User talk:Heartfox/Archive 2

The Signpost: 28 December 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Upcoming Ariana Grande album" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Upcoming Ariana Grande album. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Harajuku Girls (song)
Hi, Heartfox. An AfD discussion for Harajuku Girls (song) has started. Please feel free to comment if you are interested. Thank you very much, HĐ (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The Masked Singer
Hey, I am terribly sorry for the unsuccessful FAC. I feel really bad because I put a placeholder and then failed to comment... at all. The prose is brilliant, but I understand that source reviewers can sometimes be confusing. That said, I wholeheartedly appreciate your efforts in constructing a comprehensive article for the betterment of this site, and the general public's interest. Fyi, my first successful FAC was 7 years after my first edit, so don't be dissuaded. Your first FAC was really neat and clean, as opposed to my monstrous first (several) attempts. You are handling the situation very well (I remember being very mad at those who opposed to my FACs..), so keep up the great work. HĐ (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very kind words. I understand where the source review is coming from, but I just felt some of it was a bit excessive considering the content being cited from the sources, and I just felt kind of defeated at that point and didn't really feel like continuing justifying certain things even though I probably could have. I have removed some stuff since then even though it kind of makes the article worse but I am proud that such a comprehensive article is available to people for a popular TV show, especially when there are so few good/featured reality show articles. I think I will probably not renominate until the series ends, which is probably in a couple years, but that will probably change. I start my second term of my first year of university next week, so I will be (hopefully able to make myself) more inactive until the summer to focus on school :) Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. I hope you find the balance between Wikipedia and real life, because I can occasionally get very compulsive lol. Good luck with your studies! HĐ (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks again; I hope general readers can better understand the success of shows now and other editors can easily find info as well :) Heartfox (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Live-In
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Live-In 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 Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Live-In
Thank you! Heartfox (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Live-In
The article Live-In you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Live-In for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

IJBall and Rowspans
Hi I'm just wondering if you ever resolved the issue with rowspans on Olivia Rodrigo's page? I agree with you 100% that a rowspan is needed and that IJBall's reasoning for reverting edits are only based on his personal opinion. Not sure how to move forward with this... D_bovair1988 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can leave a message with your opinion on the talk page; don't come to me first lol I'm not going to have a secret convo off to the side. Best wishes, Heartfox (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok sorry to bother you

Your draft article, Draft:List of The Masked Singer (American TV series) contestants


Hello, Heartfox. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of The Masked Singer (American TV series) contestants".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion
Hello, Heartfox,

Just a reminder that every time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/CFD/TFD/etc.), you should post a notice about this tagging on the talk page of the page creator. I was just looking at Ben Arogundade and it wasn't done in this case. It is very easy if you use Twinkle, once you set up your Preferences, the program will inform the page creator automatically. This should be done out of habit, even if it appears that the editor is no longer active. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I think I checked that the page creator wasn't active for many years so I didn't leave a message, but I should have done that. I don't engage in deletion stuff regularly so I didn't know. PROD only says you should, not that you must, so given they weren't active for many years I didn't bother. Heartfox (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Motherhood (ER)
Hey, I just saw your edit on Motherhood (ER) and I thought it was really helpful. However, I was just wondering if you knew a website where an archive of the USA Today page you cited could be found just to verify the information. Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk? 23:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * if you have ProQuest (it's free through The Wikipedia Library, you don't even need an institutional account), you can get viewership for everything from July 25, 1988, through March 17, 1991, on "USA Today pre-1997 Fulltext" (you can find some direct links at User:Heartfox/sandbox/Nielsen, which I'm working on). After that date, you have to use the links from the articles at tvaholics, and then type them into the Wayback Machine as they are no longer live. They're also copyright violations so you can't use them in references, etc. or link to them directly on Wiki because of WP:COPYLINK. The links were live until about September 2020, but were probably taken down due to the fact they're copyvios. The vast majority are at the Wayback Machine. Most are just clipouts with no article titles, etc. but USA Today published them every Wednesday on page 3D unless it was Christmas or something. For example, the week from August 3 to August 9, 1992, would be published on Wednesday, August 12, on page 3D. Beginning in mid-1996, you can find viewership through links at my sandbox, and I also added a table to List of U.S. television ratings archives for the whole of 1997, which is complete. If you have any other questions/need help I'd happy happy to answer. Heartfox (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed info! Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk? 00:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wendy Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC: Love for Sale (Bilal album)
Hi. Would you be willing to offer a review for my nomination of this article? As you might see, sourcing has been raised as an issue, so perhaps you can offer more thoughts on the remaining sources suggesting attention. Here is the guideline on source reviewing and quality for FAC, if you choose to do so. Thanks. isento (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

AFDs (February 2021)
Hi, Heartfox. Two AFDs discussion have started for The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song) and I've Just Begun (Having My Fun). Please comment if you are interested. Thank you very much, HĐ (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Live-In FAC
Hello again. I just wanted to say that I'm sorry for not participating in the above FAC. I am always happy to see a FAC on an obscure television show as that is one of my personal Wikipedia passion projects. Something about working on these one-season obscurities is so interesting to me as it reflects a lot about television and consumer interest at the time. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that you can reach out to me whenever if you need a review for something. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was kind of inspired by your work and decided to try one on my own. Unfortunately I chose a show so obscure even TV Guide didn't have all of the episodes listed lol. It's not gonna be an FA but I guess it was a good quick writing experience and I had fun watching the episodes (sort of... I can see how it failed lol) so it's okay. I will definitely reach out in the future; your input is valued anywhere! Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I know this will sound terribly cliché, but the most important thing is if you had fun working on the article and everything related to it. I am glad that you enjoyed it, and I think you did a wonderful job with the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Feel the Love (Kids See Ghosts song) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feel the Love (Kids See Ghosts song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/AfD discussion title until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If I want to participate in a deletion process then I will. Having participated in a whopping 20 over 6 years, you can see how much I love spending time doing so...


 * You don't have to spam everyone's talk page—the AfD sorting list is readily accessible. The Ultimate Boss, I think you will enjoy your time more if you focused on improving articles and honing your skills rather than nominating articles for deletion. People may forget/forgive the drama you've associated yourself with if you lay low for a bit. I don't know if this nomination is because you genuinely feel it should be deleted, or out of spite against another editor, or maybe you're having a rough time again. I can't tell, and so I don't want to involve myself in something possibly malicious. You and Kyle Peake seem to be going back and forth nominating each other's articles for deletion, and I don't want to involve what little time I have in that.


 * Regardless, having been active in some of those discussions for a good week it's kind of clear to me that a lot of people don't really care about the guidelines, and they are contradictory and confusing, so I really do not know what base a vote on anymore. Therefore, I am no longer participating in such processes unless something in which I am a major contributor gets nominated. Thank you, Heartfox (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of One of the Boys (1989 TV series)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article One of the Boys (1989 TV series) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

One of the Boys (1989 TV series)

 * Thank you! Heartfox (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of One of the Boys (1989 TV series)
The article One of the Boys (1989 TV series) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:One of the Boys (1989 TV series) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Golden Globes
Thank you for the newspaper sources in the Ratings list in the Golden Globe Awards article. I am using them to edit IMDb listings. I was wondering if you might have a good source to show that the Globes were not aired anywhere on TV from 1969 to 1972. Brndtnlsn (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I do have the sources but I was too lazy to add them when I originally made the table. Just as an example, this clipping shows that it did not air on television in 1969. But do be careful as the ones on KTTV aired really late and it's Pacific Time, so the air dates in the table are adjusted because it would be like 2 am Eastern. Heartfox (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed you added a reference to a Variety article, but I can't access it. If you could possibly post here a copy or relevant quote from that article, that would help me. Brndtnlsn (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * which footnote? Heartfox (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * December 6, 1972, Variety article says "Hollywood Foreign Press Assn.'s Golden Globes awards, off tv since 1968 when they encountered sharp criticism from the FCC..." Heartfox (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I was hoping for. Brndtnlsn (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dates
Hey! I saw this and wanted to clarify something for you. I got a notification that an editor reverted my edit to Justice (Justin Bieber album), I read their edit summary (which was basically the same as mine and which linked to Template:Infobox song), I read the section, which made no mention that it was put in place 14 years ago, and I thought "hey, Taylor Swift released a bunch of songs solely to radio in promotion of Folklore and Evermore, and since this says to list the dates of singles that were only sent to radio as the day they were released from the album, I should change that". As well, most of the policies on Wikipedia were put in place more than a decade ago, so I don't see why you’re using all caps and telling me to revert when you don’t do that for anything else that was discussed in pre-2008 Wikipedia. Yes, Infobox instructions are not the MoS, but unless you can find something in the MoS that contradicts what is being said in the template doc, why are you even bringing it up? Lastly, what does I'm a bit tired of your unduly deference to instructions, whether they're relevant or not mean? When do I defer from instructions so unduly that you get tired from it? Please clarify. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe they are wrong. The infobox template refers to "album tracks". For example, if there was a song that received unofficial airplay (no impact date), and it had an article, then it would use the album release date. But since we are in the streaming era, and most editors have agreed that radio impact dates = single, why would it still be an "album track"? An album track is something that isn't released independently. You are correct for "Peaches"! Why is the music video date being used? That is not a release of the song, it's marketing of the song. I think you are a good editor; I just think sometimes you tend to follow whatever another person says, whether they are right or not. Referring to singles by their album date is something that I have never seen before, and I was a bit mystified as to why this was happening. No hard feelings, Heartfox (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Moving forward, maybe I should take a step back, take a breather, go on a walk, etc, and try to form my own analysis on what stuff means, rather than me believing anything I’m told. As for right now, I’ve already put this into place, and I have come to the conclusion that I’m very confused on the wording, and that the documentation needs to be rewritten with a mindset of "We're in 2021, we're in the streaming era, how has this differed from 2007?". I half agree with your argument, and I half agree with 's original summary, who I’m pinging so they can offer their two cents. Likewise, no hard feelings D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 23:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it's not your fault. There are many guidelines, etc. that no longer reflect how things are today. I, too, get confused sometimes and wish there was more clarity regarding stuff. Regarding the issue here, I just think it would be unhelpful for readers, for example, if there were 10 singles from an album that were only released to radio, and they all had the same dates in the infobox. That just doesn't make sense to me or seem like it would benefit readers. Like, why bother writing a date at that point (maybe we don't and just leave it to prose, who knows)? Heartfox (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with that. Leaving it to prose might be a good option, but at that point, why even list the singles in the Infobox? D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it might be beneficial to start a discussion at a WikiProject for clarity regarding the infobox template wording. Heartfox (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. You should start it, as you’re the one who can say more about it. I’m honestly just confused on the wording. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review
I will address everything after you indicate the source review has been completed, as I don't want to keep bothering you with pings and clouding up the nomination page with recurring notes of thanks. Please indicate it explicitly when done. I do understand if you regret taking on the source review of such a lengthy article, though. It sounds tedious! Regards.--NØ 01:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It will pass when you address the comment regarding fn 128. I don't regret anything? It just takes a few times looking over things to notice issues sometimes. Heartfox (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: this, I apologize if my acknowledgement of the SR concluding came across as disrespectful. You have been leaving spurts of one or two comments for the past several days, so I think it is a reasonable assumption that you are busy. I did not want to be annoying and ping you for the hundredth time. Needless to say, I am grateful you have performed two source reviews for me and I owe you one.--NØ 06:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great work on the article, and you can ping me whenever idc. Heartfox (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Create an article for a person
Hello, Yassin Bilal, music producer and music maker. I want an article in Wikipedia about my name and my work. Can you help me with that? Peace.maker14 (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can ask the Wikipedia Teahouse for information regarding article creation. Heartfox (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Veronica Clare peer review
Hello again. Apologies for the message, but I remember that you mentioned possibly helping me with my current peer review for the Veronica Clare article and I was curious if you were still able to help. It seems like the peer review process was slowly becoming active, but it seems (at least to me) to have slipped back into its old state of dormancy. If you no longer have the time to do it, I completely understand. I just wanted to check in about this. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry I forgot!! I will leave some comments today. Heartfox (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A request
Hello, apologies for the random message. I have come across your comments in various FA nominations and was wondering if you'd be willing to leave some feedback here. The article became a GA in January and I wish to take to FA but would like to get as much feedback on how to improve it further. I'd really appreciate your comments. Thank you. -- Ashley yoursmile!  14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the request, . I will take a look when there are no other unaddressed comments (when HumanxAnthro is done). Heartfox (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the consideration. Ashley  yoursmile!  03:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation
Thanks,. I admire your dedication to the process and I can't imagine the time you must spend doing everything! Heartfox (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of One of the Boys (1989 TV series)

 * Big congrats on getting this to FA! SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 12:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Heartfox (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats on getting the article promoted to a FA. You put a lot of work in it and you did a great job with handling the comments from the FAC to further improve the article. Apologies for the delay in my congratulations. I just noticed the promotion today. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations
Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Peer review/The 40-Year-Old Virgin/archive1
If you could by some chance leave input for the peer review linked above, then I'd very much appreciate that. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Will leave comments soon. Heartfox (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Katie Joplin
Hello again! I hope you are doing well and having a good week so far. Apologies for this random message. I was wondering if you could help me find the ratings for Katie Joplin? I completely understand if you say no. I was thinking about nominating the article for a FAC, but I am feeling insecure lately about FACs for some reason (and especially since this show is super obscure lol). Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I found the numbers for you :) If you want me to add them for any other articles please let me know and I'd be happy to add them. Don't worry about the FAC chances. As long as the air dates/titles can be sourced then I believe any obscure TV show can be an FAC. It's just about finding coverage that is not freely accessible online. Heartfox (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I am still learning how to best use and navigate ProQuest. For some reason, I had completely missed those ratings so thank you for finding them. I completely agree with you that any article should be eligible to become a featured article at some point (as long as the work is done for it of course). Best of luck with everything on and off Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I just used THR because I had already indexed all of the available weeks for 1999 on User:Heartfox/sandbox/Nielsen. I'm using ProQuest through my university where you get more sources than you do through The Wikipedia Library, so that may be why you couldn't find them, although there are other sources for household ratings through ProQuest via TWL. Heartfox (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Thank you for letting me know. I did not think about how university access and the Wikipedia Library access would differ. I greatly appreciate how you are pulling together these different sources for ratings as it is very important to include in television show articles. It is very helpful for Wikipedia as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again for adding the ratings to the articles. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Kids See Ghosts
I have not finished going over all of your comments yet but have covered a good number of them, so could you try and respond soon in these areas? --K. Peake 06:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In case you are wondering why I posted this when it's not all been fully addressed yet, there are quite a few questions I have about your comments for the candidacy. --K. Peake 20:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the sources have been addressed properly by me now... I wonder why you've not commented since you've clearly been active no offence. --K. Peake 07:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What happened yesterday, as you said you'd leave comments Sunday but never did?? --K. Peake 06:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My entire life does not revolve around another editor's featured article nomination?? I don't need to explain "what happened yesterday" to anyone. You took three days to respond when I first left comments; I don't know why you think it's appropriate to constantly hound people like this. The nomination has not even been open for two weeks and only one of the FA coordinators is active. I'll get to it soon, OK. If you had better prepared the nomination I would not have to dedicate hours reviewing. Heartfox (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to have come across as harassing you maybe, but you said that more comments were to come for yesterday so it felt disappointing to have not received them. I do acknowledge that I shouldn't be posting messages to you so much, though I didn't respond until three days because I didn't see the comments due to not checking with my work schedule, while your comment about preparation is insulting since I did put a lot of hard work into the article. --K. Peake 07:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Showbuzz Daily
I've just posted about the latest update at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, but uh... yikes. Magitroopa (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel bad for all the cable shows that will no longer have viewership. It's very sad. For network shows, coverage was almost better in the 1970s than it is today :( Heartfox (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar
Congratulations on the promotion with 8(!) supports! If you need viewership/ratings for anything just let me know :) Heartfox (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer, and I will definitely let you know in the future. Feel free to ask me for any help with anything as well :) Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually do have a quick question. Apologies if I had already asked you this in the past, but would you by chance be able to find the ratings for Veronica Clare. I am going to nominate that article for a FAC next month (and thank you again for the help with that peer review), but it would be nice to know the ratings. I am not in a rush to nominate this as I prefer to take time between FACs to avoid stress and to make sure I give each nomination the proper attention it deserves. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, there are unfortunately no sources with weekly cable ratings until the week of April 19, 1993, from Broadcasting & Cable. However, there is a piece at https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-BC/BC-1991/BC-1991-09-02.pdf#search=%22veronica%20clare%22 which shows that the first six Veronica Clare episodes averaged 0.8% of Lifetime's 51 million household audience. Heartfox (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the very quick response. I will add that to the article sometime over the weekend. I hope you are doing well and have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021
<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) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Australia radio release date
Hey there! From reading WP:SINGLE?, I'm not sure if The Music Network can be used as a radio release date for Australia? I am guessing no?  Cool Marc  ✉   15:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They say it is based on songs serviced to radio, but we don't know if they're all sent on the date they publish the chart, or throughout the week. It's also hard to verify because sometime the publish date changes, and there's no dates on the page. I feel like it used to be Friday but now it might be Sunday? I am no longer adding The Music Network myself, but maybe it could be included in prose as "sent to radio in Australia". But I don't think it is proper verification for a radio release date. Heartfox (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Red (Taylor Swift album) peer review
Hello Heartfox, I have opened a peer review for Red prior to taking it to FAC. I am reaching out as you commented on Shake It Off's FAC. If you have the time and are willing, I would greatly appreciate any comment or advice that you could give at the review. If you are unable, that is totally fine as well. Thank you! -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of The Masked Singer (American TV series)

 * Congrats on another job very well done! <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Heartfox (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the featured article! Aoba47 (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you and congrats on Veronica Clare! Heartfox (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021
<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) 23:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Simon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Boris Aronson The Firstborn Pyramid 1958.png
Thanks for uploading File:Boris Aronson The Firstborn Pyramid 1958.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 16:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Here Is Mariah Carey/archive1
I just left comments for this. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It just passed, way to go :D! <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Greed (game show)
I've brought it back to FAC. Since you gave it a source review the first time around, I was wondering if you might be interested in taking a second look. I've bulked up the reception section even more since the first nomination and believe the referencing is substantially improved overall. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic
Hello, Heartfox! I am very sorry to disturb you as I'm sure you're very busy. I have seen your comments at various FACs and have been impressed with your work at media and drama articles (and other articles too). I have opened up a peer review for My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic before hopefully nominating it for FAC; I was wondering if you would be able to leave comments here. If you are unable to or don't want to, that's totally understandable and fine. Thanks either way! Pamzeis (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review at Featured article candidates/Janet(s)/archive1
Hello Heartfox, I wanted to check in with you regarding the source review for the FAC I am currently working on. If you're still interested, please consider leaving a comment there so the FAC coordinators can see the review is still active. If you're busy and no longer can complete the review, that's totally fine; please just leave a note explaining that on the FAC page so others will know the source review is not ongoing. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Level headings
I'll try to remember that one - thanks for the fix. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 22:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021
<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) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello
Hey again. Sorry for this super random message. I just wanted to reach out and see how you are doing. I hope you are having a good weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies for leaving a second message on this. I was just curious if you were still active with your FAC for Here Is Mariah Carey? I know that you said you will be busy around this time because of school and work (and those should definitely take priority), but I was only curious as an editor has left a review on September 13. Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Wendy's Got the Heat
Hello, Heartfox. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wendy's Got the Heat, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021
<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) 20:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
<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) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021
<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) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

FAC needing comments
Hello, Heartfox. I hope you are doing well and staying warm this season. My FAC has stalled, so I wonder if you could leave some comments at Featured article candidates/Fearless (Taylor Swift album)/archive1? I would appreciate your input very much. Sorry for bothering you this way, and many thanks in advance. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's currently exam season so I can't comment on anything until December 18 at the earliest. Best wishes, Heartfox (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. I hope you do well on your exams. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:13 East
Hello, Heartfox. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:13 East, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021
<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) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Concern regarding Draft:Rupert Hotel fire
Hello, Heartfox. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rupert Hotel fire, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hannah Montana FAC
Hello again! I currently have Hannah Montana up as a Featured Article Candidate. If you are able to, I would appreciate your comments on the nomination, and thought you might be interested in the topic. I always appreciate any of your feedback, but I understand if you are unable to. Thank you! SatDis (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review request
Hello again. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Apologies for this random message and request. Since you did the source review for my FAC on "No Panties", I was wondering if you could possibly do one of my current FAC which is about another largely forgotten early 2000s song ("Laundromat")? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I just thought that I should ask since the FACs are somewhat similar in topic. I would be more than happy to assist you in any of your Wikipedia projects. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022
<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) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022
<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) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Here Is Mariah Carey, "about a 1993 video album by Mariah Carey filmed primarily at Proctor's Theater in Schenectady, New York. It is probably one of her most famous performances, having been watched by almost 20 million people on television during its original NBC broadcast and receiving a Platinum certification from RIAA."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2723 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Heartfox (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022
<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) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello!
Please join this convo: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music :) Tree Critter (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Hi, thank you for closing that discussion. I wanted to ask how you took into account the non-neutral nature of the statement that led the RFC for the first four days that it was open, during which 75 editors !voted? BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As the discussion is not a new one, I believe the impact of the non-neutral statement on editors' opinions was negligible. There did not seem to be that much difference between pre and post-March 7 responses. Heartfox (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * My rough count is slightly different; when the non-neutral statement led, "it" was supported by 41 editors, and "she" was supported by 31 editors. After the non-neutral statement was replaced the preference flipped, and "she" was supported by 25 editors while "it" was supported by 21 editors. My count is probably a little out, but not enough to change the fact that the non-neutral statement appears to have predisposed editors towards a particular conclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, I considered the weight of the arguments more than the vote count. I don't feel the non-neutral statement impeded editors on any side from expressing legitimate arguments. Heartfox (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue with non-neutral statements isn't that they might prevent legitimate arguments, it is that they might predispose editors towards a specific position. And in determining whether a non-neutral statement predisposed editors towards a specific position it is appropriate to compare the ratio of support while the non-neutral statement led to the ratio of support while the neutral statement led, as that can tell us whether editors were predisposed towards a position that they then presented an argument for - if editors weren't predisposed, then we would expect the ratio before and after to be similar. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What started as a natural discussion happened to lead into an RfC, the only difference being there was no heading to separate the pre-RfC discussion from the formal RfC. As seen in the bolded support/opposes before it was officially an RfC, most editors treated it as an RfC from the start, and I don't think their comments should be ignored simply because of that. Referring to this situation, administrator Izno noted on March 6 that "Well, this cat's out of the bag I guess" and voted then. As many participants are familiar with the topic, I don't think one editor's initial comments made others predisposed toward a position. Editors had 30 days to change or strike their comments/vote after March 7 if they wanted. Heartfox (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2019 RfC did not have an RfC tag until six days in, and does not have a neutral statement, but a proposal with evidence backing up an argument for "it". Heartfox (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you don't think that the non-neutral statement predisposed editors towards the expressed position but the evidence tells us otherwise; there was a sizeable swing against the proposal when it was replaced with a neutral statement. As for the number of editors familiar with the topic, 32 who participated while the non-neutral statement led did not participate in the previous RfC and were probably not familiar with the topic.
 * As for editors having the chance to change or strike their comments, while that is true it doesn't address the issue caused by the non-neutral statement, which is that editors were predisposed towards a particular view.
 * The 2019 RfC also appears to have been run against policy - but that doesn't justify this RfC being run against policy. BilledMammal (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you fairly summarised the arguments against the change; specifically the fact that The Times style guide still endorses "she" and "her" for ships, which was raised by several editors. This was the strongest counter-argument to the style guide-based argument for change imo. Ficaia (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Only two editors (yourself and ThoughtIdRetired) brought up The Times style guide, and Hijiri88 noted recent occasions when its writers contradicted it. In contrast, other editors noted numerous style guides which recommend "it". Heartfox (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, one very prominent style guide still recommends "she". I don't see how the (small) number of editors who raised this point in the RfC is relevant. As you say above, we decide these matters by the quality of the arguments not their popularity. I also don't see how a single cited example of a journalist ignoring their paper's house style is relevant. Ficaia (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with others here that are taking issue with your close. In the opening line of your close you stated: "In this RfC, there were slightly more editors supporting the MOS change than those in favour of keeping the status quo...". That itself shows there was no consensus among the number of editors that took part in the RfC, which just leaves the strength of the arguments of one side vs. the other, and again, I don't see how a clear consensus for change could be determined. This was an very contentious issue, with numerous editors taking part. Some had already stated that it should be an admin close at the very least, if not one by panel. While I think there are merits to those positions, right now, I believe that at the very least you should undo your close and allow other processes to take up the issue. -  wolf  13:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I spent multiple hours reading the comments and coming to a conclusion. I believe the result is fair and reflects arguments from all positions while respecting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In the "requesting closure" section, there was one editor who supported an admin closure/panel, one opposing a panel, and two opposing admin closure. The discussion was listed at WP:RFCL where it was not indicated that an admin closure was preferred, and it was there where I came across it for the first time. I do not edit ship articles nor have I participated in previous "she" vs. "it" discussions so I thought I could help out as a neutral editor. For all these reasons, I see no basis for why I would undo the close. Heartfox (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it seemed like an obvious 'no consensus', otherwise I would've added that I was in favour of a panel close, and certianly an admin close, in that section. I would've done the same in a request for a close review, had someone else not already beat me to it. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with non-admins boldly closing stuff, but not when it's so clearly contentious and when there is no obvious consensus that it takes "multiple hours" to come to a conclusion. -  wolf  20:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will certainly defend the time I took to come to the conclusion. After clearly not reading the entirety of the discussion, the nominator of the close review had to strike some of their words. Heartfox (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You could reword that as "after missing a few isolated comments which did not attract my attention either during the discussion or now". Again, the close review has nothing to do with you personally or how you spent your time. It's just that you made a wrong call (happens to all of us). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pfft!... that's a poor excuse, RC. There was only 434 entries totalling a mere 18,097 words in the entire RfC. Do better next time.(joke) -  wolf  21:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Voting does seem to matter, then, because you've cited the volume of editors several number of times here, and are weighing that highly. If I was thinking volume of similar points mattered, I would have ticked off the "Yes, I would prefer an admin closure" box but I didn't think anyone would actually have the chutzpah to do a non-admin closure on this. And in hindsight, I would have CTL-C, CTL-V'd a bunch of stuff other editors said which I agreed with, but the thing was getting unwieldy as it was. Non-admin closures are supposed to be reserved for clear cut cases, and this is not clear cut... with the volume of interest in it, and the heated opinion, closure by an experienced admin is warranted. Le Marteau (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly disagree that non-admin closes should be reserved for clear-cut cases (WP:NOBIGDEAL, and we also do want non-admins dealing with not so clear-cut cases, so they can get some experience with such situations). However, after reading through the above, I have also come to the conclusion that, independently of the closer's status, the close was unsatisfactory, and have opened a review request at WP:AN, where of course your participation is welcome. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The number of editors is mentioned in one sentence in the closure while the other twelve were about the arguments. I think that shows which was weighted highly. Heartfox (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with the weighing of arguments is that it is incorrect, i.e. it treats arguments on one side as being more convincing, while in fact they simply aren't, or they were contested by participants of the discussion in a way which shows they are not, in fact, as convincing as the close says they are - and which also shows that participants of the discussion did not agree (i.e. find consensus) that they were. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, just wanted to say thank you for volunteering the time to read the MOS ships RFC and write a thoughtful close, and deal with the predictable post-close discussion. FWIW I think when our own guidelines already say to use gender neutral language, and 55% of editors and most style guides say the same, that's consensus, but apparently a sizable number of editors want to wait another two years until it's 60%. It reminds me of the change from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", and I'll never understand why so many editors fight so hard against what is obviously inevitable. Anyway, I appreciate the time you've volunteered for the project here even if it ends up getting overturned to no consensus. Thanks again, Levivich 02:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I, on the other hand, will never understand why so many people will fight so hard to impose a particular usage when the result is literally inconsequential. Whether a ship is a "she" or an "it" changes absolutely nothing to the substance of the article text. It's like colour or color; or AD/BC vs. CE/BCE, or whether it should be [metric unit] ([imperial equivalent]) or [imperial unit] ([metric equivalent]). Nobody's ever felt the need to blanket impose a single format on all articles. And that frankly feels like the best solution: everybody has their own writing style, and diversity, here like elsewhere, makes things better and more enjoyable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, the closure doesn't stop anyone from using "she" jfc. If you don't want to follow what reliable sources refer to a ship as and use your own writing style instead then your editing does not align with Wikipedia values. How many times are you going to make the same arguments? I can't even have a nice message here without it being railed against by another editor. If your opinion is so ubiquitous why do you feel the need to defend and repeat it a million times?? Heartfox (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite the close, the RfC was indeed framed as an attempt to alter the guideline to prefer "it" (which is what people were !voting on), and many people did explicitly support banning the usage of "she" wholesale. My comment was not aimed at all at you or at your close, but was a direct reply to Levivich. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)