Talk:Turn Off the Light (mixtape)

Compilation?
What makes this a compilation and not a studio album? Any opinions on this? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I have reverted it.  Ss  112   19:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, marking as resolved. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you really need to revert me here? I added the commented-out message and you revert me to restore a message I added? What the actual. Manually restore it next time, don't revert for no damn reason.  Ss  112   20:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude. Don't archive conversations that you're involved in.  Ss  112   20:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that a rule? If so, I had no idea. I was just archiving because the concern was addressed. The discussion is still archived here, by the way... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging you to query: Isn't there a guideline against marking conversations as "resolved"/archiving them when one is involved in them? Isn't there a guideline that explicitly says not to do this?  Ss  112   20:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Either way, I don't think this section need to be kept forever, so archive whenever. Makes no difference to me, I'm just trying to keep the talk page clean. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:INVOLVED is primarily intended for admins but generally applies across the board. That said, commonsense exceptions can apply. If consensus is obvious and uncontroversial even involved editors can close a discussion. See WP:ANRFC #1. IMO that can be reasonably extended to archiving. But I would stress the two conditions. First that whatever issue was under discussion has been clearly resolved and secondly the close/archiving is uncontroversial. I have sometimes closed discussions I was involved in when the consensus was clear beyond reasonable doubt. But I always did so clearly stating that I was involved, and the close was soft and that anyone who disagreed was free to revert. In the end, your never going to go wrong letting someone else close and/or archive discussions you were involved in. But if you do choose to go there, tread carefully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I guess I'll ask, are you opposed to archiving this discussion? Seems to have steered away from the album itself, and we've resolved the 'compilation vs. studio album' issue. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If I don't see a reply within a week, I'll plan to go ahead and archive again. No need to keep this discussion around forever. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not get to make executive decisions to archive article talk pages. You can on your own user talk page, but you don't get final say here if another user has objections. I don't believe this talk page needs to be archived, or is ever going to get long enough that it needs to even have an archive, so I don't want this discussion to be archived at all. Also partly in case somebody else comes along and doubts it's a studio album, because a note on the article talk page is not going to be enough for every user. Can you please set this straight that discussions do not need to be archived and should not be if anybody has objections? It doesn't look like Another Believer is going to take my "no" for an answer. It just plain does not need to happen and I don't want it to here.  Ss   112   22:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur. There is no really compelling argument for archiving this. And given the existence of a not unreasonable objection, I think it should be left alone for now. If at some future point this talk somehow manages to get cluttered, then this subject can be revisited. I suggest we treat this discussion as closed and all move on to more productive pursuits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, we still have a user,, who is insistent that this is a compilation album because of what was done on another singer's article, like that has any weight or bearing here. I have asked them to discuss (either here or on Talk:Kim Petras discography) and get consensus, but given that they appear to be quite stubborn—having gone back multiple times where they've been reverted and restored their edits—I don't know if they will.  Ss  112   22:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

TRANSylvania
I'm aware that stylization is not usually utilized as a primary representation of a title, but in this case, I believe it should be. The title of the song is intentionally a pun on the word "Transylvania", with emphasis on the "trans" part as a reference to transsexuality, Kim herself being a transsexual woman. I think it's important to consider the capitalized "TRANS" as part of the title itself, since it changes the meaning of it completely as opposed to being a mere stylistic choice (like "o m e n", for instance, on the same album, where the stylization doesn't change the meaning of the title). MiaHarris74 (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm certainly not opposed to adding details about the significance of the stylization(s), but I don't think we need to circumvent Wikipedia's manual of style here. Also, we'd need to incorporate sourcing to confirm the significance of the stylizations. I am familiar with Kim's biography and music, and I agree there may be importance behind the emphasis of "trans", but until sourcing is provided this is just original research. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)