSnap. Hope you're doing well. I've recently come across Chaos and the Calm, which has been edited over the last few months by a new editor who does not know about MOS:ALBUM, including how to format personnel sections (or anything in relation to albums, really). I've seen your work on personnel sections before and I think you're probably one of the best at formatting them to current standards. I'm not sure if you only work on personnel sections if you possess the physical copy of an album or if you have also done it for albums you don't own (or for albums you only have access to the digital liner notes of), but is there any way you could spare some time to format the wildly lengthy notes for this album? The aforementioned user has blown out the previously incomplete personnel section to instead the complete notes for each individual track and has hidden them by default (in violation MOS:NOHIDE), and it's just a mess all around. If not, I understand, as it may be a significant ask. Ss112 05:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ss112. That personnel section sure is a mess and a half, not at all in accordance with MOS:ALBUM guidelines. I'll be busy with a personal project for the next two weeks or so, so I've just been dropping by to perform smaller edits and such, but after I'm done I could gladly work on a properly formatted personnel section. snapsnap ^(talk) 20:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! That would be greatly appreciated. Just an update: I discovered earlier today the editor who added this section has removed it, claiming it was "utterly not respected" (I wonder why), despite the fact they still want it on the article and apparently intend to add it back after "proposing the idea". Regardless, if we had a full properly formatted personnel section I believe it would dissuade this editor. Ss112 22:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: I see. No problems, I'll look into it as soon as I have more free time. snapsnap ^(talk) 00:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone removing content unexplained

I reverted the edits from the user because the user is removing content without an explanation. I also to be reported that another user was trying to changed the article Una Maid en Manhattan. I added warnings to the two users for changing the two articles. 85.255.232.70 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted publishers

Thanks for your work on the Flashdance soundtrack. I noticed that you deleted the magazine publishers I had entered, but I'm not sure why. Since it would be one less thing to look up and type in, I'd love to learn why these aren't necessary. Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Danaphile: No problems! The publisher parameter is mostly reserved for books and should be avoided for publications such as magazines and newspapers, as well as websites. As WP:CS1 states, "The 'publisher' parameter should not be included for widely-known mainstream news sources, for major academic journals, or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work." Hope I was helpful. snapsnap ^(talk) 16:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

30 (Adele album)

Hi Snap. 70svinyl accidentally removed sourced genre (Stereogum)[1], can you restore? Plus, "Melted Stone" is a copyright holder for her recordings, not a label. 183.171.113.178 (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)