User talk:Lil-unique1: Difference between revisions
Lil-unique1 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lil-unique1 (talk | contribs) |
||
| (31 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{talk header|search=yes}} |
{{talk header|search=yes}} |
||
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
||
{{semi-retired}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|maxarchivesize = 128k |
|maxarchivesize = 128k |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<br/> |
<br/> |
||
== |
== Track listing templates == |
||
Hello. I've just noticed that you've changed a couple track list templates to numerical lists on Avicii's song articles recently. As I said in my edit summary on "Broken Arrows", [[MOS:ALBUM]] doesn't say we should change track listings into numbered lists (simple or not)—it only says if a track listing is ''complex'' that it can be formatted into a template. So it's only saying you can do it this one way if there's a lot of detail there. I've noted to several other editors that the ALBUM guideline wasn't changed after the track listing template was made, so at the time it was written, numerical lists ''were'' the only way to format track listings, so that's why it (still) says they "should generally be formatted as a numerical list". As you know, some users on this site directly oppose the use of track list templates and revert any conversion of a track list to a template, so I think where a template was first used (as on "Broken Arrows"), that should be retained. I didn't manually revert your edit to "Waiting for Love" as I note those were numerical lists when they were first added. <b>[[User:Ss112|<span style="color: #FF6347;">Ss</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Ss112|<span style="color: #1E90FF;">112</span>]]</small></b> 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Cheers for the comment- I stand by my edits that they shouldn't be used where the situation isn't complex. Its OTT. |
|||
== Die with a Smile edit == |
|||
Hi again! Hope all is well, I have a question and would love your opinion. I’m not too sure how familiar you are with album/single certifications. But I’m in a dispute with an editor regarding certifications, if an album has a ref with its sales but the cert was updated after the article was published what is supposed to be in the box? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1173903397] this user reverted it by bringing up a discussion I opened over 3 years ago regarding this type of issue. Yet I feel like I’m following what they’re stating. Majority of the time I’ve seen most users remove the sales after an updated cert is released due to it being “outdated”. I opened a discussion on their talk page but they’re insinuating that I’m wrong. I have also reached out to an admin due to this being the second incident I’ve had with this user. But I would like to get an opinion from you if you’re able to please, I opened a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Album certification clarification|here]][[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 06:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
How exactly did you decide that it was okay to revert an edit from 15 days ago on the Die with a Smile page and mess up with all the new edits the page got since then, including new chart peaks and certifications? You look pretty inconsiderate for someone who's been editing music articles for over 15 years. Be more careful. [[User:Debyf|Debyf]] ([[User talk:Debyf|talk]]) 21:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Talk:The_Storm_Before_the_Calm#Euro_label]]== |
|||
:@{{u|Debyf}} mind your language - pay attention to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], irrespective of how long we've been editing for everyone at every level can make mistakes. It doesn't mean you can be rude. Yes I was lazy/clumsy to revert your edits to an earlier version, but the intent was good, i.e. to remove your edits with break with convention across other music articles. |
|||
Hi lil unique. There's a discussion on the talk page about label in the infobox of [[The Storm Before the Calm]]. All you know that the previously discussion about Nuyorican Productions at [[Talk:Love?/Archive 1]]. --[[Special:Contributions/183.171.121.231|183.171.121.231]] ([[User talk:183.171.121.231|talk]]) 08:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 20:24, 11 December 2024
It is currently 8:05 AM where this user lives.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is Lil-unique1's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | This user has tried and failed to take a wikibreak. |
Track listing templates
[edit]Hello. I've just noticed that you've changed a couple track list templates to numerical lists on Avicii's song articles recently. As I said in my edit summary on "Broken Arrows", MOS:ALBUM doesn't say we should change track listings into numbered lists (simple or not)—it only says if a track listing is complex that it can be formatted into a template. So it's only saying you can do it this one way if there's a lot of detail there. I've noted to several other editors that the ALBUM guideline wasn't changed after the track listing template was made, so at the time it was written, numerical lists were the only way to format track listings, so that's why it (still) says they "should generally be formatted as a numerical list". As you know, some users on this site directly oppose the use of track list templates and revert any conversion of a track list to a template, so I think where a template was first used (as on "Broken Arrows"), that should be retained. I didn't manually revert your edit to "Waiting for Love" as I note those were numerical lists when they were first added. Ss112 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers for the comment- I stand by my edits that they shouldn't be used where the situation isn't complex. Its OTT.
Die with a Smile edit
[edit]How exactly did you decide that it was okay to revert an edit from 15 days ago on the Die with a Smile page and mess up with all the new edits the page got since then, including new chart peaks and certifications? You look pretty inconsiderate for someone who's been editing music articles for over 15 years. Be more careful. Debyf (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Debyf mind your language - pay attention to assume good faith, irrespective of how long we've been editing for everyone at every level can make mistakes. It doesn't mean you can be rude. Yes I was lazy/clumsy to revert your edits to an earlier version, but the intent was good, i.e. to remove your edits with break with convention across other music articles.