I saw your suggestion to me on the Super Magick page to add citations to info, which is fine. I don’t usually see citations in infoboxes, so I left them out. As there are only two citations on the page, I think it’d be a cool move to check those references for data suspected to not be sourced rather than removing the data as unsourced or suggesting someone’s making it up.
It’s totally cool if you don’t want to do that, but I think in that case, it’s maybe more friendly to use the talk page to hash out a plan than to just remove data that you don’t want to verify in citations already present on the page.
I appreciate you taking the time to sort that out, though! Louie Mantia (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Louiemantia I was working quickly and didn't see all the info in there that you included, so that's my mistake. As for sources in infoboxes, those can be left out if the info is sourced elsewhere (i.e. the lead or body of the article), but if the infobox is the only place where it's mentioned then you should include a source for it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, don’t delete pages like Super Magick before discussing it. That’s an actual published album by a known rock band that has been producing albums for decades.
AFAIK, notability isn’t decided by you. Louie Mantia (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Louiemantia it's called being bold. I gave it a look, found next to zero coverage and none that would match up with NMUSIC's criteria, and redirected. Now that you've undone that, I will start an AfD. It's a standard process. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @QuietHere. Take a look for which one you prefer at the "Release history" table: "Distributor", "Licensee", "Marketer" or "Promoter". 183.171.122.169 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. So I've been thinking about the nomination for Category:American men centenarians and I realize you are right about diffusing it. For that reason I've withdrawn my nomination. I wanted to ask if you're willing to help out on the matter and expand this particular tree beyond just "American men centenarians". We can start by populating this category and making an American women's category as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @QuietHere! I'm currently working on a draft for Jasper Marsalis and I've clocked you as the creator and primary contributor to the article surrounding his 2023 album Excelsior. Would you be interested in taking a look at what I've got so far (which, at the time of my writing this, is not much) and potentially contributing to this draft? There seems to be a lot of content about him online - definitely enough to warrant an article.
Also - you have great music taste! I've been tapped in for quite a while, and I've always wondered why Jasper didn't have a standalone article or really any significant mention on Wikipedia until recently. His content, in my opinion, is too interesting and genre-bending not to write about. Joeyquism (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeyquism looks good so far. If I get a chance, I may skim through sources and see what's useful, but it seems like you've got a good handle on it. And yeah, I've suspected for a while that he should have his own article here, but just never dug into it.
Funnily, I actually haven't listened to Excelsior and I'm not exactly a Slauson Malone fan. I believe I've heard a bit of A Quiet Farwell, but not the whole thing, and that's it that I can remember. If I remember correctly, I made the Excelsior article because a friend who is a big Slauson fan was wondering why there wasn't one. I probably should check his stuff out at some point given how highly he's spoken of. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! I greatly appreciate it, even if it's brief. Of course, you're not obligated to contribute, but you are definitely invited to do so nonetheless.
Also, I'd highly suggest checking his stuff out! It can be a bit sonically grating at times, but it's definitely worth a listen. He's got some very interesting spins on hip-hop and jazz on his solo work - nothing that I can say that I've heard anywhere else. Joeyquism (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's certain something. Just gonna put these sources here [1][2][3] so I remember to come back to them later when this lifts. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained that six out of 16 songs were written by four members, but some of and not the most. For example, Mark Taylor and Paul Barry wrote four out of ten songs for Cher's album Believe. 183.171.120.43 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as I explained in my undo, it doesn't matter whether it was the most credits (though it is still the plurality by several tracks), just that it was a lot of text and an easy way to reduce the amount of text on screen. If it being the majority were required, {{Track listing}} would say so, but it doesn't. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mid Air (Romy album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tbhotch -- Tbhotch (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JhowieNitnek Unless the name is an acronym, which it does not appear to be from what I can see (the page you linked certainly doesn't say so), MOS:TITLECAPS applies. I will not be undoing my page move, and I would request that you undo your most recent edit. If you really think you have a case then take it to requested moves, and if you do so please notify me of the discussion so that I may contribute. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a acronym but it is written in all-caps. All-caps is not something reserved only for acronyms... Jhowie_Nitnek (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JhowieNitnek on Wikipedia it is. That's why I linked MOS:TMSTYLE for my move reason; as it says, you can leave a note at the top of the article that says "stylized in all caps", but the rest of the article must follow capitalization standards for titles of works, as should any mention in any other article. There are certain exceptions, but I see no reason why this should be one of them. Again, you can argue your case at requested moves, but you won't be changing my mind. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JhowieNitnek in case you haven't seen yet, just letting you know that I undid your edit and added a "stylised in all caps" note to the lead. I hope you are satisfied with this conclusion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tbhotch -- Tbhotch (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
