Misplaced Pages

User talk:SNUGGUMS: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:34, 2 December 2015 editSNUGGUMS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers121,240 edits reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:56, 4 January 2025 edit undoSNUGGUMS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers121,240 edits tweak 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center> <center>
<div style="padding: 20px; width: 1000px; background: :#f0f0ff; border: 5px solid #8888aa; text-align: justify; font-family: Times New Roman, sans-serif; font-size: 125%;"> <div style="padding: 20px; width: 1000px; background: :#f0f0ff; border: 5px solid #8888aa; text-align: justify; font-family: Times New Roman, sans-serif; font-size: 125%;">
{{busy|SNUGGUMS|with various other websites as well as work}}
{{busy}}
{{WP:TPS/banner}} {{WP:TPS/banner}}
{{talkheader|search=yes}} {{talkheader|search=yes}}

My talk page. Leave me messages here. Post new threads at the bottom of the page. I can also be contacted through ]. My talk page. Leave me messages here. Post new threads at the bottom of the page. I can also be contacted through ].


== Maintaining featured status/good quality standards on Misplaced Pages conflicts==
== Assistance on a song GAN ==


Hi there,
I'm hopeful that you might be able to help me with ]. efe and Coolmarc have already declined due to issues with the nominator, but I think that I need an experienced music editor to assist me and hope that you might be willing.--] (]) 22:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:Not right away, but I'll probably have a look within the next 48 hours. ] (] / ]) 23:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
::That would be fine.--] (]) 00:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Don't forget about this, please.--] (]) 22:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
::::I haven't ] (] / ]) 23:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for your prompt response.--] (]) 00:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::Sure thing. ] (] / ]) 00:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


The content regarding the ] continues, but just as I feared, now ] is accusing me of ]. I've had a similar dispute almost a decade ago with a ] regarding the ] (you can see the dispute back in 2015 on the ). I understand about ownership, but I'm trying to get this ceremony list eventually up to ] standards. I'm just following what has been advised to me from fellow editors who have worked on featured articles and/or featured lists. I'm afraid he might try to undo what I did without having a compromise or resolution and it will spiral into another edit war. And as far as I'm aware, one of the criteria for featured list promotion is that the article be stable. That's why I'm asking clarification from folks who have worked on featured content what they think given that I plan to nominate it for featured list come July.
== Re-evaluation of existing Good Articles ==


Furthermore based on ], ] determined that I was not in violation of ].
Hey, Snuggums. I just saw your comment about GA re-evaluations on Dr. Mies' talk page. I have a current GA, ], that was a decent article at the time of promotion, but was carved up after the fact and allowed to deterioriate. I would like to get a GA re-evaluation and critique of the article, and then run it through the GA evaluation process again to bring it back up to snuff. Do you do such re-evaluations? ] (]) 04:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
:I do occasionally conduct ]s (GAR's) to see if they're up to par. From a glance at Grossman's article, there are some uncited claims, though it would take a deeper look into the article before conducting a GAR. I'll give it a more thorough review later on. ] (] / ]) 04:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks. No rush. It's on my list of 2015 things to do before year's end. It still has the makings of a GA, but probably requires a couple days of word-smithing, sourcing and MOS conformance. ] (]) 04:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


Also, I have concerns that the user my attempt to put back the indiscriminate list of names that were "supposedly" added to a slide at the end of the In Memoriam segment, but as ], the way it would be presented would case ] problems. In a previous FLC, RunningTiger123 said {{tq|I'm conflicted as to whether the names listed all at once at the end of the "In Memoriam" section should be included. It's really hard to parse the sea of links and if they weren't notable enough to get their own moment, they may not be notable enough to be listed here. Would be curious to know what other reviewers think.}}. But more importantly, the two references used to back up the claim that all those names appeared on the actual telecast do not support the claim. There is no indication on either website to indicate the names appeared during the broadcast. So either this statements should be find a ] backing up the claim, or it should be removed because this would be considered ] or ].
== Article → Draft ==
:--]] 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


::It's a relief that , and none of your edits that I can think of came across as attempts to own articles. Just try not to edit war too much when maintaining article quality. Atomic Meltdown is notorious for sockpuppetry that continued long after getting indefinitely blocked. The Oscars in general and Seth MacFarlane-related matters were common areas that user focused on both after and before the block began. I haven't seen that name come up in quite some time. ] (] / ]) 21:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, when you move an article to draft space (As you did with '']'') please remember to add a draft tag to the article <code><nowiki>{{subst:AFC submission/draft new}}</nowiki></code> and to comment out the categories <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code> → <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code> thankyou. ] ] 12:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Well, he/she did calm down about, but he still insists that it was disruptive editing to make the changes to the 96th Academy Awards thinking that it started with the red links. I'm trying to prepare the list for FLC like I have always done so for the past 11 years. I was going by the consensus of how featured content is presented based on past feedback I have gotten via the nominations. Otherwise, wouldn't the other featured lists just be written without any some sort of standards or oversight? I believe in quality over quantity. And yes, I'm trying to not engaging in an edit war, hence the talk page discussion. ]] 18:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


== Oscar ceremony pages: A list or an article? ==
==Thanks==
I have a feeling I hit the "Thanks" button a lot for your edits. But after the rumor-mongering at ], I want to thank you more personally for your efforts there.


Hi there,
One thing I love about seeing your name and those of a few other equally exceptional colleagues is that it saves me time ... I see an article on my watchlist and think, "Oh, good. Whatever it was, he or she's taken care of it!" --] (]) 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
:Happy to help, Tenebrae. ] (] / ]) 20:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


User talk:46.44.158.42 asked why the Oscar ceremony pages on Misplaced Pages are considered lists and not articles on ]. I'm not very sure how to answer that questions aside from the fact that's how the folks at Misplaced Pages deem it. Though from how I view it, even though particularly the featured list ones have details of the ceremony, the majority of the "article" is mostly presented in a list format such as the winners and nominees, winners/nominees tally, presenters and performers, and In Memoriam honorees. They still dwarf the prose section of the page.
== Peer Review for Bharat Ratna ==


If you had time, could you respond to his question on the talk page.
Hi. I have listed ] for peer review. Its currently a GA and I would like to take it FAC in the near future. I would really appreciate if you could find some time and provide your comments ]. Thanks in advance. - ] <small style="font-size:85%;">(])</small>{{#if:(])||]}} 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
:I'm going to decline for now, but wish you luck in advance at FAC. ] (] / ]) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC) :--]] 18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
::No problem. Thanks for the reply. - ] <small style="font-size:85%;">(])</small>{{#if:(])||]}} 08:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


::To be honest, I have no clue why they're counted as lists when there's lots of non-listy prose outside of the lead (e.g. ratings and reviews). ] (] / ]) 19:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
==Happy First Edit Day!==
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
{{ombox
| name = First Edit Day
| image = ]
| imageright = ]
| style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(to left, Gold, #FFF600);
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
| plainlinks = yes
| text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi SNUGGUMS! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! ] (]) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
}}


:Many thanks, {{u|The Herald}}, and it's hard to believe 11 years have now passed! ] (] / ]) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey SNUGGUMS, how are you? Haven't spoken with you in a while! Actually I was busy working and travelling whole my summer in the US, so that's why I became inactive on Misplaced Pages. So, during one of my travels I was in ], I can't explain how much I started loving that city just staying there for 5 days! Now, when I listen to "California Gurls" every moment I spent there flashes in my eyes when I hear the lyrics. I think I love the song even more :) lol. Anyways, I hope you are doing well and see ya around! xoxo — <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS;font-size: 10pt">]]</span> 09:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
:I'm quite well, thank you :). Sounds like you love the babies like you love LA as much as Snoop Dogg; they are known to be unforgettable and melt Popsicles :P. ] (] / ]) 12:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
::Haha whaaaaaaaaaaat?! You read my mind, that's my favorite lyric! Ahhh, good times, miss the LA sun so badly! Anyways, nice to hear you are doing well. I am so anxious about ''Anti'' right now, I just hope she drops it real ''soon'', not just forget about it and we get it in 2016. — <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS;font-size: 10pt">]]</span> 13:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
:::So do I. Rihanna's put it off long enough already. ] (] / ]) 13:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
::::IKR! We are not used to be waiting so long from her. Usually, we get the material right when she records it. I really think that with this one she prepares something special and that the wait is gonna be worth it in the end. — <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS;font-size: 10pt">]]</span> 13:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm sure it'll be worth waiting for and that she knows what she's doing. ] (] / ]) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


== ] ==
== GA Nom for Thomas Jefferson ==
Hi {{reply to|SNUGGUMS}} Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. Regards. ] (]) 02:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:This notice feels rather out-of-left-field, but sure I'll leave comments there. ] (] / ]) 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


== Madonna ==
I am about to complete a substantial edit of ] - on the same (greater, really) level as I recently did for John Adams. I will soon be putting it up for a GA Nom and since you were interested in reviewing Adams, I thought you might have the same enthusiasm for Jefferson. I wanted to make sure you were at least aware of my plan. Thanks again for the work on Adams. ] (]) 00:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
:Sounds like quite the goal! I might review Jefferson. ] (] / ]) 01:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi there SNUGGUMS, I hope you're doing well. Thank you for continuing to maintain high quality pop culture pages on this encyclopedia.
== Mops and buckets ==


I have free time now due to the summer and I'm very interested in taking the daunting task of finally bringing ] to FA. I am willing to spend however many hours it takes. Doing a quick read-through of the article, it seems that most of everything pre-2012 is high quality, but post MDNA can be improved / supplemented with more high quality sources.
Hey, you may recall ] that you asked me if I should become an admin, and as everyone knows that seems to have been successful (well, I haven't been desysopped yet, anyway). You may also recall ] that I suggested you might be suitable for the bit once we'd put some time between that silly edit warring block in March 2014. Well, it's about 18 months since then, so how do you feel about it now? ] ] ] 16:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
:I very much do remember that. As honored as I would feel to become an admin someday, I don't feel ready for it yet. Probably gonna run in 2017 or 2018. ] (] / ]) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
::Okay, good to know you might think about it at some point. I was looking through ] yesterday with huge backlog (about 30 A7s, if I recall correctly) thinking "where's everybody gone"? ] ] ] 16:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Since you have experience bringing three very important pop culture articles to FA, what would your advice be, given that Madonna has had such a long and very illustrious career? ] (]) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
== Metacritic ==


:Yes I am, {{u|PHShanghai}}, and the wishes are appreciated! Hopefully the same applies for you. Believe it or not, I've also been planning for a while to do this with Ms. Ciccone's bio, just never had enough time to get that done. Aside from touching up any issues with prose (especially spelling and grammar), my first recommendation is to ensure it uses the best possible sources for claims AND that they actually back up the text attributed to them. You might be surprised how often people overlook how text doesn't always align with what given citations say regardless of article classification. Once that's resolved, we should ensure it covers all the major facts without excessive detail. Have a look at ] for more. I haven't yet had the chance to assess the article for any glaring issues, but will ping {{u|Bluesatellite}} for input on what needs to be improved when that user has done lots of work on it and other Madonna-related pages. Someday perhaps the three of us could nominate it together once everything is up to par. ] (] / ]) 20:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, please stop removing metacritic scores from albums. Metacritic is perfectly stable, and if the score changes, I will adjust it accordingly. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Thank you! {{-)}} Would love to do so, and I have a lot of free time on my hands so I'm very excited to put a lot into this project.
:Not stable at all during the first couple of weeks following album release. Also, I didn't remove the scores; I hid them using a text code that makes things only visible while editing the article. ] (] / ]) 19:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
::My primary concern right now is that a lot of the things that are cited in her article are from biography books from the late 90s and the early 2000s; while I do not have an issue with citing books, many digital copies of these are behind paywalls and usually the references do not have any quotes, just a page number. At the very least I feel like adding proper quotes would help the poor sourcing a lot.
::I also feel that the word count of the article can be lowered down a little, especially in the latter half of her career. I will look more into FAC to see how it can be improved. I don't think there are any glaring issues (besides the whole biography books thing) but instead more of a general need to update the quality of the text. ] (]) 12:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Going through all those books would take some digging, that's for certain. Not sure how much would be appropriate to include as quotes for such in-text citations. ] (] / ]) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


== Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates discussion ==
Why exactly am I being reported? Did you read what I wrote about why I put the meteoritic scores back? You said that 8 reviews is not enough, but Stories by Avicii only has 4. So how can 4 be enough, but 8 can't? Do you not see how you're wrong about this? Also, I am very much willing to talk outside of edit summaries. If you wanted to talk, you could've messaged me. I'm actually the one who started this conversation outside of the edit summaries, so I think it's you who doesn't appear to be willing to talk outside of edit summaries. ] (]) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Hello, ]! Since you are listed as an ], would you mind leaving a comment at a ] about a series of templates that I created for the presidencies of ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]? Another editor and myself disagree about whether there should be a separate navigation template for each Presidency apart from the biographical navigation template. Thanks! -- ] (]) 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:You were reported for edit warring because you crossed the 3RR limit by making 7 reverts to an article within 24 hours. They would only be exempt if reverting things like obvious vandalism, copyright violations, or spam. See ] for more. What counts as "enough" reviews varies from album to album. Some might get hardly any reviews while others get tons of reviews. ] (] / ]) 20:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
:Just left a comment on the thread. ] (] / ]) 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


== ''Barbie'' (film) ==
Can I just say, I just joined Misplaced Pages about two weeks ago, and I can't stand how people act here. I've seen countless times that people will put metacritic scores on a page, and if it changes, then they adjust it. But you can't just let it go. Just like a lot of people on here. I have tried my best to add useful information here, and almost every time I've done that, I've gotten attacked by someone. I joined because I wanted to make Misplaced Pages better, but honestly, a lot of people on here are just annoying. Tons of people have opinions, and if someone else's opinion doesn't go with theirs, they find some reason to argue that their opinion is "invalid." People just can't accept the fact that sometimes listening to others is ok. I honestly don't care if I get banned, because I can't stand the reactions I get from people here. People take things so seriously. You all just need to calm down and let some things happen that, God forbid, you might not agree with. ] (]) 20:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Hey. . As you can see at the bottom there's info related to the Themes section that you removed. ] 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:I never doubted your intentions and you definitely have made good edits, such as adding reviews to articles. The problem is reverting so much within a day, which is what edit warring consists of. ] (] / ]) 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
:There already were "Philosophy", "Feminism", and "Masculinity" sections discussing themes, {{u|Nyxaros}}, so it's not like I removed much on the matter that wasn't previously alluded to. ] (] / ]) 23:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::The issue here is not whether you removed much on the matter or not. Their content is different from the removed text and your edit summary only mentions the other text. Better to be more careful. ] 23:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


== FAC ==
But don't you understand that I wouldn't have had to revert so many times if you could've just accepted the fact that maybe keeping it there would be ok. I could've just updated the score if it ever changed. ] (]) 20:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi! If you have time, I was wondering if you are able to take a look at ] for ]. Your comments are always appreciated. Thanks, ] (]) 16:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:It isn't just '''my''' opinion. For example, when Madonna's ''Rebel Heart'' first came out, multiple editors agreed not to show MetaCritic score so early after its release since scores often go through substantial changes right after release with more and more reviews coming out. ] (] / ]) 20:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
:Not able to do so right away, {{u|Heartfox}}, but I should have something up within the next 24 hours. ] (] / ]) 17:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::'''UPDATE''': I just left some comments there. ] (] / ]) 04:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)


==] scheduled for TFA==
== ] ==
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as ] for 26 October 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at ], or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at ]. I suggest that you watchlist ] from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. – ] (]) 14:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:I could've sworn this would be for the 25th instead of 26th, {{u|SchroCat}}, but regardless appreciate the notice. ] (] / ]) 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::Hi Snuggums, ordinarily it would be, but there’s already an article with a good claim on the 25th. As that one hasn’t been on the main page before, and as KP has, I bumped her over a day. Not ideal, but not everything can fit onto the exact days sometimes. Cheers - ] (]) 18:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. ] (] / ]) 21:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox
| image = Dahlias, Elisengarten, Aachen.jpg
| image_upright = 1.2
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
:::: Thank you today for the 2014 article, introduced simply: "Here is Katheryn Elizabeth "Katy" Hudson aka Katy Perry. She's the California Gurl who kissed another girl and very much liked it." - I hope you enjoyed that she also appeared on the Main page on her birthday, in the OTD section. --] (]) 07:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::: You're quite welcome, {{u|Gerda Arendt}}, and yes I appreciated that inclusion upon noticing it. :) ] (] / ]) 14:58, 26 October 2024 (
:::*Many congrats on the appearance! She's a mother.--'']]'' 15:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Grateful for the wishes, MaranoFan. ] (] / ]) 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
UTC)
:::::: Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world ]. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted ] in 2016. --] (]) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::: Same wishes, and that would be Halloween for me. ] (] / ]) 21:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)


=== Always precious ===
Hi {{U|SNUGGUMS}}, I tried to remove the '''Cite error: Invalid <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag; name "Morris" defined multiple times with different content''' message. I'd love to find out what went wrong. Thank you for your time. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
]
*I fixed it ] (] / ]) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Ten years ago, ] were found precious. That's what you are, always. - Nicely matched timing ;) --] (]) 08:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:Much appreciated for sure! ] (] / ]) 11:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)


== Good Bye == == Thanks! ==


You cleaned up a couple of my edits in the past few weeks - thanks. ] (]) 17:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Im retiring tonight. Good bye. ] (]) 01:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Not a problem :) ] (] / ]) 21:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)


== Marilyn Monroe == == David A. Kennedy ==
Hi, any chance you could give this a review at ]? A core article if ever there was one which really needs a good review.♦ ] 11:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
:Sure thing. Definitely going to be an interesting read. ] (] / ]) 13:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi ]. I respect your knowledge of, and contributions to, various Kennedy-related topics. Re ] and the linking on the RFK Jr. page, I would note that fairly extensive pages for David exist in 7 other languages, which I believe warrants an English-language page. He is also the only member of RFK's children not to have a page, despite significant well-sourced biographical info on him out there. So, I reverted your deletion of the link I included in my edit. Thank you for your edits. ] (]) 22:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
== Stone Cold ==
:For what it's worth, {{u|RyeCityRoller}}, other language wikis shouldn't have pages for him either when most or all coverage on the guy is based on family connections. Many of the pieces that mention him only do so in minor detail. If it was more focused on his own merits, then I'd say differently. Regardless, whether David's siblings have their own pages is irrelevant to whether he warrants one. ] (] / ]) 22:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
::I don't believe the merits or origins of an individual's notoriety factor into BLP considerations, merely that they meet the basic criteria. And, if nothing else, David Kennedy seems to meet them based on the abundance of well-sourced material about him in print and online, even if often in articles about his family members. By your logic, wouldn't the wiki page for ] also merit deletion? I'm open to further dialogue with you and/or take this to the appropriate forum for weigh-in by other editors. But, IMHO, the deletion on the grounds of failing BLP metrics seems excessive.
::Again, thank you for your input and prompt response ] (]) 22:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Having famous relatives doesn't in itself entitle David to a page per WP:NOTINHERITED. Another thing to keep in mind is WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which says "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Outside of his fatal drug overdose, how many things have this guy a primary focus or even go beyond a cumulative paragraph? I'm not sure much else exists that centers on him as an individual without going to family quotes (which are not considered independent of the subject). As for Tad, I'm not convinced he warrants a page either, but that's a separate discussion per WP:WAX. ] (] / ]) 23:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)


== 96th Academy Awards FLC ==
Hi, please stop taking out Stone Cold as a promotional single. It was released a week before Confident was released, but it's not the 3rd single, so what would YOU call it? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:As far as I can tell, {{u|Smoore95GAGA}}, it is neither a single nor promotional single yet. Posting a video of oneself singing a live rendition does not in itself make something a single/promotional single, and to reinsert a Google Play reference to claim a release when the ref doesn't call it a single/promotional single is a violation of ]. I'm also not sure Google Play in general is a good reference to use for such claims to begin with. Either way, I should note that putting something up for digital download is only a single release/promotional single release if Demi herself and/or other reliable sources call it such. See ] for a sense of what is reliable for music articles and what is not. ] (] / ]) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

== Note ==

If you don't fix the unclosed ref tag , any subsequent post to your talk page will have issues. As it is, all the <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> will change to your signature when you fix it. (NeilN) --

Thanks for the notice, {{u|NeilN}}. I was wondering why things were displaying oddly. Should be good now. ] (] / ]) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

== recent series of your archiving edits to ] ==

Do you know if the archiving bot is broken-down completely? ] (]) 02:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
:Not sure, but I sometimes just use OneClickArchiver anyway on inactive threads. ] (] / ]) 04:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

== Genre question ==

How would you define the genre used to describe the title track in , do you think I can use either as a genre for the song?

"Her raw soul is at its most commanding on the dance-friendly title track, where she announces, “I am breathing without you/I am somebody without you.” &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 14:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:"Dance-friendly" sounds like more of an influence than a genre, and I'm not sure "soul" is referring to the genre in this case. Best to use a different link for the song's genre(s). ] (] / ]) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Thanks. I'll incorporate it into the composition section but leave the Genre parameter blank with a notice in it. Unfortunately, the album got very sparse reviews and no one gave it a genre. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 15:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
::: Sounds good. ] (] / ]) 15:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

== A cup of tea for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! {{smiley}}<small>This e-tea's remains have been e-]</small> ] ] 05:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
|}
Much appreciated! ] (] / ]) 05:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

== Tara Strong's article ==

I noticed you dropped the article to Start. Any reasons? ] (] • ]) 21:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
:It honestly seems too short for a C-class. Having quotes from Strong on her works and/or critical reviews of her roles would be helpful. ] (] / ]) 21:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Well, it's further along than Start articles. C-class ones typically still have a bunch of flaws. Her bio section could use some more detail on major works after she moved to the US. I think the early life section was fine. ] (] • ]) 22:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
::: Yes it definitely could. ] (] / ]) 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

== Gaga songs FLC ==

What do we do when we resolve all comments, but the reviewer doesn't say if he/she support or not. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:You can't really do much other than say you've addressed the points and notify the reviewer. Thankfully, we've already got three supports, which is the minimal requirement for being promoted to FL. Any additional supports of course are quite welcome. ] (] / ]) 15:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
::I see. I might notify them asap. Thank you!!! ]<sup>]</sup> 16:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Finally we're done. All reviewers have supported our FLC. Next step is her awards, which I think is ready or at least almost ready. Thoughts? ]<sup>]</sup> 13:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Seems pretty well-referenced from a glance. I'll take a closer look for prose quality later on before it goes to FLC. ] (] / ]) 13:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Yes, then tell me what you've noticed so we can improve it and nominate. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

== Your close of ] AFD ==

While I agree with the outcome, your close was inappropriate. Per ], nonadmins may close discussions as speedy keep if appropriate, but may not close discussions as SNOW keeps. Please revert your SNOW keep close. ] (]) 16:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:{{TPS}} - If you agree with the outcome then what's the problem ? ..... I've closed a few as such for the past year or 2 & no one's ever cared and that's because there's more important things to worry about than a SNOW Keep close!, COMMONSENSE should override BADNAC!. (Sorry Snuggums hope you don't mind me commenting,) –]<sup>]</sup> 17:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
::My reason for closing as snow was because it got a really large number of reasonable "keep" votes within a short time, though I probably wouldn't have closed it so soon if there were any non-"keep" votes. I also don't see anything in WP:NAC discouraging snow keeps. ] (] / ]) 18:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:::"After an AfD discussion has run for ''at least seven days'' it is moved to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old, and experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. However, ''a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep or Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion applies''". ] (]) 19:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

== PR request ==

Hi SNUGGUMS, any chance you could review ]? It's been sitting in the queue without attracting any reviews for quite sometime. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;] <sub> ] </sub></span> 18:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
:I'll look at it within a few hours. ] (] / ]) 20:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

== 1993 Oscars ==

Hello again,

Could you look over ] for ]? I understand you are busy, but I would appreciate the help. Thanks.
:--] (]) 02:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

:I'll do so within a few days. ] (] / ]) 02:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

::Actually, was able to do so quicker than I originally thought. ] (] / ]) 03:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

==Merger discussion for ] ==
] An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;] &mdash;has been '''proposed for ]''' with another article. If you are interested, please participate in ]. Thank you. ] (]) 18:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
:I'm going to decline, but hope the discussion doesn't get too heated. ] (] / ]) 18:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

== Amazon.com as a reliable source for filmography? ==


Hi there, Hi there,


I was wondering if you could give feedback regarding ] regarding its ]. I would appreciate the feedback.
i was reviewing ] for ] and noticed that one of its citations is for ]. I am very weary of considering it as a reliable due to very little fact check and accuracy. If this was ], that would be no problem with me since they report box office figures and budgets according to ], but Amazon in itself is more of a store.
:--] (]) 06:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC) :--]] 09:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:I might be able to later, {{u|Birdienest81}}, but not right away. ] (] / ]) 13:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)


== Join discussion? ==
:I would not recommend using it for anything other than release dates, and it seems to be used for more than just that in this case. Definitely needs a replacement. ] (] / ]) 07:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I was hoping you could join or respond to the discussion I started at ] discussing the single status of Sabrina Carpenter's "Because I Liked a Boy". Thank You. ] (]) 02:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
==Hey Snuggy==
:Just left some comments there, {{u|Leafs33}}, and it seemed pretty straightforward to me. ] (] / ]) 03:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
How are you? Sorry haven't been much around lately. I have got a new job and it has taken complete my time. Sorry again for not able to look into the Lady Gaga FLC. Have you noticed that so many articles have a broken ref tags? I could not find from where it is coming. —] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
:Hello! I've been pretty well and have been doing some maintenance to various articles in addition to Gaga's songs FLC. There has to be a really large number of articles with referencing errors, though I haven't come across very many of them lately. ] (] / ]) 13:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


== Lead section ==
== ] ==


Hello! With regard to ], please mind <s>] and</s> ] when editing lead sections of biographical articles, as well as minor formatting issues such as text size and punctuation. See {{diff||1245362991|1245344095|my edits}} on this specific case. Regards :) ~ ] (]) 16:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Would you mind leaving some comments? It'd be much appreciated, thanks. ] ] 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


*Not a problem. ] (] / ]) 03:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Nevermind about MOS:NICK, just noticed this was removed later by someone else. Check ] though. ~ ] (]) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)


:I already knew that straight quotation marks are preferred to curly ones when more consistent with coding Misplaced Pages uses for typing out text, but am not sure what benefit there is of giving a separate bold set to anything contained within a quote. ] (] / ]) 19:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
== GoldDerby (Just some conformation as a reliable source) ==
::I probably should have linked to the more specific ] subsection. Quotation marks go in bold only if they are part of the title/name. ~ ] (]) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It would've been more consistent to allow boldface for both cases or even deny for both. Beats me how anybody came up with specific scenarios like that or what the rationale was (shrugs shoulders). ] (] / ]) 21:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)


== man y0u stole away my talk on the john f Kennedy talk page ==
Hi there,


all I wanna say is never do that again because its very mean and not cool I did really see bro get 200 pumped and I would prefer if you didn't delete true facts like a weirdo ] (]) 18:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you heads up that the website is indeed a reliable source. The website was temporarily licensed by ] between 2005 and 2010. Here is conformation on this bio by its author Tom O'Neil on his LA Times > it was also periodically featured in "The Envelope" a special section in the daily newspaper edition of the LA Times devoted specifically to showbiz awards. Here is his farewell letter from . Just wanted to let you.
:--] (]) 08:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


:Actually I never "stole away" anything, IP; your post got deleted because it was at best a trivial detail and Misplaced Pages talk pages aren't supposed to be forums for general chatting. See ] for more. Calling me "a weirdo" is not appropriate either per ]. ] (] / ]) 19:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
== Precious again ==


== Requesting input ==
{{User precious anniversary|number=1016}}
--] (]) 23:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


see ] ] (]) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
== Kennedy family edit ==
:Your comments on that were very transparently trying to elicit a "delete" vote from me, which is inappropriate per WP:CANVASS and I'm not giving you the satisfaction of even participating in the thread. Stop trying to make WP:WAX arguments as those aren't helping your case (as someone else already pointed out). ] (] / ]) 04:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


== Protection ==
I did these changes in Kennedy family because I know all things that I put, and I have sources about them, the next time instead of revert all my work of hours you should check that I'm wrong. Take my sources: https://www.facebook.com/Kennedy-Family-Tree-212705475439711/ <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Facebook pages like that are full of ]. ] (] / ]) 19:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


I saw {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection#John F. Kennedy}} and wanted to let you know that there is no such thing as {{tq|Something higher than Extended confirmed protection but not full protection}}. The ] technically has ] between ] and ], but it's reserved for highly-transcluded templates and modules. {{tq|Vandalism from extended-confirmed user}}s is dealt with by blocking those users, as {{noping|Hellocat99}} just was. ] (]) 17:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
That page is carry for just one user that have more sources <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It would help if they provided links for reports, since such links to original reports might be viable, but Facebook itself is discouraged as a reference. Sorry. See ] for more. ] (] / ]) 19:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC) :In that case, {{u|Jlwoodwa}}, I would say a level between ECP and full should be created. The former was created after it became clear that sometimes semi-protection isn't enough when auto-confirmed users end up disrupting pages (including instances where socks of blocked users figured out how to bypass it altogether). ] (] / ]) 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::Would this be a ] unlike the automatically-granted ] and ] groups? I don't think that's been proposed before; you could post it at ] if you want more people to see/discuss the idea. ] (]) 21:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== Cite tweet ==
Another source: http://www.kennedy-web.com/tree.htm


Hello, could you please explain more about the requirement to quote an entire tweet? The ], under title, seem to suggest that the "Partial or entire content of the tweet" are acceptable in the Title parameter.--] (]) 02:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
and anothers:
:I admittedly had overlooked that part when examining the sample tweets listed, {{u|Sunshineisles2}}, but regardless quoting only a portion gives an incomplete idea of what somebody was tweeting. ] (] / ]) 04:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Joseph-Patrick-Kennedy-Sr/f236804


Hello,
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/President-John-Jack-Fitzgerald-Kennedy/p341851


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Caroline-Bouvier-Kennedy/p341855


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/John-Fitzgerald-Kennedy-Jr/p341853


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Eunice-Mary-Kennedy/p341870


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Robert-Sargent-Bobby-Shriver-III/p341872


Kind Regards,
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Maria-Owings-Shriver/p341875


]
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Timothy-Perry-Shriver/p341881


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Mark-Kennedy-Shriver/p341893
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->


== Lady Gaga ==
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Anthony-Paul-Kennedy-Shriver/p341898


You literally making 2 mistakes! First of all, Love for Sale is not studio album, it's a collaboration album. Second, did you even read the news??? They are literally saying "LG7" means all the studio albums plus The Fame Monster. No news media saying eighth! If Love for Sale is included, then it's ninth, including Cheek to Cheek. Educate yourself. -] (]) 03:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Patricia-Helen-Kennedy/p341902
:By no means are "studio album" and "collaboration album" mutually exclusive, {{u|GogoLion}}, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. ''The Fame Monster'' actually is a reissue of ''The Fame'' that contains all of the lattermost's tracks along with newer songs. Regarding the informal "LG7" label, that's not a firm indicator of album count nor should it be treated as such. It's also not exactly the best substitute term for an upcoming album whose real name hasn't yet been announced. ] (] / ]) 03:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


== Alright ==
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Christopher-Kennedy-Lawford/p413786


]
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Sydney-Maleia-Kennedy-Lawford/p413787
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 04:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


≤== October 2024 ==
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Victoria-Francis-Lawford/p413788


Hello. Regarding , doesn't ] state that the template "{{Green|provides a brief summary and overview of the critical consensus of song and album reviews}}"? Since the song has four reviews with ratings, why wouldn't we include the template? Just wondering if I am missing something, please let me know. Regards. ] (]) 22:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Robert-Francis-Kennedy-Sr/p341926
:Not sure when that change to the template was added, {{u|Medxvo}}, but I removed because I very rarely have seen it used within song pages and that didn't seem like an established practice. They're far more common for album articles either way. One could argue the prose of the reviews section already discusses ratings sufficiently. ] (] / ]) 01:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::The template has the same sentence since . There used to be three templates, ], ], and ], but in November 2022 there was ] the song and single templates to the album template and rename to "music ratings". I know using the template for songs is very rare (and that's what was discussed at the TFD two years ago), but it is not particularly wrong. Since there are four ratings, which I think is a sufficient amount, can't we include the template? My main issue with including the ratings in prose along with each review is that they would seem redundant, due to repeating it four times. Let me know what you think. ] (]) 06:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Update–I tried to include the ratings in prose and changed a few things, this is how it would be;
:::"Disease" received positive reviews from music critics, who considered it a return to Gaga's pop roots. Journalists from Consequence named it the "Song of the Week" upon its release, describing it as "a four minute reminder that pop music is where so many elements of performance have the opportunity to coalesce". {{green|In a five-star review}}, Evening Standard's India Block called "Disease" a "high gothic blast that's perfect for spooky season" and praised Gaga's vocals, the production, and the religious themes. Murray {{green|gave the song a nine out of ten rating}}, dubbing it a "wild blast of outsider pop music". He described it as "lustful" and "salacious" and compared its "heavy-duty electronics" to works by American band Nine Inch Nails.
:::Alexa Camp from Slant Magazine and O'Connor described the lyrics as "cliché" but praised the production, with O'Connor stating that "Disease" is Gaga's "best in a long while" {{green|in her four-star review}}. Petridis {{green|gave the song four stars out of five}} and praised the song's production and ability to "evoke memories of late 00s Gaga and still fit with the messy, post-Brat pop climate" through its excessive mood and sound. Petridis felt "Disease" is stylistically reminiscent of the music in Gaga's debut studio album The Fame (2008), while Camp felt it is more reminiscent of Gaga's subsequent releases The Fame Monster (2009) and Born This Way (2011). In a positive review, Bianca Betancourt from Harper's Bazaar described "Disease" as "classic Gaga in the best way possible" and considered it as an "edgier" and "more mature" version of "Bad Romance". In a ranking of Gaga's entire catalog, Vulture's Kristen Hé placed "Disease" at number 15, stating that Gaga is "no longer consumed by darkness but in control of it".
:::I think it looks good now, I would like to know your thoughts. ] (]) 06:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah this works, and based on your linked diff, it looks like I was thinking of the albums rating template that for years had been implemented much more frequently than the one for songs prior to the merge discussion. ] (] / ]) 12:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)


== FAC review ==
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Kathleen-Hartington-Kennedy/p341928


Hi SNUGGUMS, I currently have ] for Mariah Carey's "]". I would appreciate your perspective if you are interested. Thanks, ] (]) 04:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Maeve-Fahey-Kennedy-Townsend/p341931
:I will have to decline this one when other things are going on in my life, {{u|Heartfox}}, but will wish you luck with the nomination. ] (] / ]) 05:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


== Margot Robbie ==
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Joseph-Patrick-Kennedy-II/p341934


Greetings! Is Margot Robbie's baby birth source reliable? Can you check it out? ] (]) 12:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Matthew-Rauch-Kennedy/p457446
:If you mean , {{u|M.lebedev}}, then it's definitely an improvement over what was used before. However, that just makes assumptions on what happened instead of getting confirmation on a birth. ] (] / ]) 12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:: It's just necessary to get information from the relatives of the actress or a representative. For example, . It's obvious, {{u|SNUGGUMS}}? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
::: That would be ideal for birth details when you can't get parental verification. Another choice when none of these are available would be friends, but that's probably a last resort. ] (] / ]) 12:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::: What is the verdict? Does the source remain in the article or are we waiting for the most reliable one again? ] (]) 13:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::: At least for now, wait for something better that isn't just speculating on the couple and their choices made. ] (] / ]) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Is there a way to interfere with the ? Otherwise, I cancel the edit a hundred times and I don't want to get punished for ]. Or should we leave it as it is? ] (]) 09:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent}} I wouldn't say "interfere" is the right word here, but reverting BLP violations (which we both did) won't count as edit warring issues per WP:3RRNO. ] (] / ]) 14:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
: Just noting here Snuggums that the editor you are responding to appearst to have a very poor understanding of vandalism as that is what they have accused me of , and also to ask if you would agree that there is no requirement as they have stated that it is {{tq|necessary to get information from the relatives of the actress or a representative}}. Personally, I'm not sure why the Sydney Morning Herald is not considered a ] for something that seems relatively uncontroversial, but I'm not going to edit war about it. ] (]) 11:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::By no means is your edit a case of vandalism, {{u|Melcous}}, since you clearly didn't have malicious intentions. As for ''The Sydney Morning Herald'', while that normally is a trustworthy source on its own, the biggest problem with used from there is this is basing a claim off something from ''Mail on Sunday''. The latter is not nearly as strong and unfortunately is an affiliate with the unreliable ''Daily Mail'' (which has been repeatedly removed from other articles as a result). There appears to be little to no difference of overall quality between those sister papers. If ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' didn't go off what either of them said, then the used article would have more credibility. Another thing that makes me hesitant is "Robbie's representatives did not respond when contacted by this masthead" bit (VERY important when there was no sign of parental confirmation), and same with a flimsy attribution of mentioning how ''People'' "reported a source has confirmed the birth" without any indication of who that "source" was. The lack of transparency there is suspicious and never a good sign (I sometimes see people use vague mentions of unspecified "sources" as a cover up for pulling claims out of nowhere), so it's best to take things with a grain of salt unless parents, reps, family, friends, or any combination of these affirm the matter.
::: I guess my read of ] is that if a secondary source is considered reliable we can use it here, and it is not our role to judge the primary sources on which that reporting is based - otherwise we would find ourselves in all kinds of untenable situations and arguments based on editors' opinions about journalistic standards rather than holding to our role as a tertiary source that is based on what secondary sources have said. Thanks ] (]) 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::: It definitely would be an oversimplification to say that any generally good secondary source can be used no matter what, which is why we have the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS section on that page. Personal claims that involve living people are things we have to be especially cautious with per the WP:BLP policy. I wouldn't be as worried with matters on how many kids a long dead person had. ] (] / ]) 13:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Joseph-Patrick-Kennedy-III/p457444


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Robert-Francis-Kennedy-Jr/p457434
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Mary-Courtney-Kennedy/p341949


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Michael-Lemoyne-Kennedy-Sr/p341953

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Mary-Kerry-Kennedy/p341958

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Christopher-George-Kennedy-Sr/p341963

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Matthew-Maxwell-Taylor-Kennedy-Sr/p341969

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Douglas-Harriman-Kennedy/p341980

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Rory-Elizabeth-Katherine-Kennedy/p341985

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Jean-Ann-Kennedy/p342001

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/William-Kennedy-Smith/p342004

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Edward-Moore-Kennedy/p342011

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Kara-Anne-Kennedy/p342013

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Edward-Moore-Kennedy-Jr/p342017

http://www.ourfamtree.org/browse.php/Patrick-Joseph-Kennedy-II/p342021 <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Definitely better than Facebook. However, even with references, I'm not convinced the article even needs to go into really intricate details (i.e. exact dates of birth and death). ] (] / ]) 20:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


In this way the article be more complete. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:There is already ] included within the family article that gives cleaner listings with all of those names and their birth/death years, so the long list you've inserted is redundant. It has also been repeatedly removed due to large amounts of unsourced/poorly sourced details. ] (] / ]) 05:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


You insist in that I have to put sources when in your version appear it <<This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations.>> very coherent ...... <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::That tag means it needs more in-text citations (to reliable sources) than it currently has, and was already there before you edited. It's actually been an issue for quite a while. Adding more content that is unsourced/poorly sourced only makes things worse. I'm not the only one who has reverted massive additions, though, just saying. ] (] / ]) 17:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)



I think that it could be a good source for kennedy family tree, look it:

https://progenygenealogy.com/Portals/0/images/charts/Kennedy.html <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Episodes ==

What do you think if me and you start writing the episode's plot? I mean, since the very beginning. I really hated that Wikia sh*** talk. I can write and you improve, as long as your English is much better than mine. Here in Brazil it airs every Thursday, then I'm able to write. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
:Sounds good. Kudos for also reworking the plot to "Devil's Night". ] (] / ]) 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

== 2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #58FA58; {{border-radius}} {{box-shadow|8px|8px|12px|rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 )}}"

| <span style="font-size: 110%;"><center>'''] ] - Finals/Wrap-Up'''</center></span>

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">
]


</div> </div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1258243549 -->


== Happy Birthday! ==


<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
{{ombox
The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.
| name = Happy Birthday

| image = ]
The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is {{U|Zwerg Nase}}! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, {{U|Sturmvogel 66}} with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents!
| imageright = ]

| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(300deg, AliceBlue, LavenderBlush 30%, LavenderBlush 70%, AliceBlue);
Our third and fourth place winners, {{U|Johanna}} and {{U|Tomandjerry211}}, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, ] stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best.
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;

| text = <big>'''Happy birthday!'''</big><br />Hi SNUGGUMS! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! <span style="font family:Lobster;text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink">] ]</span> 02:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a ] for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input.
}} <span style="font family:Lobster;text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink">] ]</span> 02:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:Many thanks for the wishes, {{u|HemlockVR}}! ] (] / ]) 05:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3.

Cheers from {{noping|3family6}}, {{noping|Figureskatingfan}}, {{noping|Jaguar}} and {{noping|MrWooHoo}}.
|}
<!-- Message sent by User:Jaguar@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Good_articles/GA_Cup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=686136818 -->

== "Feud" sections in articles ==

Hello, I've noticed that you review "Good" articles, have an emphasis on articles for musicians, and saw that you cleaned up some of the Talk page on the ] article. Not sure if you have an opinion/input on this, but the Drake article has a "Feuds" section which was suggested to be removed in July but has no foreseeable consensus regarding it. It's also the subject of disruptive editing/edit warring that's completely derailing any chances of improving the section/article in general.

I took a look at the ] article for comparison (which is a "Good" article) and saw that the only feuds mentioned were two famous and notorious cases, and that these mentions were ''integrated'' into the rest of the article. Is that an ideal standard for other musician pages? The reason I ask is because there's a big roadblock from the aforementioned issues, and the lack of consensus is being construed by other editors as an obligation to "leave the section alone until consensus is reached" (which doesn't appear to happen soon). So the article's really stagnating because of these disruptions. But if you think integration and truncation is more appropriate than an isolated and all-inclusive section, that would be a real boon. Do you have any thoughts about this? ] (]) 05:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

:GA (Good article) class not withstanding, I do feel it's better to integrate feuds into other parts of the article. It will likely become bloated if left as its own section. ] (] / ]) 14:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

== AN archiving ==

Please don't archive ongoing discussions -- the last comment was just posted about 17 hours prior to your archiving. <small>]</small> 12:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:My bad; I hadn't noticed the comments below what was within the "closed discussion" bit. ] (] / ]) 14:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

== Filmography sections ==

Hi Snuggums. I just wanted to raise this with you because I've found it a bit concerning. In the Monroe article and now the Liz Taylor one, you've removed "Filmography" from the contents and moved the link to either "See also" or hidden within the acting section. I believe you're doing this based on ] - I can't actually find the specific bit where it advises against this, but even if "empty sections" are discouraged then I'm sure it's mostly to avoid things like "History of Leeds" as a subsection which then contains only a link to ]. That obviously would look bad, but I really don't think it's the same with "Filmography", which always comes at the bottom of an article and everyone knows would only be a list anyway. And besides, ultimately the main concern should always be "what is best for readers", and it's obvious that having "Filmography" in the contents of an actor article is better than...not having it. I'd also argue that whether it says "See also" with a sole link or "Filmography" with a sole link, the appearance is ''exactly'' the same and I don't see how one can be okay but not the other...

You seem to review articles a lot - which is a noble thing to be doing, I don't want to sound ungrateful for that - but I'm worried by the idea of you spreading this to numerous actor articles and ultimately making things less simple for readers (all for the sake of following wikipedia's rules, which ] tells us to "use common sense" with and allow for exceptions anyway). If you ''really'' can't stand the idea of an empty filmography section, perhaps you could at least encourage writers to fill it out with some info, such as ] or ]? That would definitely be better than removing it entirely. I hope you see my point here and know that I just want ] to be as useful as possible. Let me know what you think, thanks! --'''] ]''' 13:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

:The specific part of WP:LAYOUT being applied is MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which states: '''Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points.''' With this in mind, having just a section consisting of <nowiki>{{main|_____}}</nowiki> would be ridiculously short and pretty much useless without any other content since it doesn't inform readers of anything meaningful. Furthermore, it's also not a good use of ]. "Common sense", while really an oxymoron since there's too much overall diversity of people's senses, would actually if anything discourage ridiculously short sections and really doesn't make things simpler for readers. As for using a "see also" section, WP:SEEALSO (which is also a part of WP:LAYOUT) states that such sections should be '''a bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Misplaced Pages articles''' when used. They're not exactly the same as other sections since it comes right before "references" and isn't part of the main article. I sometimes would opt to move into article body under an "acting career" or "film career" section for a prose form of summary style. It helps avoid cherry-picked listings of films. Better to have a list of all films than it is a section consisting solely of <nowiki>{{main|_______}}</nowiki>, which is completely uninformative by itself. ] (] / ]) 15:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

::I know it is uninformative when empty, and my personal preference is to have a bulleted list (full filmog if short, selected if long) or a paragraph of information, like the examples I linked to. But removing a "Filmography" section entirely should not be the answer. Even if it provides no information, we need to have it readily available via the contents. You never see a musician article without a "Discography" section, or an author without "Bibliography" (or similar). All such biographies need a section that links to their work - actors just end up being a bit more difficult because they can potentially have dozens and dozens of links. That's why the Filmography bit ''needs'' to be empty sometimes, unless more people are prepared to do the alternatives I suggested...But then you get people complaining about selected titles, which is a shame and unnecessary worry IMO but it does happen. As for, "and really doesn't make things simpler for readers" - I really can't see how this could be argued? "See also" sections don't come after references, they always come right before (ie, the same spot as Filmography/Discography/etc).
::You're not the only user I've seen doing this sort of things so please don't take it as an attack, it just happens that I've noticed it from you recently (and I've started to feel more strongly about it, as I care less and less about following WP rules that are clearly counter-productive!) I do feel that regular editors have a tendency to get too lost in Misplaced Pages world and forget what it's like to be a casual reader, who just wants to find the things they're after in an easy and accessible way...I was like that at one point as well, but after long breaks from editing I now remember how that feels and it's always my #1 thought when looking at an article. --'''] ]''' 18:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

:::The examples you listed are definitely better than having <nowiki>{{main|_____}}</nowiki>-only sections since they actually give informative content. I also never felt attacked by this, so no worries there. ] (] / ]) 18:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

::::Cool, well maybe in reviews you could link to them as examples? There's also e.g. ]. I'd also like to see more of that sort of thing (along with the Moore/PSH approach), it's definitely the best option. I'd be very happy to see it become the standard approach on actor articles. --'''] ]''' 18:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::I might link them in reviews. As for Bette Davis, though, I should say that "selected filmography" sections aren't really ideal since those are based on some unknown (and potentially biased) criteria. Cherry-picking like that is simply not neutral. Better to list all films (to avoid cherry-picking) or go with what Hoffman and Moore use (to establish criteria). ] (] / ]) 18:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::Whenever I've made selected filmographies (I made that Davis one, although my initial list was quite a bit shorter) I've gone with the ones that have the most votes on IMDb - I see this as a reasonable indicator of the individual's best known films. Or any that they had award nominations for, since that would indicate that it's an important role. Ultimately you just go with the ones that are, rightly or wrongly, most often seen/talked about. I wish it wasn't regarded as problematic; it's pretty harmless and doesn't need to be taken seriously. Anyway, whether or not you suggest examples I hope you won't simply remove/encourage removal of the sections completely - that's the main thing. If you're still not convinced we could ask for wider input at ], see what the general feeling is. --'''] ]''' 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

== Rio de Janeiro ==

Hi SNUGGUMS <br />Could you please explain what you meant with ? I can see no "hidden note" - so it must be very well hidden - and I cannot imagine any note that justifies the use of the incorrect ] rather than the correct ] - thanks - ] (]) 17:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:Sorry about that; I simply clicked the wrong button at first when trying to revert fan additions of fake tour dates as shown . Your edit was not what concerned me. ] (] / ]) 18:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::OK - No worries - we all make mistakes - ] (]) 18:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

== Box office ==

What are you going off to suddenly say film pages shouldn't have the grosses in the infobox until they're done in theaters? That's never been a thing... ] (]) 19:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)tropicAces ] (]) 19:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:First of all, it's not exactly "sudden" since I've previously removed grosses from articles before they were finalized. Secondly, the gross is not stable when in theaters, especially for just-released films since they change substantially upon release and don't settle until the film is out of theaters. Third, I'm not the only person who's done this before. It's better to simply list in article prose when still playing in theaters and saves people from having to make as many changes. ] (] / ]) 19:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==
Disappointed, and really don't give a damn, but this had to happen. —] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
==New DOB RfC==
If you wish, ]. —] (]) 23:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

I've nominated this article for FAC which also happens to be my first attempt. It is also the first Indian Telugu film article to be nominated for such status. If interested, please leave your comments ]. All constructive comments are welcomed. Yours sincerely, ] (]) 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:I might review later on. ] (] / ]) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::A gentle reminder! ] (]) 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

== '']'' FAC ==
] has nominated the article for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at its ]. {{smiley}} &nbsp;— ] ] 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:Not sure if I'll review, but wish the best of luck. ] (] / ]) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hey. Because Mariah has so often used samples in her songs, do you think I should have a Sample credits column? It would greatly reduce the length of some of the boxes where two songs attributing 5 or 6 more sample credits. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 15:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:I don't really know how that would look. Either way, one thing you could do to reduce length is merge the "lyric writers" and "music writers" into one "writers" column. ] (] / ]) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:: I don't really want to do that. It really blurs who wrote what, and that Mariah wrote pretty much all the lyrics herself from 1991-1997. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 19:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can you keep an eye the page? ] (]) 07:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
:Maybe. Is there a particular aspect you are worried about? ] (] / ]) 07:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

== hey ==

So trevor philips is not a cross-dresser he just wears a dress and walks around town and acts crazy just for the heck of it? ] ] 15:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
:Being a cross-desser is not a major aspect of his character and therefore is not something about him that needs to be categorized to begin with. He is insane and does tons of things others wouldn't do, though he isn't really noted for cross-dressing compared to things like his murders, rage, and general lack of remorse for actions. ] (] / ]) 20:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, understood sir ] ] 15:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi. Hope you're well. I have another actress filmography, up as a ]. If you've got some time, I'd appreciate the input on improving it. ] (]) 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:I should be able to within the next 24 hours ] (] / ]) 17:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== ANI ==

Hey Snuggums, my manual ANI archiving went haywire because I think you and I clashed, and because those pages slow my PC down to a crawl. Please feel free to archive everything I just closed--we gotta get this down to manageable size. Thanks! ] (]) 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:Done and done. That thread was quite lengthy, and the main page itself always seems to be monstrous in size! ] (] / ]) 23:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks. Yeah, the shorter the better. I need a new computer too, haha, and Chrome is, in the end, just as difficult as Firefox. ] (]) 00:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

== AN/I archiving ==

Hi. You archived a section from AN/I in which an block discussion was still open. The topic ban discussion at the top had been closed by Drmies, but the ban section at the bottom was still under active discussion. I have restored it. ] (]) 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
:Sorry about that; didn't notice the ongoing bit. ] (] / ]) 02:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

== A deletion discussion you may be interested in ==
An RfC you were recently involved in (]) is being discussed in a Templates for Deletion discussion (]). Please excuse this unsolicited contact, and avoiding ], all of those involved in the RfC discussion (for, against and comment) are being notified.

{{Div col|3}}
*] Closing editor
*] Proposing editor
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
{{Div col end}}

Again, I apologize for the intrusion -- seeking clarification. Cheers! -- ] -- ]<sup>]</sup> 08:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

==]==
Can I ask your opinion on the above linked AFD? —] <sup>] ]</sup> 15:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
:Not sure what to say, so declining to give input (at least for now). ] (] / ]) 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

== Restoring ==

Hi there, would you mind putting the filmography section on Ed Sheeran's page and everything in it, back on his page. If it's because it's not cited, I will cite them, just put it back, please. Thank you. ] (]) 07:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, it was because there were no citations supporting the listings. I not going to restore unreferenced material per ] and ]. ] (] / ]) 07:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi,<br>
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692261863 -->

==DYK nomination of Every Day Is a Holiday==
] Hello! Your submission of ] at the ] has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath ''']''' and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! <!--Template:DYKproblem--> ] (]) 01:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

==]==
Please see ] for the correct way to format the first line of a biographical article. It is laid out clearly there. You will note that the form in inverted commas within the name is not mandated in any way. There has already been discussion on this and it has been rejected. Thanks. -- ] (]) 10:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
:I actually don't see anything in MOS:BIO discouraging things like "John Jacob 'Jakie' Astor VII", which really is a more concise form than "John Jacob Astor VII, commonly known as Jakie Astor". ] (] / ]) 14:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
::Do you see that construction used anywhere in the MOS? No. Do you see the construction I used anywhere in the MOS? Yes. Why does it have to be more concise? This is an encyclopaedia, not a soundbite. -- ] (]) 14:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Using quotation marks for nicknames isn't exactly a "soundbite" and is perfectly fine for encyclopedias. It's unnecessarily long to use your form when he didn't go by a last name different than his legal one unlike people such as ] or ]. Concision is used when reasonable to keep things from being overly wordy. ] (] / ]) 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
::::You're skating around the fact that the MOS says how these names should be handled and that it's already been discussed fully on the MOS talkpage! Note that none of the examples use the quotation mark form, including Bill Clinton, who is commonly known by a contraction. I don't personally think it is overly wordy to write properly. If we needed to be that concise then Misplaced Pages would be written in text language! -- ] (]) 16:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::I wasn't going to the extent of text messages, which is why I said '''''when reasonable'''''. Also, "Bill" is a '''nickname''' for "William", not a "contraction". Many highly formal documents I've come across introduce a figure in the *first name, middle name(s), nickname in quotation marks, last name* format when first mentioning their names. MOS doesn't exactly prohibit it, and both forms are permitted. Just because it isn't listed in the samples doesn't mean it can't be used. However, using someone's last name twice in one sentence can be repetitive when introducing them. It really depends on the article. ] (] / ]) 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::Reading through talk page discussions, I don't exactly find a consensus to only use that longer form. Opinions, yes (including yours), but no official consensus. ] (] / ]) 22:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

== Lady Gaga awards ==

Hello there! If you are not a major contributor of the list, can you take a look at ]? It's been a while without comments. -- '''] <sub>]'''</sub> 19:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
:Sorry, I'm too involved to leave comments, but best of luck! ] (] / ]) 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi Snuggs, I was checking the above talk page where the Book report is generated. Many of Perry's articles require urgent cleanup. Was comparing to that of Madonna and Gaga, although they have more articles they have much lesser erroneous ones. Shall we target to clean them one by one? —] <sup>] ]</sup> 13:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
:Talk about an ambitious task! I'd be up for improving her articles, though it would take quite a while. I'd probably like to first see how much ] can be expanded. ] (] / ]) 14:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

== Difference between Singer-songwriter and Musician ==

A singer-songwriter is someone who writes songs and sings songs, their only instrument is their vocals. A musician, however, is someone who plays one or more instruments. For example, Sam Smith is only considered a singer-songwriter, because he writes and sings songs but doesn't play an instrument like Ariana Grande. But artists like Taylor Swift, John Mayer, Tori Kelly, Ed Sheeran, etc. are not only considered singer-songwriters, also musicians because they play musical instruments as well. ] (]) 19:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{tps}} Your definition looks more like ] coupled with personal opinion, {{U|Kalope}}. Well-known performers who are considered singer-songwriters in the traditional sense (Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, Hank Williams, Paul Simon, James Taylor, Carole King, Merle Haggard) and so on, all play instruments. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 20:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you {{u|Winkelvi}}. Genre not withstanding, it's repetitive to include "musician" with "singer" or "singer-songwriter" in a lead sentence since many artists play instruments in addition to singing their songs. ] (] / ]) 20:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

== Your appropriate edit summary ==

Regarding : I knew that the edit needed reverting, but how to explain it? Either "unsourced" or "not an improvement" would have been valid explanations, but not a satisfying solution to the puzzle underlying my objection. I confess, I decided to let another editor bear the burden, curious to see what rationale would be given. Well done. ] (]) 05:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

FWIW, another editor has reverted your redirect of the article, and I am in the process of undoing your removal of links. Please discuss your actions before removing any more links to her. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 13:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
:I have again closed the Martha Jefferson discussion. It has been dead for two days and the consensus is clear...everyone who participated in the discussion, except for you, wanted the article retained. If you disagree with this closure, you ''can'' take it somewhere else, but I think the better part of valor on your part would be to desist from the article entirely. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 23:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|Purplebackpack89}}, regardless of consensus (or lack thereof), it is inappropriate for involved users such as yourself to close discussions like that after all of your own input. That's an obvious conflict of interest. ] (] / ]) 23:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:::But, Snuggums, by the exact same logic, it's inappropriate for you to reopen it. And do you realistically think that there's a chance for the article to be merged? There are 5 retains and one merge (you), and nobody has voted in the last two days. Who says anybody else is going to vote in the next two days? Or two weeks? And if people do, are you going to get the 6-7-8 other people voting merge (and nobody else voting retain) that would be necessary to get the consensus for deletion? I doubt it. I still think that you're too vested in the merger of this article (particularly since you de-linked it from many other articles; that's going to be a huge mess for somebody to clean up), and that, unless you're going to repair all the links you removed, you should walk away from the subject entirely. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 23:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::::First of all, reverting an inappropriate closure is different from reopening based on disagreeing with closure result. This is because I wasn't contesting the rationale itself in doing so, only the fact that an involved user was declaring a "final result", so to speak (which goes against the premise of WP:INVOLVED). I wouldn't have closed the discussion myself whether consensus agreed or disagreed with my position. Secondly, ] is not ''solely'' determined by votes. It is theoretically possible for one strong rationale to outweigh multiple weaker rationales in discussions. Third, deletion is not the same as merging or redirecting. ] (] / ]) 23:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

== Thank you & asking for a favor ==


==Happy Birthday!==
Hi,
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
{{ombox
|type = notice
|image = ]
|style = background:Darkgreen;border: 1px solid #CC9999;
|text = <span style="font-family:Book Antiqua;color:#FFFF00;">Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the ].</span>--] (]) 03:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


:You have my gratitude, {{u|DaniloDaysOfOurLives}}! ] (] / ]) 05:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for your kind words on Monroe! I was wondering, if you have time, could you do an image review on ]? I've tried to make some improvements to it, but am a complete newbie when it comes to images and copyright issues. ] (]) 19:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
:No problem :). I'll have a look within the next few days. ] (] / ]) 22:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


== J. Law & Nicholas == == Christmas Tree Farm ==


Hello, SNUGGUMS. Regarding your latest edits at ], is there a consensus to consider ], ], and ] common terms that shouldn't be linked, or are you implying that from "{{green|Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked}}" at WP:OVERLINK? I think linking here would help the readers who wouldn't be familiar with the terms. And why is "catchy" fancruft when that's how music critics described it? .... Isn't it a good option to add the national US chart since it was released to radio there? I really appreciate your work and I would've really appreciated if these were discussed before removing as there is a peer review request open for the article. ] (]) 17:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You remember that discuss we had about Jennifer Lawrence's personal life in regards to her relationships? I am not even exactly sure we established consensus. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] ] 05:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yes I very much do. One thing I do remember either way is agreeing not to include the Chris Martin ordeal. I personally don't think her relationship with Hoult is really noteworthy. To my knowledge, it wasn't exactly a high-profile one. ] (] / ]) 05:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC) :They seem widely known enough to not need linking. The term "catchy" has a positive connotation, and the lead appeared to treat an opinion as a fact when describing the tune. I regardless didn't know about any peer review for the page, but as for charts, it felt like a rather abrupt jump to go from top 30 ranges to something below 50. Radio release is irrelevant here. ] (] / ]) 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for replying, I've reworded the catchy thing and restored the WP:OL terms because I personally think they're important here and also to avoid ] as advised at WP:OL. I'd like to note that I didn't mean to mention the peer review in an obnoxious way at all. What I meant was that we could've discussed there instead of me coming to your personal talk page but I understand that you didn't know about it. I'd always appreciate your comments anytime :) ] (]) 22:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::To my knowledge, she never, or little if ever, mentioned Nicholas at all and the opposite. I would call it speculation, but that's just me. Thanks for the help. I agree with your reasoning. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] ] 05:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Sure thing. ] (] / ]) 05:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC) :::I knew what you intended with peer review mention, so no worries there. On the other hand, among all demographics who can read the English language, I can't think of any that don't at least know what music videos are given their prevalence in society. ] (] / ]) 22:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree with that, but given that the article mentions and links lyric video, which may not be as common as music video, I thought it's best to link both for consistency and to avoid confusion. It would be cool if WP:WPMUSIC could reach consensus in the future on whether lead single, music video, certification, and other music-related terms should be linked or not. Anyways, I deeply appreciate the civil reply and constructive discussion :) ] (]) 23:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You're welcome, and I believe it is correct that the term "lyric video" doesn't get used as widely as "music video", in part because they oftentimes get less attention from the press. ] (] / ]) 23:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== John Jacob Astor VI wife Gertrude Gretsch ==


Hello! Thank you for assuming good ]. Gertrude Gretsch was the daughter of William Walter "Bill" Gretsch and Gertrude B. Gretsch.<ref>{{cite web |date=May 28, 1940 |title=Walter Gretsch, 58, Active in Charities |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/brooklyn-eagle-walter-gretsch-58-activ/161555571/ |website=] |access-date=December 25, 2024}}</ref> Walter Gretsch was the son of ], founder of ].<ref>{{cite web |title=Gretsch — A Legacy of Family Spanning 141 Years |url=https://www.gretsch.com/2023/01/gretsch-135th-a-legacy-of-family/ |website=gretsch.com |access-date=December 28, 2024}}</ref> I know it's a little ], but it's pretty straight forward and I think the family link should be included on ]'s page. Thanks! ] (]) 12:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
==GAR closure==
:Linking to a company wouldn't be as straightforward as linking to a general family article. Does the latter exist? ] (] / ]) 14:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey Snuggs, sorry for constantly bothering you, but can you close the ]? I think it's been open for a while, and there were no improvements. Appreciate your time.--] (]) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
::To the best of my knowledge, there is no general family article. We could link to the "personal life" section of the ] page, as both sources are located there? ] (]) 14:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} nothing to worry about ] (] / ]) 22:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I have a better idea; have a mention of Friedrich on John's page with accompanying sources, and maybe add there how the former founded a namesake company. ] (] / ]) 15:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That's perfect. Will do! ] (]) 21:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


==New message from Sjones23==
== "Remove deprecated persondata" ==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (] - ]) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
:Just left some comments and tweaked the linked draft a bit. ] (] / ]) 06:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== Again Margot Robbie ==
Hi, could you clarify about ? I've recently updated "persondata" for the article in question (]), because I saw what I identified to be SHORT DESCRIPTION (formerly filled by "German general") in the Misplaced Pages mobile app. Was your action related to my recent update? BTW, I've seen similar templates used on other bio pages, such as those of Nebe's colleagues. Are they all 'deprecated' as well? Thank you! ] (]) 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello! What do you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margot_Robbie&diff=1267040940&oldid=1266882919 ] (]) 10:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|K.e.coffman}}, persondata has been deprecated entirely and should be removed from any articles containing it. There was consensus at ] to no longer use it. ] (] / ]) 02:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:I removed that as Metro cannot be trusted, so that edit violated WP:BLP as well. ] (] / ]) 13:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::I am so glad of your position. ] (]) 18:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Stop. ] at it again.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margot_Robbie&diff=1267118109&oldid=1267066525 There's a source on Vogue, and the same People are mentioned there. ] (]) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Both People and Vogue are reliable sources per WP:RS so what is the issue? ] (]) 18:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::''Vogue'' going off ''People'' isn't the issue so much as how the latter gives a flimsy attribution of an unnamed "source" for this. The suspicious lack of transparency there is a red flag, so it's subpar to use that link as a basis, and your accusation of me having an "obsessive denial of facts" is unfounded. ] (] / ]) 20:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I understand completely the need for a reliable source. However the internet is filled with sources Misplaced Pages considers reliable with pictures of a pregnant Margot Robbie, followed by pictures of a non-pregnant Margot Robbie pushing a baby carrier. If we wait fifteen years and we see her walking around with a teenager, but her representatives still haven’t confirmed the child, we’re supposed to just believe that he doesn’t exist? ] (]) 10:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Without rep confirmation, having Margot and/or Tom comment on the matter would be ideal. Citations basing reports on one or both of their families is also better than an unspecified "source". The lattermost should be taken with a grain of salt when it's a bad habit of many journalists (including those for lots of publications not deemed trustworthy for general factual reporting) and oftentimes appears to be an attempt to cover up how somebody pulled claims out of nowhere. Either way, as a last resort, we could go with what a friend says on children being born. Do any articles from credible publications not give a subpar wishy-washy "source" attribution for when a birth happened? ] (] / ]) 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Mariah Carey TFA nom Round 2 ==
::Thank you for the clarification. Should I be removing this data when I encounter it? In any case, is it weird that the info from the "deprecated template" is showing up when viewing an article in the Misplaced Pages mobile app? ] (]) 02:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


:::Don't know how it shows up on the app since I haven't used that, but yes it should be removed when seen. ] (] / ]) 03:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Hello. I have nominated ] as TFA for the second time. (See here: ]) Let me know what you think of the article appearing on TFA. Thank you. ''']''' <small><small>''']]'''</small></small> 12:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sure thing, and I left my support there. ] (] / ]) 13:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:56, 4 January 2025

SNUGGUMS is busy with various other websites as well as work and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
This is SNUGGUMS's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2

My talk page. Leave me messages here. Post new threads at the bottom of the page. I can also be contacted through email.

Maintaining featured status/good quality standards on Misplaced Pages conflicts

Hi there,

The content regarding the 96th Academy Awards continues, but just as I feared, now User:46.44.158.42 is accusing me of Misplaced Pages:OWN. I've had a similar dispute almost a decade ago with a User:Atomic Meltdown regarding the 84th Academy Awards (you can see the dispute back in 2015 on the edit history here). I understand about ownership, but I'm trying to get this ceremony list eventually up to Misplaced Pages:Featured lists standards. I'm just following what has been advised to me from fellow editors who have worked on featured articles and/or featured lists. I'm afraid he might try to undo what I did without having a compromise or resolution and it will spiral into another edit war. And as far as I'm aware, one of the criteria for featured list promotion is that the article be stable. That's why I'm asking clarification from folks who have worked on featured content what they think given that I plan to nominate it for featured list come July.

Furthermore based on this message, User:Bbb23 determined that I was not in violation of WP:3RR.

Also, I have concerns that the user my attempt to put back the indiscriminate list of names that were "supposedly" added to a slide at the end of the In Memoriam segment, but as User:RunningTiger123, the way it would be presented would case MOS:SEAOFBLUE problems. In a previous FLC, RunningTiger123 said I'm conflicted as to whether the names listed all at once at the end of the "In Memoriam" section should be included. It's really hard to parse the sea of links and if they weren't notable enough to get their own moment, they may not be notable enough to be listed here. Would be curious to know what other reviewers think.. But more importantly, the two references used to back up the claim that all those names appeared on the actual telecast do not support the claim. There is no indication on either website to indicate the names appeared during the broadcast. So either this statements should be find a WP:Reliable sources backing up the claim, or it should be removed because this would be considered Original research or source synthesis.

--Birdienest81talk 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
It's a relief that Bbb123 debunked the claims against you, and none of your edits that I can think of came across as attempts to own articles. Just try not to edit war too much when maintaining article quality. Atomic Meltdown is notorious for sockpuppetry that continued long after getting indefinitely blocked. The Oscars in general and Seth MacFarlane-related matters were common areas that user focused on both after and before the block began. I haven't seen that name come up in quite some time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, he/she did calm down about, but he still insists that it was disruptive editing to make the changes to the 96th Academy Awards thinking that it started with the red links. I'm trying to prepare the list for FLC like I have always done so for the past 11 years. I was going by the consensus of how featured content is presented based on past feedback I have gotten via the nominations. Otherwise, wouldn't the other featured lists just be written without any some sort of standards or oversight? I believe in quality over quantity. And yes, I'm trying to not engaging in an edit war, hence the talk page discussion. Birdienest81talk 18:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Oscar ceremony pages: A list or an article?

Hi there,

User talk:46.44.158.42 asked why the Oscar ceremony pages on Misplaced Pages are considered lists and not articles on this talk page. I'm not very sure how to answer that questions aside from the fact that's how the folks at Misplaced Pages deem it. Though from how I view it, even though particularly the featured list ones have details of the ceremony, the majority of the "article" is mostly presented in a list format such as the winners and nominees, winners/nominees tally, presenters and performers, and In Memoriam honorees. They still dwarf the prose section of the page.

If you had time, could you respond to his question on the talk page.

--Birdienest81talk 18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, I have no clue why they're counted as lists when there's lots of non-listy prose outside of the lead (e.g. ratings and reviews). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Calendar emojiHappy First Edit Day!
Hi SNUGGUMS! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC) 		Party popper emoji
Many thanks, The Herald, and it's hard to believe 11 years have now passed! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Simplifying "Release history" tables

Hi @SNUGGUMS: Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. Regards. 2001:D08:2921:B6C4:17DE:443A:A377:4A85 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This notice feels rather out-of-left-field, but sure I'll leave comments there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Madonna

Hi there SNUGGUMS, I hope you're doing well. Thank you for continuing to maintain high quality pop culture pages on this encyclopedia.

I have free time now due to the summer and I'm very interested in taking the daunting task of finally bringing Madonna to FA. I am willing to spend however many hours it takes. Doing a quick read-through of the article, it seems that most of everything pre-2012 is high quality, but post MDNA can be improved / supplemented with more high quality sources.

Since you have experience bringing three very important pop culture articles to FA, what would your advice be, given that Madonna has had such a long and very illustrious career? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am, PHShanghai, and the wishes are appreciated! Hopefully the same applies for you. Believe it or not, I've also been planning for a while to do this with Ms. Ciccone's bio, just never had enough time to get that done. Aside from touching up any issues with prose (especially spelling and grammar), my first recommendation is to ensure it uses the best possible sources for claims AND that they actually back up the text attributed to them. You might be surprised how often people overlook how text doesn't always align with what given citations say regardless of article classification. Once that's resolved, we should ensure it covers all the major facts without excessive detail. Have a look at WP:Featured article criteria for more. I haven't yet had the chance to assess the article for any glaring issues, but will ping Bluesatellite for input on what needs to be improved when that user has done lots of work on it and other Madonna-related pages. Someday perhaps the three of us could nominate it together once everything is up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Would love to do so, and I have a lot of free time on my hands so I'm very excited to put a lot into this project.
My primary concern right now is that a lot of the things that are cited in her article are from biography books from the late 90s and the early 2000s; while I do not have an issue with citing books, many digital copies of these are behind paywalls and usually the references do not have any quotes, just a page number. At the very least I feel like adding proper quotes would help the poor sourcing a lot.
I also feel that the word count of the article can be lowered down a little, especially in the latter half of her career. I will look more into FAC to see how it can be improved. I don't think there are any glaring issues (besides the whole biography books thing) but instead more of a general need to update the quality of the text. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Going through all those books would take some digging, that's for certain. Not sure how much would be appropriate to include as quotes for such in-text citations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates discussion

Hello, SNUGGUMS! Since you are listed as an active member of the United States Presidents WikiProject, would you mind leaving a comment at a project talk page discussion about a series of templates that I created for the presidencies of Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush? Another editor and myself disagree about whether there should be a separate navigation template for each Presidency apart from the biographical navigation template. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Just left a comment on the thread. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Barbie (film)

Hey. Please review what you are going to remove before saving the page. As you can see at the bottom there's info related to the Themes section that you removed. ภץאคгöร 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There already were "Philosophy", "Feminism", and "Masculinity" sections discussing themes, Nyxaros, so it's not like I removed much on the matter that wasn't previously alluded to. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The issue here is not whether you removed much on the matter or not. Their content is different from the removed text and your edit summary only mentions the other text. Better to be more careful. ภץאคгöร 23:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

FAC

Hi! If you have time, I was wondering if you are able to take a look at the current FAC for Forever (Mariah Carey song). Your comments are always appreciated. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Not able to do so right away, Heartfox, but I should have something up within the next 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
UPDATE: I just left some comments there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Katy Perry scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 October 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/October 26, 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/October 2024. I suggest that you watchlist Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. – SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I could've sworn this would be for the 25th instead of 26th, SchroCat, but regardless appreciate the notice. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Snuggums, ordinarily it would be, but there’s already an article with a good claim on the 25th. As that one hasn’t been on the main page before, and as KP has, I bumped her over a day. Not ideal, but not everything can fit onto the exact days sometimes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places
Thank you today for the 2014 article, introduced simply: "Here is Katheryn Elizabeth "Katy" Hudson aka Katy Perry. She's the California Gurl who kissed another girl and very much liked it." - I hope you enjoyed that she also appeared on the Main page on her birthday, in the OTD section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, Gerda Arendt, and yes I appreciated that inclusion upon noticing it. :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:58, 26 October 2024 (
Grateful for the wishes, MaranoFan. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

UTC)

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Same wishes, and that would be Halloween for me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. - Nicely matched timing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated for sure! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

You cleaned up a couple of my edits in the past few weeks - thanks. Special-T (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

David A. Kennedy

Hi user: SNUGGUMS. I respect your knowledge of, and contributions to, various Kennedy-related topics. Re David A. Kennedy and the linking on the RFK Jr. page, I would note that fairly extensive pages for David exist in 7 other languages, which I believe warrants an English-language page. He is also the only member of RFK's children not to have a page, despite significant well-sourced biographical info on him out there. So, I reverted your deletion of the link I included in my edit. Thank you for your edits. RyeCityRoller (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, RyeCityRoller, other language wikis shouldn't have pages for him either when most or all coverage on the guy is based on family connections. Many of the pieces that mention him only do so in minor detail. If it was more focused on his own merits, then I'd say differently. Regardless, whether David's siblings have their own pages is irrelevant to whether he warrants one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe the merits or origins of an individual's notoriety factor into BLP considerations, merely that they meet the basic criteria. And, if nothing else, David Kennedy seems to meet them based on the abundance of well-sourced material about him in print and online, even if often in articles about his family members. By your logic, wouldn't the wiki page for Tad Lincoln also merit deletion? I'm open to further dialogue with you and/or take this to the appropriate forum for weigh-in by other editors. But, IMHO, the deletion on the grounds of failing BLP metrics seems excessive.
Again, thank you for your input and prompt response RyeCityRoller (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Having famous relatives doesn't in itself entitle David to a page per WP:NOTINHERITED. Another thing to keep in mind is WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which says "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Outside of his fatal drug overdose, how many things have this guy a primary focus or even go beyond a cumulative paragraph? I'm not sure much else exists that centers on him as an individual without going to family quotes (which are not considered independent of the subject). As for Tad, I'm not convinced he warrants a page either, but that's a separate discussion per WP:WAX. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

96th Academy Awards FLC

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could give feedback regarding 96th Academy Awards regarding its featured list candidacy. I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 09:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I might be able to later, Birdienest81, but not right away. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Join discussion?

Hello, I was hoping you could join or respond to the discussion I started at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography#Because I Liked a Boy discussing the single status of Sabrina Carpenter's "Because I Liked a Boy". Thank You. Leafs33 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Just left some comments there, Leafs33, and it seemed pretty straightforward to me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

Hello! With regard to this edit, please mind MOS:NICK and MOS:LEADPRON when editing lead sections of biographical articles, as well as minor formatting issues such as text size and punctuation. See my edits on this specific case. Regards :) ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind about MOS:NICK, just noticed this was removed later by someone else. Check MOS:QUOTEMARKS though. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I already knew that straight quotation marks are preferred to curly ones when more consistent with coding Misplaced Pages uses for typing out text, but am not sure what benefit there is of giving a separate bold set to anything contained within a quote. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I probably should have linked to the more specific MOS:BOLDQUOTE subsection. Quotation marks go in bold only if they are part of the title/name. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
It would've been more consistent to allow boldface for both cases or even deny for both. Beats me how anybody came up with specific scenarios like that or what the rationale was (shrugs shoulders). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

man y0u stole away my talk on the john f Kennedy talk page

all I wanna say is never do that again because its very mean and not cool I did really see bro get 200 pumped and I would prefer if you didn't delete true facts like a weirdo 216.73.71.81 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually I never "stole away" anything, IP; your post got deleted because it was at best a trivial detail and Misplaced Pages talk pages aren't supposed to be forums for general chatting. See WP:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought for more. Calling me "a weirdo" is not appropriate either per WP:No personal attacks. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting input

see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anita Wood Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Your comments on that were very transparently trying to elicit a "delete" vote from me, which is inappropriate per WP:CANVASS and I'm not giving you the satisfaction of even participating in the thread. Stop trying to make WP:WAX arguments as those aren't helping your case (as someone else already pointed out). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Protection

I saw Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection § John F. Kennedy and wanted to let you know that there is no such thing as Something higher than Extended confirmed protection but not full protection. The list of protection levels technically has template protection between extended-confirmed and full protection, but it's reserved for highly-transcluded templates and modules. Vandalism from extended-confirmed users is dealt with by blocking those users, as Hellocat99 just was. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

In that case, Jlwoodwa, I would say a level between ECP and full should be created. The former was created after it became clear that sometimes semi-protection isn't enough when auto-confirmed users end up disrupting pages (including instances where socks of blocked users figured out how to bypass it altogether). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Would this be a requested permission unlike the automatically-granted WP:AUTOC and WP:XC groups? I don't think that's been proposed before; you could post it at WP:VPI if you want more people to see/discuss the idea. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Cite tweet

Hello, could you please explain more about the requirement to quote an entire tweet? The template guidelines, under title, seem to suggest that the "Partial or entire content of the tweet" are acceptable in the Title parameter.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I admittedly had overlooked that part when examining the sample tweets listed, Sunshineisles2, but regardless quoting only a portion gives an incomplete idea of what somebody was tweeting. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

You literally making 2 mistakes! First of all, Love for Sale is not studio album, it's a collaboration album. Second, did you even read the news??? They are literally saying "LG7" means all the studio albums plus The Fame Monster. No news media saying eighth! If Love for Sale is included, then it's ninth, including Cheek to Cheek. Educate yourself. -GogoLion (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

By no means are "studio album" and "collaboration album" mutually exclusive, GogoLion, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. The Fame Monster actually is a reissue of The Fame that contains all of the lattermost's tracks along with newer songs. Regarding the informal "LG7" label, that's not a firm indicator of album count nor should it be treated as such. It's also not exactly the best substitute term for an upcoming album whose real name hasn't yet been announced. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GogoLion (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

≤== October 2024 ==

Hello. Regarding this edit, doesn't Template:Music ratings state that the template "provides a brief summary and overview of the critical consensus of song and album reviews"? Since the song has four reviews with ratings, why wouldn't we include the template? Just wondering if I am missing something, please let me know. Regards. Medxvo (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure when that change to the template was added, Medxvo, but I removed because I very rarely have seen it used within song pages and that didn't seem like an established practice. They're far more common for album articles either way. One could argue the prose of the reviews section already discusses ratings sufficiently. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
The template has the same sentence since its creation in November 2009. There used to be three templates, Template:Single ratings, Template:Song ratings, and Template:Album ratings, but in November 2022 there was a consensus to merge the song and single templates to the album template and rename to "music ratings". I know using the template for songs is very rare (and that's what was discussed at the TFD two years ago), but it is not particularly wrong. Since there are four ratings, which I think is a sufficient amount, can't we include the template? My main issue with including the ratings in prose along with each review is that they would seem redundant, due to repeating it four times. Let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Update–I tried to include the ratings in prose and changed a few things, this is how it would be;
"Disease" received positive reviews from music critics, who considered it a return to Gaga's pop roots. Journalists from Consequence named it the "Song of the Week" upon its release, describing it as "a four minute reminder that pop music is where so many elements of performance have the opportunity to coalesce". In a five-star review, Evening Standard's India Block called "Disease" a "high gothic blast that's perfect for spooky season" and praised Gaga's vocals, the production, and the religious themes. Murray gave the song a nine out of ten rating, dubbing it a "wild blast of outsider pop music". He described it as "lustful" and "salacious" and compared its "heavy-duty electronics" to works by American band Nine Inch Nails.
Alexa Camp from Slant Magazine and O'Connor described the lyrics as "cliché" but praised the production, with O'Connor stating that "Disease" is Gaga's "best in a long while" in her four-star review. Petridis gave the song four stars out of five and praised the song's production and ability to "evoke memories of late 00s Gaga and still fit with the messy, post-Brat pop climate" through its excessive mood and sound. Petridis felt "Disease" is stylistically reminiscent of the music in Gaga's debut studio album The Fame (2008), while Camp felt it is more reminiscent of Gaga's subsequent releases The Fame Monster (2009) and Born This Way (2011). In a positive review, Bianca Betancourt from Harper's Bazaar described "Disease" as "classic Gaga in the best way possible" and considered it as an "edgier" and "more mature" version of "Bad Romance". In a ranking of Gaga's entire catalog, Vulture's Kristen Hé placed "Disease" at number 15, stating that Gaga is "no longer consumed by darkness but in control of it".
I think it looks good now, I would like to know your thoughts. Medxvo (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah this works, and based on your linked diff, it looks like I was thinking of the albums rating template that for years had been implemented much more frequently than the one for songs prior to the merge discussion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

FAC review

Hi SNUGGUMS, I currently have an FAC open for Mariah Carey's "Your Girl". I would appreciate your perspective if you are interested. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I will have to decline this one when other things are going on in my life, Heartfox, but will wish you luck with the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Margot Robbie

Greetings! Is Margot Robbie's baby birth source reliable? Can you check it out? M.lebedev (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If you mean this, M.lebedev, then it's definitely an improvement over what was used before. However, that just makes assumptions on what happened instead of getting confirmation on a birth. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
It's just necessary to get information from the relatives of the actress or a representative. For example, the birth of Jennifer Lawrence's second child. It's obvious, SNUGGUMS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.lebedev (talk • contribs)
That would be ideal for birth details when you can't get parental verification. Another choice when none of these are available would be friends, but that's probably a last resort. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
What is the verdict? Does the source remain in the article or are we waiting for the most reliable one again? M.lebedev (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
At least for now, wait for something better that isn't just speculating on the couple and their choices made. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Is there a way to interfere with the article? Otherwise, I cancel the edit a hundred times and I don't want to get punished for WP:EW. Or should we leave it as it is? M.lebedev (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "interfere" is the right word here, but reverting BLP violations (which we both did) won't count as edit warring issues per WP:3RRNO. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Just noting here Snuggums that the editor you are responding to appearst to have a very poor understanding of vandalism as that is what they have accused me of here, and also to ask if you would agree that there is no requirement as they have stated that it is necessary to get information from the relatives of the actress or a representative. Personally, I'm not sure why the Sydney Morning Herald is not considered a WP:RS for something that seems relatively uncontroversial, but I'm not going to edit war about it. Melcous (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
By no means is your edit a case of vandalism, Melcous, since you clearly didn't have malicious intentions. As for The Sydney Morning Herald, while that normally is a trustworthy source on its own, the biggest problem with the particular link used from there is this is basing a claim off something from Mail on Sunday. The latter is not nearly as strong and unfortunately is an affiliate with the unreliable Daily Mail (which has been repeatedly removed from other articles as a result). There appears to be little to no difference of overall quality between those sister papers. If The Sydney Morning Herald didn't go off what either of them said, then the used article would have more credibility. Another thing that makes me hesitant is "Robbie's representatives did not respond when contacted by this masthead" bit (VERY important when there was no sign of parental confirmation), and same with a flimsy attribution of mentioning how People "reported a source has confirmed the birth" without any indication of who that "source" was. The lack of transparency there is suspicious and never a good sign (I sometimes see people use vague mentions of unspecified "sources" as a cover up for pulling claims out of nowhere), so it's best to take things with a grain of salt unless parents, reps, family, friends, or any combination of these affirm the matter.
I guess my read of WP:RS is that if a secondary source is considered reliable we can use it here, and it is not our role to judge the primary sources on which that reporting is based - otherwise we would find ourselves in all kinds of untenable situations and arguments based on editors' opinions about journalistic standards rather than holding to our role as a tertiary source that is based on what secondary sources have said. Thanks Melcous (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
It definitely would be an oversimplification to say that any generally good secondary source can be used no matter what, which is why we have the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS section on that page. Personal claims that involve living people are things we have to be especially cautious with per the WP:BLP policy. I wouldn't be as worried with matters on how many kids a long dead person had. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2024 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) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Birthday cake emojiHappy birthday!
Hi SNUGGUMS! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! Hemlock :3 leave a message 02:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC) 		Party popper emoji
Hemlock :3 leave a message 02:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for the wishes, HemlockVR! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee.--DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
You have my gratitude, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Christmas Tree Farm

Hello, SNUGGUMS. Regarding your latest edits at Christmas Tree Farm, is there a consensus to consider music video, lyric video, and certification common terms that shouldn't be linked, or are you implying that from "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked" at WP:OVERLINK? I think linking here would help the readers who wouldn't be familiar with the terms. And why is "catchy" fancruft when that's how music critics described it? .... Isn't it a good option to add the national US chart since it was released to radio there? I really appreciate your work and I would've really appreciated if these were discussed before removing as there is a peer review request open for the article. Medxvo (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

They seem widely known enough to not need linking. The term "catchy" has a positive connotation, and the lead appeared to treat an opinion as a fact when describing the tune. I regardless didn't know about any peer review for the page, but as for charts, it felt like a rather abrupt jump to go from top 30 ranges to something below 50. Radio release is irrelevant here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, I've reworded the catchy thing and restored the WP:OL terms because I personally think they're important here and also to avoid demographic biases as advised at WP:OL. I'd like to note that I didn't mean to mention the peer review in an obnoxious way at all. What I meant was that we could've discussed there instead of me coming to your personal talk page but I understand that you didn't know about it. I'd always appreciate your comments anytime :) Medxvo (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I knew what you intended with peer review mention, so no worries there. On the other hand, among all demographics who can read the English language, I can't think of any that don't at least know what music videos are given their prevalence in society. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that, but given that the article mentions and links lyric video, which may not be as common as music video, I thought it's best to link both for consistency and to avoid confusion. It would be cool if WP:WPMUSIC could reach consensus in the future on whether lead single, music video, certification, and other music-related terms should be linked or not. Anyways, I deeply appreciate the civil reply and constructive discussion :) Medxvo (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I believe it is correct that the term "lyric video" doesn't get used as widely as "music video", in part because they oftentimes get less attention from the press. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

John Jacob Astor VI wife Gertrude Gretsch

Hello! Thank you for assuming good WP:FAITH. Gertrude Gretsch was the daughter of William Walter "Bill" Gretsch and Gertrude B. Gretsch. Walter Gretsch was the son of Friedrich Gretsch, founder of Gretsch. I know it's a little WP:SYNTH, but it's pretty straight forward and I think the family link should be included on John Jacob Astor VI's page. Thanks! Rochambeau1783 (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Linking to a company wouldn't be as straightforward as linking to a general family article. Does the latter exist? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, there is no general family article. We could link to the "personal life" section of the Friedrich Gretsch page, as both sources are located there? Rochambeau1783 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I have a better idea; have a mention of Friedrich on John's page with accompanying sources, and maybe add there how the former founded a namesake company. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
That's perfect. Will do! Rochambeau1783 (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kris Kristofferson § Potential revamp?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Just left some comments and tweaked the linked draft a bit. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Again Margot Robbie

Hello! What do you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margot_Robbie&diff=1267040940&oldid=1266882919 M.lebedev (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed that as Metro cannot be trusted, so that edit violated WP:BLP as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I am so glad of your position. M.lebedev (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Stop. Rcarter555 at it again.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margot_Robbie&diff=1267118109&oldid=1267066525 There's a source on Vogue, and the same People are mentioned there. M.lebedev (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Both People and Vogue are reliable sources per WP:RS so what is the issue? Rcarter555 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Vogue going off People isn't the issue so much as how the latter gives a flimsy attribution of an unnamed "source" for this. The suspicious lack of transparency there is a red flag, so it's subpar to use that link as a basis, and your accusation of me having an "obsessive denial of facts" is unfounded. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I understand completely the need for a reliable source. However the internet is filled with sources Misplaced Pages considers reliable with pictures of a pregnant Margot Robbie, followed by pictures of a non-pregnant Margot Robbie pushing a baby carrier. If we wait fifteen years and we see her walking around with a teenager, but her representatives still haven’t confirmed the child, we’re supposed to just believe that he doesn’t exist? Rcarter555 (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Without rep confirmation, having Margot and/or Tom comment on the matter would be ideal. Citations basing reports on one or both of their families is also better than an unspecified "source". The lattermost should be taken with a grain of salt when it's a bad habit of many journalists (including those for lots of publications not deemed trustworthy for general factual reporting) and oftentimes appears to be an attempt to cover up how somebody pulled claims out of nowhere. Either way, as a last resort, we could go with what a friend says on children being born. Do any articles from credible publications not give a subpar wishy-washy "source" attribution for when a birth happened? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Mariah Carey TFA nom Round 2

Hello. I have nominated Mariah Carey as TFA for the second time. (See here: Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests#Mariah Carey) Let me know what you think of the article appearing on TFA. Thank you. ScarletViolet tc 12:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing, and I left my support there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  1. "Walter Gretsch, 58, Active in Charities". Brooklyn Eagle. May 28, 1940. Retrieved December 25, 2024.
  2. "Gretsch — A Legacy of Family Spanning 141 Years". gretsch.com. Retrieved December 28, 2024.