SNUGGUMS is busy with various other websites as well as work and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
This is SNUGGUMS's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
My talk page. Leave me messages here. Post new threads at the bottom of the page. I can also be contacted through email.
AI tool?!
Hello, I'd like to recount a moment from when you gave me advice on how to be a better editor. Turns out the user that kept reverting my edits back and forth on Angels Landing (Los Angeles) was using an AI tool, and another user reverted their edits back. This led to me reporting the user. Sorry for not using Wikipedia:Teahouse to get help. Sparkbean (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'll not revert your edit[1], but that the articles get activity, does not in any way mean that the "project" is not defunct. There has been no project activity in years. Fram (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very weird definition of what a project is. If I edit any pages tagged as in the scope of project X, I don't suddenly become a member of project X nor does it mean that project X is active. Project activity is members discussing things on the talk page, coordinating activities, deciding on things like a MOS or an infobox, working together through the project to get FAs or FPs, and so on. Fram (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that editing certain things automatically makes one a project member, just that it's not like goals for improving pages have been completely abandoned. I personally have been meaning to clean up some of the messes they have, and might at some point go for a GA nomination afterwards. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
113.210.105.123 (talk) has given you a cup of tea, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi SNUGGUMS! Back in 2016, you provided a peer review on the Cher article that was incredibly insightful and helped shape it into what it is today. Since you were involved in its development, I wanted to see if you'd be interested in taking another look—this time at its Featured Article Candidate page. We're close to meeting the requirements for promotion, but the nomination is at risk of archival because we need at least one more comprehensive review. If you have the time, your input would be really valuable. Thanks for considering it! Cherfc (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Any feedback will be greatly appreciated, regardless of whether it's in support of the nomination or observations that help make it better Cherfc (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article! I've made the updates based on your feedback. Let me know what you think and if there's anything else that needs tweaking. Happy to make more adjustments if needed! Cherfc (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mean (song) GAN
Hi SNUGGUMS. I've been recently expanding the Mean (song) article and just nominated it for GAN. I'm also considering nominating it at FAC soon if the GAN goes well. Just wanted to see if you would be interested in reviewing the GAN since you were the GAR nominator in 2015. I've been inspired by your thorough reviews and I think it would be a great full-circle moment :)) Medxvo (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to decline when it feels awkward to review a nomination for something I previously delisted, though nevertheless I still appreciate the sentiment and wish you luck. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important -- and personal -- topic for me, so I figured I'd take the time to let you know why I made that change.
Research shows that the way we talk about suicide has real effects on the stigma surrounding getting help. I hope it's okay I restored that version, and am happy to discuss further, or answer any questions.
Do you even care how redundant that phrasing sounds when suicide means intentionally killing oneself, Delectopierre? It's not the best grammar either way and reads awkwardly. There also was no stigma attached to what I used and the same would go for the perfectly fine "committed suicide" phrasing when they're just matter-of-fact ways to show people killed themselves. Before you try to use any cop-outs to avoid the latter, it's an oversimplification to suggest the use of "commit" indicates a crime when the term is also used for things like "committed to a goal" and "in a committed relationship". I know this from personal experience when I sadly once lost a friend to suicide (no not via this bridge) and nobody we knew has tried to refrain from saying "commit" when discussing the matter. Yes, the ordeal was tragic for those who knew that person, and conversations about what happened have always been respectful. With that said, people specifically going out of their way to use the "dying" part instead of "commit" with no concern for repetitiveness are above all else doing so because of a personal dislike for certain wording. It's misguided even when well-intentioned. We're not supposed to sugarcoat matters or use euphemistic language per MOS:EUPHEMISM in attempts to be politically correct. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to argue, and don't feel safe discussing this with you any longer. Do whatever you like. I guess my assumption that someone with a kindness project user box would have responded with kindness was wrong. Delectopierre (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If my response came off as unkind, then I apologize; that definitely wasn't the intent. I just don't think it's beneficial to use euphemisms or disregard proper grammar. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Eat Me" just might barely meet the threshold, but either way "Happy Ending" doesn't cut it. Album reviews aren't enough to merit a song page unfortunately, and only one source outside of those gives the latter much depth, so I would redirect to the album page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It actually isn't outright prohibited to do so in the way that you're suggesting, Meters. A key detail included there is The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, and let's not pretend that a subject's own kids aren't an important part of that person's life. Pages frankly look incomplete to not give such names when publicly known unless someone specifically tries to hide these details (which I've rarely seen happen). Whether you happen to like such inclusions or not, we shouldn't blindly assume that it always is bad to have such mentions, especially when one publicly talks about their children and who they are. I'd be more worried about unsourced or poorly sourced naming. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not prohibited, but just because it may be done not mean it should be. The full quote is "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject."
You restored the name of 13-year old, added by a now-blocked IP, and added the name of a 10-year old. Where's the discussion establishing that there's consensus that the names of these non-notable young children are "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" for this article? Meters (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And please stop making assumptions about what I think. I'm simply following WP:BLPNAME. Your above comment and your edit summary suggesting that the real reason for my removal was that I simply dislike seeing such information were inappropriate. Don't do that again. Meters (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IP didn't exactly appear to be malicious with that particular edit. Any concerns about privacy are rendered moot either way here when the former had a family rep's confirmation and the latter publicly got congratulatory wishes upon birth. They otherwise wouldn't have been disclosed to anybody outside of family or friends. On another note, I've seen various other people wrongfully treat BLPNAME as a complete restriction against such naming and ignore how there are times when it's allowed with adequate sourcing. Such a practice is oversimplified and unnecessarily limiting. There doesn't necessarily have to be discussions on article talk pages for whether to include those details. When somebody doesn't go out of their way to conceal their kids' identities, noting who they are helps show they're not being withheld from the public, and yes it IS a relevant detail as parenthood is by all means a big deal for someone. With that said, your removal was not as beneficial as you seen to think even when well-intentioned, and I'm glad you at least acknowledge that naming them isn't forbidden. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katy Perry UK single sales
Hey there! Hope you're doing well. I just want to consult you if it is okay to add the UK single sales figures from the source below in Katy Perry's discography page. The sales figures in the source are called "chart units" and I am wondering if we can add them in her discography page. Personally, I oppose this since chart units include stream-equivalent sales, but I've seen numerous discography pages that include chart units published by the Official Charts Company and consider them as sales figures.
It's understandable to feel conflicted over this, 143kittypurry. The "units" part makes me suspect that streams were combined with pure sales. If you've got nothing better, then this could do in a pinch, but either way the ideal thing to use would be something that unambiguously just focuses on physical and digital copies sold. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes me confused too because in recent years, OCC and Music Week have been publishing sales figures as "chart units" or "chart sales", and it is quite hard to determine if these are pure sales or combined with streams. Sometimes they would publish the exact pure sales (digital and physical), but most of the time they would just give the figures as "chart units" or "chart sales". I recently encountered the same problem in Ariana Grande discography wherein there was a user insisting that these "units" equate to Ariana's albums and songs actual sales. I know that there is a Wiki policy that only pure sales can be considered and reported as the actual sales figures of any record. 143kittypurry (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether any of their authors are willing to respond to questions on actual copies that something sells. I regardless do wish we more often got such numbers, even for pieces that also give stream-based totals. Before the latter started being accounted for, it was much easier to determine the former. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your insights regarding this concern. Thank you so much. I will stick to whatever data we have for Katy's pure sales, despite some of it being eight to ten years old. By the way, I am in the process of contacting chart authors and professionals to see if they can help us fill the gaps in her discography page, specifically these pure sales. 143kittypurry (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just received the sales figures for some Katy Perry singles in France from the authors of InfoDisc.fr. They sent the data via email, and I took a screenshot of it and uploaded it to Imgur. I went ahead and added these sales figures to Katy’s discography. Is that alright? Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks, and have a great day! :) 143kittypurry (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That looks sufficient to me when you rightfully remembered to show who the email came from without inappropriately exposing personal addresses. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! InfoDisc.fr's contact email that was used in sending the sales data is publicly available on their website, so anyone can contact them. However, they haven't been very active in recent years, so I had to find their personal emails to inquire about this matter. Additionally, I would like to know if we can still include sales figures that are less than a thousand, such as "365" with 850 sales. 143kittypurry (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's credibly backed up (and yes I do see that figure listed in the screenshot), I personally don't believe there's any issue with such inclusions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, "365" had lots of higher chartings outside of France (including some top 20s and even a couple top spots), so calling that an overall "flop" is quite misleading even when it had a low performance in that specific nation. Regardless, I can't think of any particular sales threshold to add for discography articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just kidding. Lol. Anyway, I am still negotiating with other chart authors and professionals for any sales data they can provide. I will keep you posted for any updates. Thank you and stay safe. :) 143kittypurry (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I hope you're doing well. I would like to ask whether we can include the ARIA chart peaks for some Katy Perry singles in their respective Wiki articles. Some of these singles charted beyond the top 200, and Wiki typically does not allow this information to be included on an artist's discography page. However, I would like to know if these chart peaks can be mentioned in the individual Wiki articles for these songs. Thank you very much for your response!
As far as I can tell, WP:OVER200 applies for all pages, so any peaks lower than 200 shouldn't be listed anywhere at all even when it can be verified. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheWikiholic is correct in saying we shouldn't use figures that include streaming equivalent units, so you were mistaken to add the 213M units. It also is very inappropriate to condescend others by accusing them of having delusions as you did here per WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. Please don't say things like that again regardless of who's right or wrong. On the other hand, you were completely justified in reverting the "space tourist" additions when one trip to outer space is definitely not by itself enough to warrant a mention in the lead sentence. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Note: I refer to arguments you made in the RfD nomination of LoveDrug as an example of the confusion (but pass no judgment on whether you were correct or not, as I think there is genuine ambiguity). FlipandFlopped ツ17:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of hypocorism: "Hypocorism refers to a name, often a nickname or diminutive, used to express affection or familiarity"
Per MOS:HYPOCORISM: "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name."Stadt64 (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term "given name" is another way of saying "first name", Stadt64. You therefore DID misuse the page whether you admit it or not. Furthermore, the page you linked actually isn't a complete restriction against all nicknames, and shouldn't be treated as such. That especially goes for things not commonly derived from a first name. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it isn't, and I never said it was. However, it clearly says it is not necessary. Wether that be a diminutive or abbreviation. Fegie, I will admit, get's a pass on this one, but this rule was institued for a reason. Know that. Stadt64 (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if whoever came up with the idea of MOS:HYPOCORISM was trying to impose their personal preference to omit nicknames they simply didn't like seeing in articles. Either way, your "do not allow" remark came off as overly limiting, particularly when it's fine to have nicknames that aren't from somebody's own initials or anything that's frequently taken from a formal first name. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given either your previous participation in a topic discussion, or your ongoing editing on music-related articles, I am inviting you to two discussion topics: topic one and two (stemmed from topic one). Your participation would be appreciated. livelikemusic(TALK!)00:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SNUGGUMS. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Martha Young Truman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Mother of a US president is a credible claim of importance. Use WP:AFD. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Being related to a notable person is not grounds for automatic notability. But WP:A7 is not about notability. It is specifically a lower bar than notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance provides more detail on it, and in particular, the two-part test section is relevant. A: Is the claim that Martha Young Truman the mother of Harry Truman plausible? Obviously the answer is "yes". B: Could the claim plausibly lead not notability? For me, the answer is "yes". There certainly is interest around the relatives of presidents which could lead to coverage about the person. Does that coverage exist? I don't know, but what id does mean is that this needs to go through a discussion, and not just be deleted based on the opinion of one editor and one administrator. Note that in this case, there are also potential alternatives to deletion. Redirecting or merging may be something that would be acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I debated putting up a PROD before choosing CSD, but if someone had the linked page in mind when reviewing the notice, then perhaps they'd also suggest AFD instead. As for merging, I'm not sure how much content would be worth adding to Harry's page that isn't already there. TDB on whether anybody would opt to redirect instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding Dworin statement. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Michael Jackson".The discussion is about the topic Topic.
Hi SNUGGUMS, hope you're having a nice day/night! I'm writing here, because I noticed your question in this edit in the Hot n Cold article. I'm not sure what your question is exactly about, as I personally would question why and on what basis people behind credits sometimes have to specify who is the (main) producer, co-producer, additional producer, etc., but we must refer to them as they're actually listed in the credits. That's why when I was editing article about Hot n Cold, I was inspired to write in the article's text explicitly about benny blanco's involvment in this song, similar to what was already mentioned in the article about I Kissed a Girl. This also includes removing his name from the infobox; on the infobox song template page, you can read: Enter the name of the person(s) credited as the actual record producer(s). Do not include those listed as executive, co-, additional, vocal, etc., producers, unless a reliable source identifies their contribution as substantially the same as the main producers. (I don't know if his contribution could be considered as important as Dr. Luke's, but I don't recall noticing this exception in any other article). If that isn't the case, I don't know what is, but I felt the need to write to you since my edits prompted you to ask this question, so I want to clarify. Danionek (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I simply didn't understand how having "co-", "additional", or "executive" makes any difference in whether one is a producer, Danionek. Chances are Hermes Conrad from Futuramawouldn't see the lattermost as distinctive when discussing different titles :P. In all seriousness, when they all do some type of production work, it felt arbitrary to single out separate types. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, so I guess we're on the same page! :D There are a lot of things about the industry (mainly music, because this one interests me most, but this thing is everywhere) I still don't understand because they seem so absurd and weird I don't know why anyone complicates things so much. I honestly don't know if those working on the song or some separate people responsible for listing the credits do some math like, say, a certain person produced a song 55%, so they get credit as producer, someone else produced 32.5%, so they get credit as co-producer, and yet another produced 12.5%, so they get credit as additional producer. Seriously, who cares about that??? But hey, some people will do anything to feel more sophisticated, like Dwight Schrute from The Office, who always leaves out the all-important to the in his title :P (Good one with Futurama! I've never seen it, but it made me laugh! :D). But unfortunately, we on Wikipedia have to deal with their preferences I guess? Danionek (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that chuckle with Dwight! I do think it would be make things easier to just call people "producers" when they do any production work at all for a song, or at the very least establish some straightforward criteria for what constitutes "executive" or "additional" or "co-" (assuming these indicate they aren't primary producers in the way your percentage example seems to suggest). My confusion was over these ambiguities instead of you doing your best to follow policies/guidelines on the matter. Come to think of it, I can't name any Wikipedian who could give any definitive clarifications for us here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. You know, I've removed benny blanco's name from the infoboxes, because that's the current policy, but that makes it seem like Dr. Luke is literally the only person responsible for producing Hot N Cold and I Kissed A Girl. Yet, the article's text states benny also contributed to the production (though it also needs to be specifically – and sometimes awkwardly – identified as additional); all of this can be confusing, especially for those who simply don't understand music industry or how strangely song credits can sometimes be. I'd think the same if I weren't editing Wikipedia and were just a reader. If we're going to list producers, let's just list literally everyone; that wouldn't mean I'd have to force the infobox to mention engineers of different kinds working on the song to make it sound like a song. :P By the way, I don't know if our discussion caused this, but I was just thinking yesterday how strange it's the infobox album template prohibits including executive producers, since they're probably the most important people working on an album, because after all, they determine what the final product looks and sounds like. Many people think the album's performer is theoretically such an executive producer and releases whatever they want, but that turns out to be untrue, because sometimes a completely different person in the business can have a greater influence on the record (not to mention that it isn't uncommon to hear the musician express dissatisfaction about sometimes having little or no influence over their music). Danionek (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Just a friendly chat re. this edit. This is not an official MOS whatsoever, but WP:RESPECTIVELY discusses the overuse of this word (an idea corroborated by The Elements of Style, which I find pretty useful in editing not only Wikipedia but also my papers). For example: The song charted at numbers 2 and 12 in Canada and the US, respectively omitting that word does not impact the meaning nor presentation. Ippantekina (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That book and the linked essay are definitely not things I had come across before. Nevertheless, I do see what you're getting at with how the meaning isn't changed just by leaving out a single word for the provided sample. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katy Perry certifications
Hi! I need some guidance on a situation I'm dealing with regarding certifications for various Katy Perry albums. I just received an email from Universal Music Switzerland stating that the albums "One of the Boys," "Teenage Dream," and "Prism" are now certified Platinum in Switzerland. Here is the screenshot of the email: https://imgur.com/5SJ6bsf
However, there are existing certifications from IFPI Switzerland that list these albums as Gold. I'm unsure if I should update the certifications to reflect the new Platinum ones from Universal Music, or if I should keep the existing Gold certifications from IFPI Switzerland as they are.
I have a similar issue with the Brazilian certification for "Prism." There's an existing certification from Pro-Música Brasil, but I found a more recent certification from Universal Music Brasil, which says it is certified 2 x Diamond.
Depending on how recent the newer certifications are, 143kittypurry, you might just have to wait for the main publication to update those levels. If over a month has passed with no updates, then I don't see any reason to not use what's shown in that email screenshot as long as you are transparent about where they come from. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just received the summary of certifications for Switzerland. Based on your suggestion, I will wait for a month for IFPI Switzerland to update those levels. If there are no updates after that, I will proceed to update the certifications using the information issued by Universal Music Switzerland.
Regarding PRISM, it's been over several years since Pro-Música Brasil (PMB) updated its certification. Therefore, I believe that the newer certification issued by Universal Music Brasil about a year ago can now be accepted as the current certification in Brazil.
As the person who delisted it, I admittedly would feel awkward giving much input there let alone reviewing any future FAC or GAN. What you see here is all I can give for the foreseeable future. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks
Much thanks for this edit, i've never uploaded an audio file so thanks for the notice. i must have missed this when I was looking at one of the upload file pages. 750h+23:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, 750h+, and I admittedly don't even know how to upload those myself. All I previously have uploaded to Wikipedia is photos. Along with what I wrote in that edit summary on WP:SAMPLE, I do however know that 30 seconds is the most allowed for non-free samples of tracks that run for 5 minutes or longer. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katy Perry claimed sales
Hey, I need your wisdom. I am currently involved in a discussion about moving Katy Perry up the list of best-selling music artists. In the talk page, I have presented several reasons supporting my proposal, and I stand by my reasons. You can read our discussion there if you have the time. Unfortunately, there is another user who continues to revert this change.
Previously, the certifications listed for Katy were outdated, so I took the initiative to recalculate and verify those figures, ensuring they are current. Also, I did extensive research to source her sales figures, including those for her albums and singles. In the talk page, I provided a breakdown of her pure album sales worldwide and reported pure single sales from various reputable sources. Despite this, the user remains unconvinced and argues that a significant portion of her claimed sales comes from streaming.
I have explained that Katy debuted and peaked during the digital downloads era, and most of her sales occurred during that time, prior to the rise of streaming. However, this user continues to insist and now references Katy's US certifications to quantify her worldwide claimed sales, which are not directly comparable. They have not engaged with the reasons and points I've presented in the discussion and have dismissed them entirely.
I am unsure how to proceed. Should I continue to explain my perspective, or would it be wiser to let it go? I appreciate any advice you may have on this matter. Thank you, SNUGGUMS! 143kittypurry (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, 143kittypurry, streaming numbers can easily mislead people into believing pure sales to be higher than they actually are. TheWikiholic bringing those up was fully understandable. At the same time, it does help how you were able to locate individual numbers for albums and songs like that. Since I personally don't know how to calculate certified figures (which include streams) to align closest with actual copies sold when accounting for years active, I'm sorry to say that I can't tell what to go with here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just wanted to let you know, in case you'd be interested, but there's this IP user making a case regarding this article's usage of audience score, saying they're "not allowed" on Wikipedia and have been trying to use Wikipedia rules to back their point. They have been questioning the integrity of the GA status because of this and, since you were the reviewer, I thought I should let you know, just in case. I'd love to know your input on the matter. Thank you - Artmanha (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. If you're going to 'again' remove the italics from the US presidential bios' infoboxes? Would you please be consistent, with all of them? GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a questionable practice at best. Italics are supposed to be used for titles instead, and "none" definitely doesn't count as one of those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to remove'em from Madison, Jackson, Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Arthur, Cleveland, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Coolidge, Truman, L. Johnson, Nixon & Ford? Than cool. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've removed some more of these, and since it looks like you got the rest before I could do so, I believe the absence is now consistent from the infoboxes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certifications posted on social media
Hi, SNUGGUMS! I just wanted to ask this. Is there a specific rule about including certification information from credible sources posted on social media, like Instagram or Twitter? Just a while ago, one user removed One of the Boys's Brazil certification because it is sourced from Instagram. The publisher is the official account of UMG-Brazil, so I don't see any issue with that, as long as proper citations are followed. News outlets nowadays tend to mainly report certifications from major certifying bodies like the RIAA. They rarely cover certifications from less prominent countries. Thank you. 143kittypurry (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing comes to my mind for specific rules, 143kittypurry, but I might be missing something there. If posts from certifying bodies can be found, then you'd be better off using those instead of accounts affiliated with one's label or its parent corporation. It regardless has never been entirely clear why certifications and other stats for some nations don't get as much press attention as others. A portion of that could be a general bias some writers have towards/against particular markets (which brings the agenda-setting theory to mind) while other cases might be them only knowing of stats from particular places. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some official certifying bodies have become inactive in certifying foreign records, particularly in Latin countries. In Brazil, the PMB, which is the official certifying body, only certified "Prism" then they stopped updating after certifying it at the Platinum level. They haven't certified any of her other albums. UMG-Brasil, which works closely with PMB in the Brazilian music market, has certified all of Katy Perry's albums.
Regarding my other concern, I believe there isn't a specific rule against using information from Instagram or Twitter, as long as the sources are credible. All of the sources I cited for Katy's album certifications are from verified accounts of various UMG national companies. Does that make it less valid if information is only shared on social media and not reported in news articles or magazines? Would it matter if the same credible source posted it on a news site instead of social media? I don't see much difference. For example, music certifications used to be featured in news outlets like MTV or Billboard, but now they're often just posted on social media. For these minor markets that lack an active certification database, updates are primarily communicated through social media. 143kittypurry (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet appears to believe social media shouldn't be used at all for sales claims, which I think is an oversimplified stance given the observations you've accurately laid out. RachelTensions on the other hand showed more concern over the fact that you implemented something from a record company regardless of the platform used for sharing such information, which I'm guessing is because of a potential for inflating things for their affiliated artists. I do wish more certifying bodies would get publicity for their updates as we otherwise wouldn't be in as difficult of a spot for those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it better now, specifically why EMI Music's claim that Teenage Dream is the "first album to sell 50 million singles in the US" was removed. Thanks so much for your insights! I hope you're doing well and staying safe. 🫶🏼🦋 143kittypurry (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Teenage Dream. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for pinging you. You are one of the few Wikipedians I know who works on music articles. I have concerns about how that particular user maintains the discography page. I've tried to discuss it with him a few times, but he still doesn't understand the guideline. Anyway, thank you so much for responding. 143kittypurry (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might be surprised how many others also work on such pages, and certainly aren't the first to raise concerns about how Mirrored7 edits Ariana's articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted his other edit about Ariana Grande being one of the best-selling female artists in the UK because the source he used doesn't support that claim. He only cited the main page of BPI, which is the UK's certification body. Mirrored7 argued that Ariana is listed in the article about the list of best-selling female artists in the UK, thus making the claim valid. He reverted my edit multiple times with increasingly baseless reasons and even claimed that I needed his consent to make changes. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and still learning, but I know that isn't right. 143kittypurry (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but trying to delete this is likely to be controversial. We have so many clean up tasks, and so many other controversial ones. Is this a big deal, or otherwise sticking point? Is it urgent, or can it wait? Bearian (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you assuming that solely because of her husband Martin? I refuse to pretend this automatically entitles Hannah to a page. It's not like she was a First Lady (unlike daughter-in-law Angelica) or Second Lady. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katy Perry awards and nominations
Hi, SNUGGUMS! I started working on the list of awards and nominations for Katy Perry and noticed that there are a lot of missing entries, especially from the post-Witness era. Do you know any active KatyCat editors who can help me improve the article and expand its content? It also needs some cleanup and double-checking. Thank you. 🫶🦋 143kittypurry (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admittedly haven't been updating that nearly as much as I used to, 143kittypurry, partially because she in general seems to get nominated much less often for any ceremony from 2017 onwards compared to pre-2016. It also doesn't help how many who frequently worked on KP pages in the past have shifted their focus to other topics or stopped editing on Wikipedia entirely. Before anybody else, I'll ping FrB.TG for previously helping me spruce it up and it might help to ask WikiRedactor, who often can give good insight on how to improve articles. For what it's worth, I do think you already have been quite helpful with updates :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help. I noticed that you removed some unsourced entries. I understand that these entries were included without any supporting sources, so they were removed. However, some of them are valid and can be re-added once we find the appropriate sources. I will work on this to ensure they can be reinstated as soon as the sources are available. 🫶🦋 143kittypurry (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, if I had known of any adequate citations for them, then I already would've implemented those myself. Never underestimate the importance of being able to source additions even when they are accurate. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'm currently editing the article, and I've noticed that the "Awards and Nominations" table is too lengthy. Do you have any suggestions on how to break it into various sections that could be reflected in the "Contents" list on the left side of the article? Thank you, SNUGGUMS. 143kittypurry (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea you're suggesting has long since been deprecated. I can't remember exactly where, but there was consensus to just go with a large table for these types of lists on a person's awards and nominations in a similar manner to how "List of accolades received by _____" articles were done for TV shows, movies, and such. It helps reduce verbiage on specific types of awards. There was never a sheer length limit set for these tables, and you'd be hard-pressed to establish one or convince anybody to overturn the formatting decision. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I didn’t know that! Thanks for letting me know. I totally get it—it’s going to be tough to change their minds. I’ve been pouring a lot of energy into fighting (🤣) for Katy Perry’s 151 claimed sales and her UMG-certified certifications lately. My plan now is to focus on improving her awards article. I asked that because I noticed that award articles for artists like Ariana, Taylor, and Gaga are organized into different sections. Anyway, I really appreciate your response! Just a heads up, I’ll update the total wins and nominations once I finish going through the list. I want to make sure I check every award-giving body to catch any entries I might have missed. Thanks again! 143kittypurry (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Taylor has some listicles and non-conventional awards split off because they didn't have "nomination" parts before being won or given a ranking. That's less likely to face objections when not straying too far from the format decided in whichever thread changed list layouts. I somehow neglected to say before this was why Katy also had some things separated from her main table. Not sure what happened with Gaga or Ariana, but last I knew, they also consolidated general awards with nominations into a large table. Some pages I've seen in the past have dubiously tried to split "Major associations" off from others, which is arbitrary at best and creates POV issues by treating some accolades as more important than others. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for breaking it down for me. I was under the impression that the format Katy used was a bit dated, plus it doesn't include all the awards, especially the ones after Witness. It's missing a lot. 143kittypurry (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SNUGGUMS! I want to ask if we can change the repeating "Katy Perry" with just "Perry" or "herself". It looks redundant, or it is just me. Anyway, thanks for the help. Somehow, it makes the editing less overwhelming. 143kittypurry (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SNUGGUMS! I just want to ask for your help regarding the awards and nominations table. I recently added the 3D Creative Arts award for Part of Me, but I noticed the formatting got messed up. I followed the same format as before, but I can't figure out where things went awry. If you could take a moment to take a look, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you so much. 143kittypurry (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It took some trouble-shooting and many uses of the "Show Preview" feature prior to publishing my changes, but I figured out what to do and resolved it here. The problem was you mistakenly changed "14" to "15" for AMA counts plus added a couple stray "|-" markings for that and the 3D Creative Arts. You're welcome for the repair. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any trouble. I'm not very experienced with tables on Wiki, so I would always copy the format from other articles. I noticed that for the succeeding awards in the table after AMA, there's always a "|-" after the award name and an extra +1 for rowspan=" x". So, I changed the "14" to "15" for AMA. Anyway, thank you for your help! I spent nearly an hour trying to figure out what was wrong. :((( 143kittypurry (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's often difficult to form tables in general without having some errors, and I've definitely made formatting mistakes in the past. You're far from the first person to do something like this and certainly won't be the last. I hold no resentment over that when you clearly were editing it in good faith. Going forward, one recommendation I will give now is to test out "Show preview" before you publish edits on things like that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason for reverting my edit was: "That makes text look messier in edit mode, and I see no useful purpose for the change when it makes no noticeable difference outside of edit mode", but I would like to give you some additional information that you might not have known about.
The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space, hyphen, or en dash; in such cases, {{snd}} between them will provide the proper formatting.
July 23, 1790 – December 1, 1791 (not July 23, 1790–December 1, 1791)
How exactly does that setup differ from simply using (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) or (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882), Shelkovitsa? I must be missing something here because I still cannot find any visual distinction. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's purely for formatting, such as to prevent dashes on new lines.
For example,
On mobile devices (such as my own), it may display as:
Nelson Aldrich "Rocky" Rockefeller (July 8, 1908 – January 26, 1979) was the 41st vice president of the United States, [...]
Nelson Aldrich "Rocky" Rockefeller (July 8, 1908 – January 26, 1979) was the 41st vice president of the United States, [...]
I would consider those making a visual difference outside of edit mode.
In any case, it's mentioned in the Manual of Style, and that's what we're supposed to follow like a holy book.
Ideally, an en dash should be preceded by a non-breaking space; this prevents the dash from appearing at the beginning of a line. The {{snd}} template may be used for this:
Another "planet" was detected{{snd}}but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.
It may look messy in the code and it may not look like anything at all to some users, but it's been mentioned in at least 3 places in the MoS, so it's not really up to us, y'know? 😅
