User talk:Lil-unique1
It is currently 8:33 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
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
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. 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.