User Talk: Caro7200

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Edit warring

Could you stop edit warring at Earth and Heaven ↗ and take it to the talk page? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is clear vandalism, as you have noticed. Not even sure what the editor's issues are... Caro7200 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
::It seems, from their edit summary, they dislike that the album got negative reviews. Whatever the case, just repeatedly reverting won't get you anywhere. Discuss it or report them. Either WP:AIV ↗ or WP:AN3 ↗ would work for reporting. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
::OK they have put in a request at RfPP so admins will get involved soon. The editor admitted to writing the song so they have a COI. I have notified them of this and of edit warring. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for edit warring ↗ and violating the three-revert rule ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes ↗ and seek consensus ↗. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution ↗, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection ↗.</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)</div></div>

{{unblock reviewed|decline=The 3RR limit is three reverts in 24 hrs, you did seven in half an hour. Obvious vandalism is exempted, but it's not obvious that this was anything more than a content dispute. I believe this short block is wholly warranted, therefore I'm not going to lift this. I suggest you just sit this one out and take the opportunity to revise WP:EW ↗. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)|1=Not sure what's going on here, as the editor in question has a COI and was removing whole chunks of reliably sourced material, and then doubling down on removing even larger chunks of reliably sourced material. This was a case of vandalism. Caro7200 (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)}} Caro7200 (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Well, the other editor is either Nicole Willis ↗ or a close associate and only edits articles related to her. I returned to editing when the academic library at which I work started hosting edit-a-thons, and have spent my time adding reliable sources, gnoming, and starting articles. Not sure that removing huge chunks of reliably sourced material can be classified as a content dispute. Regardless, it's probably past time to move on to more rewarding endeavors. My sincere thanks to all the editors I've met along the way. Take care. Caro7200 (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
::That's sad news. But it is true. Wikipedia editing is a thankless job and if it is too stressful and doesn't bring joy anymore, it's best to move on, even if temporarily. Personally, I agree with you that in this case it is "malicious removal of encyclopedic content ↗", as the other editor confirmed they had a conflict of interest and their goal was to remove negative reviews specifically. That said, though, whatever is considered "obvious" vandalism isn't clear (perhaps due to WP:BEANS ↗). I was even hesitant to report our old friend ↗ to AIV because it was obvious to me, who can see the review, that an edit like this ↗ was vandalism, but it's not as clear to a random admin. So instead I had to go through ANI (where it got ignored and archived instead, so I had to ask an admin to do something, but that's another issue). Anyway, thank you for your contributions! And I still hope to see you again. I could count the number of regular editors in my area on the fingers of one hand, and losing each one is quite unfortunate. <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:2px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px"><span style="color:#ff29f8">AstonishingTunesAdmirer</span> 連絡</span> 18:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks, it was a good break, and I was able to think about things. I'll probably finish over the next two or three months the 20 or so (Word) drafts I have, but I plan on cutting my watchlist by 90+%. I've been going hard since 2019; it's probably not healthy to be logged in 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, simply because I work next to the bound periodicals and microfilm reader. The world's going to hell (albeit not for the first time). I need to focus on that and do what I can, beyond choosing to not blue link DT in articles ↗. ;) Caro7200 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Yep, it's much healthier to not hyperfocus on all of this. Ultimately, we are building sand castles. It's great if we can preserve them for as long as possible, but it's not worth getting worked up over that. Although most of them <em>are</em> more stable than the chaos of the world we live in right now ↗. <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:2px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px"><span style="color:#ff29f8">AstonishingTunesAdmirer</span> 連絡</span> 01:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
::I'll also add, and maybe I should have commented earlier, that vandalism does have a narrower definition in a strict sense. That is, vandalism is deliberate disruption. Removal of sourced content is disruptive but, since MercuryPidgen legitimately believes that content shouldn't be there I would say it isn't vandalism in a strict sense. And COI editing is not an exception to 3RR. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you further explain what three templates are correct on Eric Clapton Backless album page? Why you changed my edits?
:Hello. Please see the style advice: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice ↗. Three templates are acceptable, so '''you aren't fixing, correcting, or updating anything'''. In many cases, the template you removed had been in the article for many, many years. If you would like to discuss this issue again, please bring it up on the project talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice ↗. Cheers.Caro7200 (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 22 March 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-03-22}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

Question

Hey! I hope you are doing well. I remembered that you mentioned ↗ using databases and ProQuest, and I was wondering whether it was The Wikipedia Library ↗'s ProQuest or you have access to it from elsewhere. And if it's the latter, does it have access to this database ↗ (specifically The Music & Performing Arts Collection)? <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:2px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px"><span style="color:#ff29f8">AstonishingTunesAdmirer</span> 連絡</span> 23:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:In part--what is the title of the article that you are looking for? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
::I always wondered why ''The Source'', one of the biggest magazines at the time, was never digitized. And recently I found out that it actually was, but it's in this database. I'm looking for any reviews from the magazine which I'm missing; that is: two reviews from October 1998 (Shaquille O'Neal ↗'s ''Respect ↗'', that's supposed to have a quote "Shaq displays vast improvement in the delivery, patterns, phrasings and complexities of his rhymes", and Big Tymers ↗'s ''How You Luv That Vol. 2 ↗'' that should say "Throughout the disc, the materialistic duo take you into a lyrical wonderland of six figures"), reviews from the April 2000 issue, reviews from the February 2001 issue, and reviews from May 2001 onward, excluding August 2001 and January 2002. Any help would be appreciated! <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:2px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px"><span style="color:#ff29f8">AstonishingTunesAdmirer</span> 連絡</span> 13:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
:::No luck so far, but have found other RS for both--not sure why ''The Source'' remains so undigitized ... or why PQ has so many tiers (well, money). Caro7200 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Yep, money. It seems that this database is only available at some universities and libraries who are ready to pay. I left a suggestion at TWL's suggestion page ↗ (as it's an interesting collection; also provides access to an equally-hard-to-find-online ''NME ↗'', among various other publications), but I assume it's unlikely we'll ever get access to it for that reason. It's a shame they are locking knowledge like that. Oh well. Thank you for giving it a try! <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:2px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px"><span style="color:#ff29f8">AstonishingTunesAdmirer</span> 連絡</span> 21:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Good Deeds and Dirty Rags

You recently left the following statement on your recent edit at ''Good Deeds and Dirty Rags ↗'' and I am wondering if you could clarify exactly what you are meaning. You stated - "''but you should do a better citing job with your added text''". <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Goodreg3</span> (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. You had added largish chunks of prose, with a citation at the very end of the paragraphs, despite quoted material appearing earlier. You're probably not alone in this practice, but there were also instances where you included info that a cited ref didn't support. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for the feedback. I will be mindful of this in the future. Appreciated. <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Goodreg3</span> (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 9 April 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-04-09}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

Edit to The Roches' Can We Go Home Now

Hello. I edited the page for The Roches' album "Can We Go Home Now" about a month ago to add the release date - 30 May 1995. I have a source for this date which I admittedly failed to add at the time. My apologies.

Please see the attached promotional advert as evidence to verify the change. https://www.ebay.com/itm/155289568124
The second photo in the eBay listing shows the date in the top right corner. Thanks Callum0637 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:This release date was also reported by some local newspapers: ''The Indianapolis Star ↗'', ''Clarion-Ledger ↗'', ''Grand Forks Herald ↗''. <span style="background:#00674b; border-radius:3px; font-weight:600; padding:4px"><span style="color:#fff">AstonishingTunesAdmirer</span> <span style="color:#fff">➜</span></span> 16:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
::Great research! Thank you. Can this be done for some of their earlier albums? I was able to find the release date for their 1989 album "Speak" last month from another eBay listing of a promotional item.
::https://www.ebay.com/itm/235991257356
::The second photo shows the date "October 31st". Callum0637 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah, there's an article in ''Los Angeles Times'' ↗ from October 31, 1989 that says: "The group's first album in 3½ years, "Speak," is being released today by Paradox/MCA". <span style="background:#00674b; border-radius:3px; font-weight:600; padding:4px"><span style="color:#fff">AstonishingTunesAdmirer</span> <span style="color:#fff">➜</span></span> 17:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you very much. Callum0637 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 1 May 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-05-01}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

''The Signpost'': 14 May 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-05-14}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

Drastic Plastic

Hi, why did you revert my edit to Drastic Plastic ↗? Using the tack listing template makes it look more organized and less outdated. You mentioned consensus but I couldn't find anything in the talk page to corroborate that, so I don't see the point in the reversion. Fundgy (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. It has long been WP album consensus that three templates are acceptable, which was recently affirmed in a talk page discussion. There is nothing at all wrong with that style, which many editors prefer. Additionally, it is considered disruptive to change styles that have been in place for years. Here is the project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums ↗. Cheers and happy editing. Caro7200 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::I don't see anything there that states as such, can you link it? Also, why is modernizing the track listing to the more current standard something you consider "disruptive"? Fundgy (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Hello again. "I" don't consider it disruptive: WP considers it disruptive, as a substantial number of longtime albums editors prefer the style that you removed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice ↗. Feel free to review, and good day. Caro7200 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I looked through it, and there just isn't anything definitive. You referenced a talk page discussion, and you should share it if it exists, because if it does, then everything will be in order. Otherwise, this seems to be something that I may need to bring up in the Wikiprojects talk page.
::::Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Style_and_form ↗ talks about numbered lists being "generally prefearable" in cases of simple track listings, but in this case, you have both alternate track listings (i.e. track 9 was swapped for another in the US) and bonus tracks. Updating to the template here seems like it's a non-issue. Fundgy (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Fundgy, I appreciate that you're a new editor, so go nuts with the change, if it's important to you. I do encourage you to take the time to review style advice, review talk page discussions, review edits, and try to learn how WP works on your own and by looking at past edits, as well as by asking questions. You also won't go wrong by considering minor issues to be minor issues. As an aside, I almost always use the template that you prefer. The issue is that the removed one was a) 100% correct, and b) had been there for years. Again, welcome. Caro7200 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Look, I just wanted to know where this consensus is, so I've brought this discussion up on the talk page so someone can help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Track_listing:_what_qualifies_as_%22simple%22? ↗ Fundgy (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Discussion moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Track_listing:_what_qualifies_as_%22simple%22? ↗ Fundgy (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC on tracklistings and formatting

Related to the dispute at Drastic Plastic ↗ that you are involved with, there is currently an RfC on what guidance there should be for bonus and alternate tracklistings ↗. Please feel free to voice your thoughts there, as previous discussions on this issue stalled and it would be great if a consensus could at last be reached.-- 3family6 (Talk to me<nowiki>|</nowiki>See what I have done ↗) 17:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 24 June 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-06-24}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

Notice of discussion at ANI

Hello, This is to let you know that I have raised a concern regarding your conduct at the [Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents ↗). WP_KuruV Chsh1988 (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Great, I hope you can fully explain your involvement there--you have yet to do so. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 18 July 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-07-18}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

Dan Fogelberg albums

Hello, may I ask why you reverted my edits to clean up the track lists on pages dedicated to Dan Fogelberg's albums ''Exiles'' and ''The Wild Places''? And what did you mean in your edit comment saying that "3 styles are acceptable"? BadRvnemancer94 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. As I stated in the edit summary, 3 track listing styles are acceptable per Wikipedia consensus: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice ↗. You aren't cleaning up anything, because there was nothing wrong with the style to begin with--many editors prefer the numbered list. In fact, it's considered to be disruptive editing to needlessly change something that isn't incorrect and that has been in place for years. This debate has been ongoing; feel free to bring it up again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums ↗. Please be sure to read up on Wikipedia's policies. You can also visit Wikipedia:Teahouse ↗ for help with your editing. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::...Okay, thank you for simply repeating what I already read in your edit summary without actually answering my question. As far as our differing interpretations of how my edits may or may not benefit the pages mentioned, we can simply leave that up to creative differences. How about that? I'm also charmed by your incredibly rude and condescending suggestion to review Wikipedia policies. Apologies that my simple additions to these pages, as well as my question to you regarding your decision to reverse them, seem to have been such an exhausting effort in your busy, busy day. I sincerely hope you recover that lost time. BadRvnemancer94 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 9 August 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-08-09}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

''The Signpost'': 9 September 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-09-09}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

Consistent editing r. definite articles

Your recent edits to ''Country Memories ↗'' and ''Boogie Woogie Country Man ↗'' introduce a definite article in the lead sentence, leading discriminatory adjectives/adjuncts.

If you believe this is correct, and would like to be consistent, I suggest you update the following articles accordingly:

''All Killer, No Filler: The Anthology ↗'', ''Another Place, Another Time ↗'', ''Best of Jerry Lee Lewis ↗'', ''By Request: More of the Greatest Live Show on Earth ↗'', ''Class of '55: Memphis Rock & Roll Homecoming ↗'', ''Country Class ↗'', ''Country Songs for City Folks ↗'', ''The Golden Cream of the Country ↗'', ''Golden Hits of Jerry Lee Lewis ↗'', ''The Greatest Live Show on Earth ↗'', ''I Am What I Am ↗'', ''I-40 Country ↗'', ''In Loving Memories: The Jerry Lee Lewis Gospel Album ↗'', ''Jerry Lee Keeps Rockin' ↗'', ''Jerry Lee Lewis ↗'' (1958), ''Jerry Lee Lewis ↗'' (1979), ''Jerry Lee's Greatest! ↗'', ''Killer Country ↗'', ''The Killer Rocks On ↗'', ''Last Man Standing ↗'', ''Live at the International, Las Vegas ↗'', ''Live at the Star Club, Hamburg ↗'', ''Mean Old Man ↗'', ''My Fingers Do the Talkin' ↗'', ''Odd Man In ↗'', ''Original Golden Hits, Vol. 1 ↗'', ''Original Golden Hits, Vol. 2 ↗'', ''The Return of Rock ↗'', ''Rock & Roll Time ↗'', ''Rockin' Rhythm and Blues ↗'', ''The Session{{snd}}Recorded in London with Great Guest Artists ↗'', ''She Even Woke Me Up to Say Goodbye ↗'', ''She Still Comes Around ↗'', ''Sings the Country Music Hall of Fame Hits, Vol. 1 ↗'', ''Sings the Country Music Hall of Fame Hits, Vol. 2 ↗'', ''Sometimes a Memory Ain't Enough ↗'', ''Soul My Way ↗'', ''Southern Roots: Back Home to Memphis ↗'', ''A Taste of Country ↗'', ''There Must Be More to Love Than This ↗'', ''Together ↗'', ''Touching Home ↗'', ''When Two Worlds Collide ↗'', ''Who's Gonna Play This Old Piano? ↗'', ''A Whole Lotta...Jerry Lee Lewis: The Definitive Retrospective ↗'', ''Would You Take Another Chance on Me? ↗'', ''Young Blood ↗''.

Thank you from <b>Piperium</b> (chit-chat, i did that ↗) at 02:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, Piperium. Please note the WP arguments for and against the use of False title ↗. Many editors use "musician", as it includes everything: songwriting, singing, playing an instrument, etc. Also, Wikipedia's readers aren't that fragile; no one is going to break down because one Jerry Lee Lewis album article--or any album article--is written in a slightly different manner than the subsequent one. Cheers and happy editing. Caro7200 (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 2 October 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-10-02}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

''The Signpost'': 20 October 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-10-20}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

''The Signpost'': 10 November 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-11-10}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC) </div></div>


I know your kinda of retried from wikipedia now, and I know having said that, this may be a dumb question, but have you thought of making any other wiki articles of Sweet Honey in the Rock albums or any of the current/former members that don't have a wiki articles yet? (even though yes I know must of them no one really knows about) but it's just a thought. AmaMcG (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

''The Signpost'': 1 December 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-12-01}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

FYI

You could have just summarized the quote yourself instead of leaving an aggressive edit summary :) I attributed the quote properly, quit acting like I plagerized. Lofi Gurl (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

:I didn't take that quote from the Critical Reception section. I got it from a book. Also, I don't recall a single other time you've talked to me about this. Please pay attention to what you're doing instead of just mindlessly refeshing your watchlist looking for things to complain about. Lofi Gurl (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
::And if nothing else, this project is a work in progress. I don't see anybody else around here volunteering their time to expand underground rock articles. That's just the results you get for free labor haha. No hard feelings. My initial message was needlessly snarky. Have a nice day. Lofi Gurl (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 17 December 2025

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-12-17}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC) </div></div>

Stop edit warring: wp:3RR ↗ at A Kiss in the Dreamhouse ↗

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please ''stop editing the page'' and use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ such as a third opinion ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection ↗ while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

'''If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing ↗ Wikipedia'''—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 do not violate the three-revert rule'''— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.

4th revert on the same material by you over several months https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Caro7200/0/A_Kiss_in_the_Dreamhouse ↗ As mentioned before and I am the 2nd to say this, a 2 line text is not a proper album review as such, it is not suitable for the Review Scores box. wp:3RR ↗

You have to stop this edit war, otherwise you might be blocked. Iennes (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

:Hello. Sorry, you're incorrect. The ratings box is for all ratings from reliable sources that have corresponding prose (review, album guide, bio entry, etc.), not simply grade lists--hence the name. To argue otherwise would be to remove tens of thousands of citations from thousands of album articles. If you need help with your editing, visit Wikipedia:Teahouse ↗. If you persist with your edit warring and disruptive editing, you may draw the attention of an admin. Please let me know if I can clear up any more confusion; I will also start a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums ↗. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
::The excerpt of the text about the band that mentions the album ''A Kiss in the Dreamhouse'' is duly reproduced in the critical reception. But the review scores is for Album reviews. Stop the edit warring. Iennes (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 15 January 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-01-15}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

''The Signpost'': 29 January 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-01-29}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

A barnstar for you!

{| style="border: 1px solid purple; background-color: beige;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|100px ↗|100px ↗}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Music Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid purple;" | Keep up the good work! <b><span style="color:black;">Red</span><span style="color:red;">Shell</span><span style="color:black;">Momentum</span></b> 02:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
|}

Redid undid revision

Hey just wanted to let you know that I brought back my revisions on Rusty ↗ with sources, so if you see that revision is back I fixed the problems with it : ) <small class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by DirectorMemes (talk • contribs ↗) 06:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)</small>

''The Signpost'': 17 February 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-02-17}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

''The Signpost'': 10 March 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-03-10}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

Reverting Genre Updates

Your recent reversions of several of my minor updates to the genre line of several albums are questionable on Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary ↗ grounds, which states "Do not revert a change simply because you find it 'unnecessary'." Additionally, Wikipedia:Reverting ↗ also has a Revert only when necessary ↗ section, and Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content ↗ also lists several steps that may violate policy, including "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it 'unnecessary' without claiming that the change is detrimental."

Infobox Album - Notes ↗ says: "(1) For multiple entries, format the items as a normal bulleted list" and "(3) For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists, format the items as a normal bulleted list." I don't disagree that "commas are acceptable per WP consensus" as you stated in your comments of the reversions. However, I do disagree that my changes, which are listed as the preferred method, need to be reverted - and most certainly aren't "detrimental" enough to bypass anything more than you personally finding the edit "unnecessary". Yawetag (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, welcome to WP. I see that you aren't new, but you seem to have come back to edit in this very specific manner, which, as you acknowledge, isn't necessary since commas are completely acceptable. Why does this matter to you and why do you consider it to be important to change things that have been in place for years? WP also advises to not unnecessarily make changes simply for the sake of change, while also undoing years of the status quo. I will refrain from reverting for most articles in the future, but I also urge you to engage in more important editing. You may check out Wikipedia:Teahouse ↗ for help. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for the cordial response.
::I'm doing some research on the Billboard 200 Albums history. As I'm going through the articles, it's easier for the genre line to be standardized for my work, so thought I would help by bringing these articles more in-line with the infobox standards while doing my work. It's a small thing and one that may make it easier for others down the line.
::I'll admit I'm not nearly as versed in WP policies as you most likely are, but I did do some research before starting my minor edits. WP makes it clear that making small changes is sufficient for an edit, such as WP:IMPERFECT ↗: "Another may help standardize the article's formatting..." This left the impression to me that standardizing an article to better align with formatting guidelines was acceptable and even encouraged, even when the change is overall a minor change.
::As you say, I'm definitely not making "important [edits]", but that doesn't mean they're incorrect or necessary for being reverted. I saw them as a small change (and why I try and mark them all as "minor") that makes the article just a little bit more correct than they were before.
::Thank you again for your response. Happy editing! Yawetag (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
::I see you're back at it. The best I can tell, there is no reason to revert my minor edits to the genre tags. If you continue to do so, I will escalate to administrators for possible edit warring: WP:AN3 ↗. Yawetag (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Completely agree--we will be involving admins. You KNOW there is nothing wrong with commas. Why, in turn, haven't you moved on to more productive editing? Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 31 March 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-03-31}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

Randy Crawford

Hi. I see that you reverted my edit of the track listing formatting for ''Abstract Emotions ↗''. While my “upgrade” was perhaps a bit pedantic and I don't always get it right on first go (it is rather laborious) I just feel that type of formatting looks more professional, and is what most good Wikipedia album articles use. I've used this formatting on many articles over the years and no one has reverted or commented on those edits before.

If you reverted it for consistency reasons, in previous years I’ve created two other Randy Crawford album articles using the same “upgraded” track listing formatting and was actually planning on doing the same for her other albums to try and bring them up to a better standard, with some of them being rather neglected - the track listing for the following album ''Rich and Poor ↗'' isn't consistent with the other albums and looks horrendous! Geach (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

:I agree that the project should use a single style, and choose the most popular one. I myself use the most popular one, unless the album is from, roughly, the early 1980s or before. But consensus has gone against that, and three styles remain acceptable. I'm not sure "consistency" is a valid reason--WP's readers aren't little morons. You've kind of answered your own query, in that changing styles isn't an "upgrade" due to the project's style advice. I think changing the style is disruptive and unnecessary unless the credits are truly excessive, but I won't revert again if you change this one. If you want to bring it up again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums ↗, I'd support your position. The editors who want to keep all three are a tiny minority these days, especially with Justin still gone. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::I'm not sure changing a style is "disruptive", or to whom exactly. Certainly not the reader who likely will never notice the change! I see it more as evolution of an article. I do like consistency with an artist's related articles where possible though, just to make it more pleasant for whoever is flicking through them - Randy Crawford's albums are still a bit all over the place, but maybe AI will one day come along and do it all in one go. Formatting and coding was never what I joined Wikipedia to do, it's just something I picked up over the years based on what others did - mainly on well known albums by big artists such as the Beatles, Michael Jackson or Madonna. Track listings, personnel and chart sections were very basic when I first started editing and each time a new formatting style got brought in I've tried to adapt any pages I've been editing to that style; sometimes a bit too obsessively perhaps, as I like forgotten or unloved albums and their only occasionally-viewed pages to look (almost) as good as anything by those more popular artists with high traffic! Geach (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 21 April 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-04-21}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

Reversion

Hi! At Joni Mitchell blackface controversy ↗ you've edited to change from "including "The Cat in the Black Mouse Socks", a story" to "including "The Cat in the Black Mouse Socks," a story". Doesn't this go against MOS:LQ ↗? ShadyGroupers (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. I have noticed that you {{usertalk other|often ↗|often}} edit without using an edit summary ↗. Please do your best to {{strong|always fill in the summary field}}. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to set {{Preferences|Editing|Editor|check={{int:tog-forceeditsummary}}}}. Thanks!  voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 14:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

:Voorts, minor edits are minor edits and are marked as such. Please take better care with your templated messages. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
::This ↗ was not a minor edit. Additionally, minor edits should still get an edit summary. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 14:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I disagree completely--nothing was substantially changed as the ratings are in the ratings box, and very, very few editors employ that style of sentence construction for critical reception sections. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Removing prose content is definitionally not a minor edit. Content should generally be summarized in prose. The table is meant to provide information at a glance, not to replace a proper prose summary. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 15:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Be more honest in your summaries https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moonlight_Concessions&diff=1352019209&oldid=1352018071 ↗--you know very well that you constructed that paragraph in way that differs from the vast majority of critical reception sections. I'm not going to revert but if we have this issue again at another article we will be involving an admin. Be more collegial and don't edit war over minor changes. Happy editing. Caro7200 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Please assume good faith. My edit summary laid out my reasoning; your disagreeing with it doesn't make me a liar. I also don't know that {{tq|the vast majority of critical reception sections}} omit ratings from article prose. I have written several album articles and brought them to GA and FA using that prose style. I also didn't edit war. I reverted two separate sets of edits doing different things. If you want your version reimposed, start a discussion on the talk page instead of baselessly threatening to take me to ANI. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 15:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::See also MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings templates ↗: "The bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be <em>supplemented with</em> the {{tl|Album ratings}} template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form." (emphasis added) voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 15:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Um, yes, exactly--it quite clearly doesn't ''advise'' to use both. Please be more accurate in your responses. I never threatened to take you to ANI--editors go to User:Sergecross73 all the time for dispute advice, for example. And, again, as an editor with 42,000 edits, you know that the majority of critical reception sections are not constructed that way. I think this has boomeranged on you a bit, and we both can engage in more constructive editing. This is my final comment. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::You threatened to report me to admins over a good faith edit and you're still not assuming my good faith. I assume you made your edits in good faith (as my edit summary notes). There is no reason to he hostile, dismissive, and condescending towards me. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 16:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
::@Caro7200 I use "ce" as the edit summary for minor copyedits -- it is known to mean "copyedit". (But not when deleting text.) I also mark ce edits as "minor". Typing "ce" doesn't take long and it makes things clearer. Also, I think there are stats, per editor, on percentage of edits without an edit summary. Using one is just preferred. David10244 (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
{{outdent}} You're both good editors who do good work, so I hope you both can get past this without any sort of ANI or intervention of that sort. I see both sides here. I think the changes may be slightly more than what's considered a traditional "minor edit", but it's also close enough to a minor edit that one could believe, in good faith, that it's a minor edit. And personally, while edit summaries are great,as long as they're not dishonest or malicious, it's not the end of the world if they're not there and it's relatively easy to see where the edits are going all the same... <span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span> <span style="color:teal">msg me</span> 16:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

:<s>I'm happy to discuss these issues civilly if Caro is, but I don't appreciate the lack of good faith and hostility towards me. I'm not sure what I did to deserve that. The only reason I'm continuing to harp on this is because if this is how Caro treats an experienced admin, I can't imagine how they treat less experienced editors.</s> voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 16:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Ratings boxes ↗

See this discussion. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

(Star) ratings template

RE: Jack Johnson (album) ↗: As I said before in the edit summary, the rating template page explicitly states, "Do not use [it] where the source does not use stars, because it is inaccurate and misleading." So, if MusicHound does not use stars, this would fall into such a circumstance. Are we in agreement? Can we restore the (previously) long-standing version rendering the score without said template? ~2026-28071-35 ↗ (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

:No, MusicHound (and The Source, etc.) use symbolic ratings, which should be represented as such. Please bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums ↗ if you would like more discussion. I also encourage you to sign up for an account. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
::Once had an account. In fact, the one who was responsible for most of the aforementioned article. I neither have the power or the will to get as involved as I once was. But, sounds like those who do should develop a consensus and have the template documentation page updated accordingly. That aside, don't need an account to read what's in plain English. Maybe do need one to reinforce what's already in plain English. Maybe why I stopped having one... yeah, cheers. ~2026-28071-35 ↗ (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Super. If you're User talk:Teflon Peter Christ, you should probably edit under that account. If you think it's confusing that numbers are numbers, grades are grades, and symbols are symbols, you can start a discussion or boldly modify the guidance language. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Numerical figures are symbols, lol. ~2026-34678-66 ↗ (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Christ is dead. I'm just an ordinary citizen now. ~2026-34678-66 ↗ (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Category order

It's only a minor issue as the order of categories isn't exactly the most important of things, but regarding your alphabetical categories edit on ''Doctor Adamski's Musical Pharmacy ↗'' I've just re-checked about 10 big-artist, big-album articles and they all have the year of release category and any numbered category first before then going alphabetical; I'd thought that numbers usually came before letters. I can't find what the written consensus is though - and to be honest I'm not *that* bothered. Geach (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

:It's this: Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization ↗. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
::So alphabetical is indeed correct, though alphanumerical ordering would usually put the numbers (years in this case) first in lists, as is the case with all the album articles I've checked. Either this or someone needs to go through correcting them all. ;-) Geach (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
:::The page says that both alphabetical and importance are correct. The most important thing about ''Doctor Adamski's Musical Pharmacy'' is that it is an Adamski album, not that it was released in 1990. I think the point is that it's unnecessary to change from alphabetical to importance or vice versa as both are acceptable. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, but surely then it has got to be the same on every Madonna, Michael Jackson, Beatles, Nirvana etc. album - which is isn't. All of the ones I've looked at have the year of release category before the artist category. What makes Adamski more special? I ask with a smile on my face. Geach (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::What is applicable is the WP guideline. 3 track listing styles are acceptable; cats are ordered alphabetically and by importance; an editor can use commas or flatlists, etc. I'm not sure why having choices bothers you. And I guess I'm curious about why you feel the need to change one correct thing to another correct thing, even if the former has been the status quo for years. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Well, you were also pedantic enough to change it back - on an article I created several years ago and have kept an eye on ever since. And as I say, I'm not that bothered about the order of categories as most people don't even see them anymore when viewing on phones. I guess I just like consistency where possible, and a minor artist's album articles to look as tidy as possible. Both ways for categories might be "acceptable", but it seems one way is rather more popular - and that is numbers first, whether it's a major artist or a rather more minor one. I'm certainly not going to go around specifically changing any others, unless the whole section is out of any decent order; it was only really something I was doing yesterday when adding a missing category to several articles. Geach (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Geach, as you can see in the history, the last time I edited the article the cats went year, label, artist--neither alphabetical nor by importance. I feel like this is a repeat of our track listing discussion, where you also seemed annoyed that WP consensus allows for different ways of doing things. I'm not sure what more there is to say aside from reiterating that you should start a discussion on a project talk page if this stuff really annoys you (again, I'm fine with WP ''consensus'' allowing for only one track listing style, as the constant "updating" has run amok). Cheers and take care. Caro7200 (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not "annoyed", I just like clarity and uniformity in articles so I/we can (try and) bring lesser-viewed or less-important articles up to a decent standard. I'm sure that's what we all want, though some of us will focus on different aspects of editing. The categories FAQ you linked to even said "this, like most ordering issues in Wikipedia, is a matter for judgment", and the judgement on the whole appears to point to most editors putting the year of the album category first, before artist. Unless they're all wrong... But I'm not going to go around deliberately rearranging anything as a) it's not all set in stone and b) category order is certainly not my first priority! Geach (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election

<section begin="announcement-content" />
I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ↗. You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta ↗, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) ↗ (talk ↗)<section end="announcement-content" />

Keegan (WMF) ↗ (talk ↗) 16:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 22 May 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-05-22}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

thanks

thanks, I didn't spot that those were alphabetical! Morwen (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I've now done some changes to the sandbox version of the module (Module:Music ratings/sandbox ↗) which add a new sort=yes so as to spare us all this bother, have a look here: Template:Music ratings/testcases ↗, at the "Ordering" tests in particular. Have solicited feedback here ↗.

p.s. notice you changed my NME from a <nowiki>{{cite news}}</nowiki> to a <nowiki>{{cite magazine}}</nowiki> - do you think there's an identifiable point where it became a magazine? i'd say it still feels pretty newspapery in the issues I've got hold of - newsprint and tabloid format for one thing. Morwen (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, I know ''NME'' and ''Melody Maker'' were often considered papers in the 1970s and early 1980s--especially in GB, of course. The WP articles refer to them as magazines, as do most of the citations, and I think due to publishing changes they most resemble magazines. I agree, I thought ''NME'' was mostly numbers-based, but sources change their ratings formats all the time. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::Well the usage in the NME ↗ article is mixed, it calls it a paper as late as "1999". {{tqq|From the issue of 21 March 1999, the paper was no longer printed on newsprint, and more recently, it has shifted to tabloid size with glossy colour covers.}}. Morwen (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::(Personally, by the way, I would have said that the reformat in 2002 is where it shifted.) Morwen (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 21 June 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-06-21}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC) </div></div>

Life Is... Too Short

After one anonymous editor left a personal attack on the Talk:Life Is... Too Short ↗ talk page, I've finally replied to your last comment about the accuracy of the album's release date. Lack of evidence or otherwise when I looked up the album under the date of 1988 at newspapers.com indicates the album was never released that year or never was released separately from two labels. Feel free to check my reply. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:It's unfortunate that you've started edit warring again. You can, of course, be blocked for that. You, again, are ignoring the many reliable sources that point to an alternative release date. I am going to look into this over the next few days. Depending on what I find, we may need to involve an admin. I think you want to edit productively, but ignoring many reliable sources for your preferred version is the opposite of that. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

::Until any real evidence (besides the sources you provided a while ago) supporting accuracy of the 1988 release date, or whether or not Dangerous Records released it first and then Jive re-released it, is found, I say let's leave it alone for now. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Imitation section headings

Your recent edit of "Dreamland (Aztec Camera album) ↗" changed standard section headings to an imitation using bold, e.g. <code><nowiki>===Musicians===</nowiki></code> to <code><nowiki>'''Musicians'''</nowiki></code>. The edit summary, i.e. "Personnel: not enlarged", seems to imply that there is a minimum size for a section, but there are sections, e.g "External links" with only a single bullet point. Also MOS:NOBOLD ↗ implies the imitation headings should not be in bold. I would appreciate an explanation. Maidenhair (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

:Sure, many editors think that the enlarged subsections are unnecessary for personnel lists because they aren't separating large paragraphs of prose. See ''Exile on Main St. ↗'' for an example of a heavily-watched and edited article. Other editors use a ; instead of ===, which also does not make the size so comically large. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)