User talk:KyleJoan/Archives/2020/January

Happy New Year, KyleJoan!


Happy New Year! KyleJoan, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * You are very sweet. Have yourself a wonderful new year as well! KyleJoan  10:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Presenting false history on LGBTQ sexuality
Your false interpretation of Ronan’s public life is counter to reliable sources, and history.

It’s fairly ridiculous to argue Ronan never claimed he was in the closet because that’s not how it works as a rule. People come out as LGBTQ, generally to friends, possibly family, then, if a public figure, they come out in the media in some way. You may have a unique belief system on how people should identify their sexuality but that is not Wikipedia’s policy. We go by reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fresh Off the Boat
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fresh Off the Boat 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 Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fresh Off the Boat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Fresh_Off_the_Boat check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Fresh_Off_the_Boat?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Rare (Selena Gomez album) and WP:A/S
Hi. Regarding your edit summaries on Rare (Selena Gomez album) and citing WP:A/S, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources explicitly states in its lead that it is "not exhaustive" (emphasis the page's own, and nor could it ever hope to be) and that it is "merely a collection of suggestions, and other good sources may exist". I'm sure your upkeep of the article is appreciated by some, but you do not need to remove or excise every source that is not listed at WP:A/S. And yes, while when we have enough sources in the ratings box we should include the most notable, removing publications that are "not known" for their music reviews or coverage is not necessary when there's not even 10 reviews yet. I am restoring Slant Magazine to the ratings box, because you have no valid reason for removing it other than an anecdotal, selective view of whatever album articles you peruse that "it is not usually listed in the ratings box". I edit album articles every day, and I see it regularly listed by editors who are more experienced in the area of critical reviews and what the criteria for including them is than yourself. Slant reviewed the album, gave it a numerical score and they are a notable publication; that is enough criteria for inclusion. Again, I'm saying please do not continue to remove sources as you see fit from album articles if they are not listed at A/S. The list does not instruct us to do so, nor is this a common thing to do. If you have concerns about a source's reliability, please take it up at WP:RSN. A source's reliability, unless an example of something listed at a policy or guideline page, is not to be unofficially decided in subjective removals by editors. Thank you.  Ss  112   03:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Ss112! Thank you for your message. I own that the Slant review removal was purely subjective. I was premeditatively thinking about future reviews that I believed would be more appropriate in the ratings box, and that was my mistake. I also wanted to clarify something that you responded to in one of your edit summaries (i.e., There is also no criterion that explicitly states if a publication is not dedicated to music that makes it unfit for inclusion). I've never stated that only publications dedicated to music are fit for inclusion; my original statement was to justify the removal of reviews by Nylon and Paper magazine. The Nylon review, specifically, was written by a columnist who has only written said review and nothing else for the publication, therefore, not only is Nylon not known for its music reviews, the reviewer themselves is not known for reviewing music/as a music critic for the publication or anywhere. In this situation, would it be appropriate to remove the review? I'd also like to ask if it's appropriate to place a review score in the ratings box when review itself is not referenced/quoted in prose anywhere in the section. Thanks again!


 * Edit: I found that the Nylon reviewer has extensively written music-related articles for the Fader, so I was wrong on that as well. I guess I'm now wondering when it is appropriate to remove reviews. If there are 45 reviews in a section, and they all hail from decidedly reliable sources, would the article retain all 45 reviews? Please pardon my incessant questioning! KyleJoan  04:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's fine to place a review score in the box if it's not in the prose of the section. Many users do this after they find a review of the album. We don't always need accompanying prose for that specific review, but as the section gets more detailed, generally most reviews in the template will be featured in the prose. As for "45 reviews in a section", that would be overkill for any album, even albums that are considered cultural landmarks. We would definitely need to keep only the essentials if the number of reviews included in the article even got anywhere near that, but I'm sure we probably wouldn't even get to half that figure before most bases and general opinions would be covered. We certainly wouldn't have 45 reviews in Template:Album ratings, as that template's documentation and MOS:ALBUM explicitly state to not list more than 10 review scores in it.  Ss  112   15:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. I'll keep that in mind the next time I edit a reception section. Thank you so much again, Ss112! KyleJoan  16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Bold Type
The article The Bold Type you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Bold Type for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Bold Type
The article The Bold Type you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Bold Type for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Omega
Please, change the lead. The WWE part induce to error. "Omega has also performed as part of larger national and international promotions, such as WWE and Ring of Honor," looks like he worked in WWE main roster. 1, he only was part of WWE farm territory DSW, he didn't work for WWE any match and that's more accurate. Not including a brand leaves a huge grey area. Somebody who doesn't know Omega would think he worked in the main roster like Kofi Kingston or The Miz. In that way, it's more accurate, not overlyspecifyc. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Starting an RfC now. Feel free to chime in on that discussion. In the meantime, please self-revert per WP:STATUSQUO. Thanks. KyleJoan  09:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Man, I think this is to far. It's just a small change in the lead to make it more accurate. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the version prior to your change was accurate as well, hence, the RfC. Thanks for responding to the survey there as well. KyleJoan  10:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

PWB

 * That's very kind of you. Thank you very much! KyleJoan  09:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Fresh Off the Boat
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful! Thank you very much for the notification, . KyleJoan  12:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)