Talk:Left at London

Presentation of discography
So because me and a certain individual who continues to edit using various IPs can’t seem to agree, I’d like to open up this forum to wider discussion. I feel that the way the data is presented in a table is easier to read and allows for more information to be presented in a more accurate way. The other person (who is hard to tag since they use various IPs) believes that it would best presented in a list. I’d like to open this up for a third party opinion, (though I’ll admit it may be hard if this person decides to use more sock puppet IPs) so we can stop this pointless and annoying edit war.Gagaluv1 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Gagaluv1 keeps adding unsourced content to this article, which is part of the reason why I have to revert his/her edits (User talk:Gagaluv1).
 * I don't think a table is the best choice in this case. None of Left at London's work has appeared on any notable record chart. There is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns. A table makes the article harder for other Wikipedians, especially newcomers, to edit. When compared with a table, wikimarkup is more flexible, easier to use, and less arcane when used correctly for desktop publishing layout, page elements, and page orientation and positioning. However, if Left at London's work appears on a notable record chart, I won't object to using a table. Until then, a list is best left as a list. 123.225.131.115 (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, all of the content I've been adding is correct. It would be annoying to source every single format. Also, I don't think tables are that hard to edit, if newcomers want to edit them they can learn to like we all have. All tables are set up the same way. Having tables makes the article more professional and allows for more information to be presented. Yes, a list can have information like record label, release date, and format; but doing so would make the list crowded and actually more difficult to read. Tables are standard across the entire website and people are accustomed to reading discographies of artists that way. Also, Left at London's career is just going to get bigger from here on out, especially with her first album coming out. We're going to have to make a table eventually, why not get ahead of the game now?Gagaluv1 (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Gagaluv1, you have repeatedly added a bunch of unsourced content to this article when you replaced lists with tables. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable. Please don't forget to add a source when you change or add content.
 * Having tables makes an article "more professional"? A list is "more difficult to read"? Do you think List of Maya Angelou works, for example, is less professional and more difficult to read? I don't think so. Tables are not necessarily standard across the entire website. Most of the times, the discography of an underground musician whose works haven't appeared in any notable record chart doesn't have tables. Release date, record label, and format are optional information. As of now, having a bulleted list is sufficient for this article's discography section. Why can't we wait until Left at London's work appears on a notable record chart? 114.178.27.34 (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Her picture
She posted a (picture) of herself on Twitter with her own Wikipedia page on it saying “My current goal is to have a picture of me wearing this shirt be my Wikipedia photo.” It was added per her request then removed because it was a copyright violation. The user has like a million edits, so I assume they know what they’re talking about. Why is it a violation? Is it because it’s on Twitter? How should it be added? Should someone who is not her take a photo of her wearing the shirt then upload it with Creative Commons license? Dabblequeen (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Heya Dabblequeen! I'm the one who removed it, and I actually replied on Twitter to explain how it could be released properly. The issue is that it was uploaded as the user's "own work" (which it wasn't, it was pretty clearly taken by the photo subject). Photos can only be released under a free license by the person who owns the copyright to them (which would in this case be Puff), and so someone trying to do so on her behalf is unfortunately a copyright violation. There's a pretty straightforward process for donating an image via email, explained at Donating copyrighted materials, so hopefully she will do that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I see! Thanks for replying! That makes a lot of sense. I know copyright law is incredibly complicated and doesn’t always make a whole lot of sense, but I understand how this would protect somebody. Thank you for your quick response!! Dabblequeen (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021
Add a picture of miss Puff. The picture that should be added can be found on her Instagram, @leftatlondon. The picture that should be added is the photo of her with her wiki article on her shirt. If you view this photo, you will see the caption reads, "My current goal is to have a picture of me wearing this shirt as my Wikipedia photo." Adding this photo to her Wikipedia page would fulfill her goal, and be hilarious. Thank you, Clownbagger Clownbagger (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We can't use pictures under copyright. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)