Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:14, 2 August 2013

Welcome

Hello, Synthwave.94! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Flat Out let's discuss it 10:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Synthwave.94, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Synthwave.94! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

UK Official singles charts

I see that you've been editing 'dead links' to UK Singles charts, for example at True Faith (song) and People Are People, and replaced them with direct links to unofficial chart archives. I already changed the UK singles chart link to singlechart template at "People Are People". The template requires artist, song, and date for the peak position. The template creates a direct link to the weekly UK chart at the official OCC archives. To clarify, chartstats.com and chartarchive.org are unofficial websites. Officialcharts.com is the official one. Chartstats.com/chartarchive.org has been used here on wikipedia as good faith source before. The problem now is the recent OCC demand to remove the content. No worries. Just use the singlechart link next time you edit UK singles chart data. --Sk4170 (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC) OK, so the next time I would change a UK "dead link", I will use an Officialcharts.com link Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about using the singlechart template to create links to valid chart data. I meant that you first go to the individual artist page to retrieve the peak date, and then use the info with the singlechart template to create a direct link to the official OCC weekly chart. Read from Template:Singlechart about the restrictions, and learn to use it where applicable. Currently, the OCC weekly chart page shows only positions 1-40, so for positions 41-75 a link to the artist chart history page is applied instead. --Sk4170 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference ? It's much more simple to search for peak position on the individual artist page rather than looking after weekly chart, and the peak position is still the same, after all. Synthwave.94 (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying that it is easier for the editor, or the reader? Are you saying this because you are lazy? What is more important, the singlechart template was created to ease up the maintenance of changing chart links. Let's say, for example, that OCC website decides to rearrange and change location for all content. Simultaneously, all links on wikipedia pointing to the OCC website become dead. By using templates, the need for massive maintenance requiring a lot of work from several editors is minimized. Only direct links have to be fixed manually. Obviously, the less the better. There's one good reason for you why templates are recommended. --Sk4170 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's easier for me when I want to change UK peak position, because I don't only change UK peak position when editing pages, I also changed old unreliable references I added by the past for example (and I can tell you it's quite long). Moreover no user talked about this UK singlechart template to me before. I always went directly on the individual artist page and I received no edit talking about this template. I'm not saying I don't want to use the template, but how can these weekly peak positions can be found on OCC website ? I seriously don't understand nothing about this "weekly chart template". It's impossible to navigate from a day from another and you only have the top 10 ! I'm sorry to say it, but I don't want to waste time with these kind of details. If you have time ahead of you, you can change the UK peak positions I added/changed but it would take you a lot of time to modify every UK peak position for each article I edited so far. Synthwave.94 (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How am I supposed to do for re-release versions of one song (eg. Ghostbusters, which charted 7 or 8 times around Halloween) ? It's much more simple (and much more readable) to use the individual artists pages. I can use the same url 7 or 8 times whereas for the "template" I have to use 7 or 8 different urls. It's not interesting and not readable at all. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ghostbusters is an exception, but as you said, it had several re-releases. Using Singlechart template definitely requires more work than adding a link to the artist chart history. Some of the charts require parameters such as week numbers, dates, and chartIDs that are not always easy to find. For instance, Ray Parker Jr's hit peaked in the UK on the third week of September 1984. It took quite a bit of browsing to get to that weekly chart. What comes to the several re-release peak dates, they all entered the chart for only one week, when in 1984 the song spent total of 31 weeks in the UK Singles chart. When I edit wikipedia, I have my mind set on the best result, not how much work I need to do to get there. I don't mind that because I enjoy doing research. For me, "the best result" is not just the perfect and most accurate data, but it also includes that my edits follow the current wiki rules and practices, to the best of my knowledge. To conclude, I repeat myself, but again, using a singlechart template is a recommendation, to be used where applicable. Not a policy. You have made your choice, and it's alright. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you the same thing. I'm not searching peak positions like if I was doing homework, but I'm learning things about songs that I didn't know. I knew Relax was a huge smash hit throughout Europe, but I didn't know it also charted in countries such as Israel, Thailand or even Hong Kong. Two users thanked me for what I did (on Hey Little Girl and on Love Will Tear Us Apart) and for me these "thanks" mean : "Thank you very much for your edit. What you did was helpful and constructive". Moreover I can tell you I'm not lazy when searching reliable references to change unreliable references I added by the past, when creating a full singlechart (on Radio Ga Ga for example) or when changing bare URLs into more complete/full citations (on Man in the Mirror). But thank you for your links, now I see how to find those weekly chart on OCC website and what is a "singlechart template".Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to be of help! I think you've been doing a great job with the charts. Are you familiar with WikiProject Songs? There you can see, if you want, loosely what's going on in the wiki song article maintenance. Some useful bits of information here and there. --Sk4170 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It's quite interesting, in particular the track listings resources and the tools. It reminds me I improved a song article a week ago. A song called "Din Daa Daa". There are some good, reliable references talking about the song, but I think that after what I found on the Internet, there is nothing else to say about this song. In fact, the only things missing are some details about the song (recording and format to be more precise), track listings and other songs which sample "Din daa daa" but I'm not sure it's useful to add them all : here's the link where I found every song which samples "Din Daa Daa". Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the guideline was that the listings on the original single releases on all formats should be included, if available. For instance, for "Din Daa Daa" there are both 7" and 12" from 1983. Also the image seems to be missing. Couple of examples on different ways how sample info is included in the articles: Personal_Jesus#Jamelia_sample, Stan (song). Every_Breath_You_Take#Samples_and_cover_versions, I'll_Be_Missing_You. In many cases, there isn't a lot to tell about a song, that's true. Sometimes so little that it doesn't warrant an article. If the song meets the notability criteria, there usually is enough material. --Sk4170 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Love Will Tear Us Apart

Hi Synthwave.94. Thanks for the correction. It is not true that everything was in the same URL: I had put the wrong URL, while you have entered the correct one. Thanks again and happy editing. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to learn from you my edits are helpful. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Some reverts

I've reverted some of your wholesale changes to articles. Your edits are partially helpful, but you have a habit of breaking templates and introducing WP:MOS violations at the same time. Since you are making mass changes in a single edit, it's impossible to separate your good edits from the bad, so I've had to undo everything. I suggest taking more care in your edits and using the "Show preview" function to see how your edits will look before saving. Try making smaller edits and saving in between so other editors can review your edits in a more broken-down fashion (as your edits require quite a bit of review). When you change the capitalization of terms like "New Wave" or change numbers from words to figures, you are introducing MoS violations or inconsistencies. Additionally, your use of sources is questionable—you are violating WP:SYNTH almost every time you use a source to try to justify your genre changes.

Please read what I've said carefully and take it on board—your edits are bordering on disruptive, whether intentionally or not. --Laser brain (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know there was some "broken" templates but I was not able to see why it didn't work, because there are "references in other references" and I don't understand how does it works. Instead of reverting my edit, you'd better take a look at what was wrong and correct it. It would have been more helpful for me. Moreover I always make big changes on a page in one edit and I can tell you I didn't have no problems so far (Imagine being the only exception to the rule in fact).

And what's wrong about my singlecharts ? The peak positions are entirely true and I used good references for it (as usual).

I'm sorry but "New wave" or "new wave" is the good writing. And I've ever seen another user who sees his edit reverted because he wrote "New Wave" instead on "new wave" (that I changed) on a good article. It's not a MoS violation at all. I simply correct a wrong capitalization. From now on, if you think I did something wrong, simply correct what's wrong going on the page history, copying and pasting what shouldn't be changed, so you don't revert my edit and keep what I changed to improve the article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you want me to do all the legwork to figure out what you did to break the templates and selectively reverse your changes? That's not how it works. If you can't figure it out, don't edit it. This is a collaborative environment—you can't just say "I'm going to do what I want. If I break things, you can fix them for me." --Laser brain (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, you are now edit warring and breaking the WP:BRD cycle. If you make a change and then you get reverted, you're supposed to discuss the change instead of just reverting again. --Laser brain (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I never edit warring. That's what you think about me but what I do is that is added the true genre for songs for which genre references are missing. It's different. I don't need to explain my changes. They are perfectly clear, helpful, constructive and very close to the truth. Synthwave.94 (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You do need to explain your changes. You have returned to your habit of using vague mentions to support changing genre to your POV and you are violating WP:SYNTH as pointed out by Laser_brain. Please take more time to make sure you are not breaking templates and take care not to violate the 3RR. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Your recent editing history at Come Back and Stay shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)