User talk:PEJL

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 04:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Naive / Naïve
Hi - please see Talk:Naïve (The Kooks song) before reverting any further edits regarding the song name. The page will shortly be moved, as there is no verifiable evidence of the umlaut being needed. Indeed, there is lots of evidence that the umlaut is erronerous, and therefore should be altered. Please do not violate WP:3RR by reverting again. DJR (Talk) 23:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've followed up at the above mentioned talk page. --PEJL 23:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines
Please do not remove talk page comments from other users. This can be considered vandalism and repeated talk page blanking can result in a block. Thanks. --Madchester 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant no harm, I simply thought the old comments were irrelevant since the issue was resolved. I see now that policy is to not do so, and will comply. --PEJL 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Naturally
I've got better things to do than to argue with you, but that is not the way the tracks are written on the album. --Blahm 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, but the standard way to format track names on Wikipedia is to use normal English title capitalization rules (for English language track names). See WikiProject_Albums and WikiProject_Music. --PEJL 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please use a summary
I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Mark ( Talk ) 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * . Hmm, no such template... ;-) --PEJL 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Escondida
Hi. I was wondering why it was that you removed the section on Escondida about the strike there. Maybe the phrasing wasn't the best, but it was properly sourced and, I feel, encyclopedic. If such an important mine has a large strike, making international news, I believe that information should be included. --Estrellador* 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That section was within a HTML comment and as such wasn't visible in the article. I have no preference for whether it should be in the article or not, but having it commented-out seemed pointless, and was throwing off the layout of the page. --PEJL 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. I didn't comment it out; it was another user, who lacks other edits. Odd. Anyway, cheers for the response. --Estrellador* 16:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Album titles and capitalization
OK, yes you are correct about the English rules of spelling and how to correctly add capitals to words, and so on and so forth. But, if you read on, it also says that the English rules do not apply (all the time) to titles that are unique and that may require the capitals. It makes things more confusing when the album titles are not the same as Wikipedia has them. It's much easier to read and understand the letter for letter spelling of the Modest Mouse albums. Take The Beatles albums for example, all are spelled the way they were intended, not by the English rules of capitalization. I hope we can come to an agreement on this. Hucz 06:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (This was in response to a note I left on User talk:Hucz.) I will follow up on your user talk page. Please keep further discussion on this topic there, to make it easier to follow. Thanks. --PEJL 06:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you get my message? Well, to save you time all it really says is what albums you were going to move back, but seeing that you're already doing that, I'll leave it at that. Just one question. Does the title within the article have to have the English capitalization rules? Or can they just stay as they are? Hucz 04:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, missed it until now. Like I said at your talk page, I believe they should be consistent. --PEJL 04:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK then, it's settled. Hucz 05:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! BTW, Ocean Breathes Salty looks nice. --PEJL 05:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank-you, and cheers mate. Hucz 05:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

chronologies
I'm not sure about precendent, but there has been a long established consensus that EPs are part of the singles chronology, not albums, at least in the case of Arctic Monkeys.  DJR  ( T ) 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (This was in response to a note I left on User talk:Djr xi.) I will follow up on your user talk page. Please keep further discussion on this topic there, to make it easier to follow. Thanks. --PEJL 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Track listing hyphens
Hey man, I'm having some difficulty trying to insert these so called "dashes" into a track listing. They look kind of like longer hyphens, and here's an example on Modest Mouse's album, This Is a Long Drive for Someone with Nothing to Think About. If you take a look at the text in the "edit this page" box, and you compare it to the one I'm trying to mimic on Blue Cadet-3, Do You Connect?, maybe you can find a mistake I'm doing. Your help would be much appreciated. Hucz 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Track listings should use so-called "en dashes". See Manual of Style (dashes) for how to enter those. Alternatively, use can use the first character linked after "Insert:" in the list of characters below the editable text area. Hope this helps. --PEJL 05:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, you're a big help. Hucz 05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Track Listing (Continuum)
G'day mate, I didn't realise that I'd said I was an advanced HTML user, nonetheless, I know what you're saying. i have some coding habits that're probably not the best, but they're there anyway, so I'm fine with the adjustments. I do understand the concept of consistency across WP and agree that much of it can be, but there are times where exceptions can be made (my reasoning behind this is that we have access to use CSS and HTML, so why not use them?) where it makes it somewhat more visually appealing. I don't claim to be the best designer here on Wikipedia, but some people don't mind what i do (I updated the design on the template for Studio60 which another user then adopted the design to be the same for the OC: OCnavigation. Anyway, you're doing a lot of good stuff around the John Mayer pages, in stark contrast to the majority of the people who just throw random crap in there (which I usually try to keep at bay, amongst all the other pages I suss out). Thanks for that. I'll try to work in harmony with you in there, though. -- linca linca  06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Did you see the Singles I included on the JM Album pages? I made that template the other day. What do you think? -- linca linca  06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (I've followed up at User talk:Lincalinca.) --PEJL 07:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant that the design was something accepted, but I accepted that the acticle didn't meet WP:ALBUMS in that it didn't have quotation marks around the song titles and such (which I've re-included on my most recent edit, to maintain that the article does keep with the appropriate guidelines). -- linca linca  04:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's fine. Stylistically, it doesn't need to change, but I now see what you mean otherwise. Go ahead. -- linca linca  05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wolfmother
Hey, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware of that, and personally, I'm not pleased that I can't find any discussion condemning it's use. So I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Again, thanks for the note. Keep up the good work. -- Reaper  X  22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

U2 Albums
Hi there, I felt that my edits to U2 albums were fairly legitimate - the link that each leads to is a list of U2 albums by some random, with about 2 or 3 sentences written on each. It's like me setting up a blog on U2 and then linking to it. I feel that reviews should come from sources such as Rolling Stone. I realise that by not putting edit summaries on each page I have complicated the issue, but I really feel these 'reviews' should be removed. Willnz0 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Robert Christgau is hardly "some random". I suggest you read up on him before making such judgments. As far as whether his reviews qualify as professional reviews as per WP:ALBUM, I'll note that in my sample of Wikipedia album articles there are 1284 reviews by All Music Guide, 521 by Rolling Stone, 445 by Pitchfork and 347 by Robert Christgau, followed by 203 less commonly used review sources. --PEJL 07:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This has also been brought up at Talk:U2. Let's follow up there. --PEJL 07:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reverted changes on The Soul Sessions
I changed the "limited Dutch edition" to "limited Dutch bonus CD" on the Mind, Body & Soul article, is it okay like this? As for the editions which have bonus tracks only, I don't find it necessary to include "bonus track(s)" to their headings. Funk Junkie 00:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I followed up on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Album Reviews
Sorry about that! I didn't realize! Thanks for the heads up! Karpsm  ö   m  16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Subheaders verses [sic] bolding
First of all, I can't recall editing Pearl Jam (album) at all; I was editing Ten. Second, I've read and understand the Manual of Style, thanks. Third, hardly any, if any at all, of the quality album article (i.e., any Featured or Good article) use subheadings in the Track listing(s) or Credits sections. (Sample: see the track listing section of Love. Angel. Music. Baby. or the credits section of Adore  or Doolittle .) I know what I'm doing, and I've greatly improved the article; hopefully, with work and clean-up, this could be made a GA, or even a FA later on. But please stop being so stubborn. --Brandt Luke Zorn 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've reverted it again. Just as a notice, we're both getting dangerously close to breaking the three-revert rule - even though we haven't technically "reverted" so to speak by saving a past version of the page, it would still probably be counted as an edit war in this case. We each have one legal revert left today, but I'm really hoping that we can settle this without it coming to that. --Brandt Luke Zorn 22:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This was in response to this message. I followed up on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there, to keep the conversation in one place. --PEJL 23:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (I'm responding here purely because -5- is continuing the discussion on your talk page.) Is there a single example of a featured/A class/good album articles with track listing subsections? I haven't seen any. I'm just trying to improve the article to GA class, and to me this part of the clean-up seems fairly minor. Also, for the record, nowhere on the policy you continually cite mentions anything regarding subsections vs. bolding - it does mention that sections (with two =s) should be used in place of bolding, but not subsections. Besides, a few extra tracks hardly warrant subsections - even the bolding could be replaced with an unbolded labeling. I really don't think that there should be any divisions at all for a credits section, and instead it should just be one uninterrupted list. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How many of the other hundreds or thousands of album articles that use subheaders (mostly for track listings, fewer for credits sections) that are FA/A/GA I don't have any statistics for, but I don't think that is relevant anyway. As I said, "quality" album articles aren't necessarily better formatted than other album articles. (I just checked WikiProject Albums/Featured Albums Project, and all of the first ten or so albums that I checked used subheaders in the track listing section.) As for what WP:MOSHEAD states, within the section #Markup there is a subsection #Nesting. That subsection explains how the nesting works, and implies that the text about not using bold text applies to all header levels (using different terminology than I'm using: "heading" "primary heading", "sub-heading"). I also think you are missing the point if you think it's about using bold or plain text. The problem isn't that the text is bold, it's that it looks and acts like a subheader but isn't really a subheader. Subheaders should be used, for the reasons listed in #Markup. Editors like us may disagree with this policy (which you obviously do), but we should abide by it, or try to change the policy (which I think will be difficult in this case). Getting more specific, like you I think subsections in credits sections are not needed, and can instead be a single list of credits. I do however think subsections should be used in track listings for different editions and the like. --PEJL 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, you win. We'll have subsections in the track listings section and just a list at the Credits section. To be honest, it isn't that big a deal and I think I overreacted a little. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! I'm glad we could work this out. --PEJL 01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am trying just to make all of the Pearl Jam album pages consistant. I'm a little confused based on what the Maunal of Style says and what Brandt Luke Zorn is saying. What should I do? Thanks.-5- 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This was in response to this message. I followed up on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there, to keep the conversation in one place. --PEJL 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you, and I would change them back, but I don't know what Brandt Luke Zorn is going to say about changing the Ten page. Thanks.-5- 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amerika (album)
An editor has nominated Amerika (album), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kaos (album)
An editor has nominated Kaos (album), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dashes
I see you changed the &amp;ndash; to a literal text character. I realize that I originally used &amp;mdash; which was incorrect, but I changed it to &amp;ndash; before your edit. Using the text dashes is error-prone; anyone who edits via the browser can't see any difference between the en dash and a hyphen, and for that reason, I think &amp;ndash; should be used. I am not going to edit-war with you, though, so I figured I'd try to convince you here. &mdash; John Cardinal 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I followed up on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there, to keep the conversation in one place. --PEJL 20:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll respond here. The WP:ALBUMS project says this about &amp;ndash: "You can also add it by writing &amp;ndash; HTML entity to the edit box ... but this makes the code less readable." While that is not a glittering endorsement of &amp;ndash;, it says it's fine to use it. Meanwhile, your edit history suggests you are on a personal crusade to eliminate the &amp;ndash; entity, and far be it from me to get in your way. John Cardinal 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been changing entities to literal characters because I've had no reason to think that editors would enter entities for any reason other than that they found entering the literal character to be too difficult, because no argument in favor of the entity has been made. It may be a great argument, and I suggest you make it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, to possibly get the guideline changed. --PEJL 10:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your rating thingy:
Hey PEJL... what does that stand for anyway? Anyway, I've updated the robert crist--thingy rating template to be a bit more graphical. Let me know what you think. Revert if you hate it. -- linca linca  06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I followed up on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 10:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I've responded on my talk page. -- linca linca  05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Compilation albums not included in chronologies?
Re: your revert of my change on Another Day on Earth album chronology. There are compilation albums on other album chronologies – check out The Beatles 1962-1966 and many following; also Zappa's Strictly Commercial is included in his album chronology. Will these be reverted too?

Also, even granting Curiosities Volume 2 should not be included in Eno's chronology, the previous album on Another Day on Earth should probably be January 07003-Bell Studies. Reverting isn't worth much if it just goes back to a different wrong entry. --Register allocation 02:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I followed up on your user talk page. --PEJL 09:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumitoid sockpuppetry case
I've opened a sockpuppetry case for, formerly , of the Black Sabbath credits revert war. If you have anything to contribute, here's the page: Suspected_sock_puppets/SEGA / edgarde 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hunky Dory rating
Hi there. Yep, I was aware of the Professional Reviews section on the project page. I note that the wording is in the form of a suggestion than a directive ("you can", not "you should/must/etc") and reiterate as per my edit summary that these one-word interpretations of a review are subjective, and best not employed for that reason. I'm all for including straightforward ratings that appear in the review like stars, etc, but don't see a need to reduce things to one word if the reviewer/publication doesn't. The point is that these reviews are online and can be accessed by readers who can make up their own minds (in case you're wondering, yes, I did bring this up on the project talk page a while back, recommending we remove it from the main page, and some discussion resulted before it got lost amidst other stuff and I didn't pursue it - however I may do again). The date part I'm not so fussed about though I'd again point out that using it as a link prevents wikifying it for user preferences, which is also not a good thing. For those reasons I think the line really should go back to how it was but let's discuss - perhaps moving to the project talk page - rather than just revert... Cheers, Ian Rose 17:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've responded on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there to keep the discussion in one place, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. --PEJL 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Various
I just speedy tagged Various, but I notice that you've actually edited it recently. Just a heads-up in case you think it's a keeper. AndyJones 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Early Years
Hi. Thanks for moving the Phil Ochs album. I've been meaning to do that and set up a disambiguation page, especially when I saw how many articles there are called "The Early Years". Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All yours. :-) — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Band logos
Hi PEJL, I noticed that you removed the band logo from the Kent (band) page. I don't quite understand in your edit summary what the problem was with the logo. Lots of band and artist articles have a logo in the template, just look at Iron Maiden, Kiss, Enya or Metallica. In the case of Kent there is even talk about the logo in the very beginning of the article, making it a valuable addition. Jake73 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

:/
Why do you keep removing the external link to All Music Guide in Californication (album)? It's not a duplicate. Kamryn Matika 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted my (partial) reversion on Doolittle (album) :) On reflection, I see what you mean. CloudNine 13:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Album infobox chronology
I saw that you reverted the edits I made to the infobox in Pop (album). I was unaware that EPs aren't to be included, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. However, I am curious as to why all the other U2 EPs, compilations, and live albums are included in the chronology as well. The documentation on Infobox Album doesn't explicitly state that it can't be included, it just says "usually excluding live albums, compilations, singles and EPs." I'm curious as to what that means exactly. I've edited probably more articles on albums than anything else here, and I've never seen an infobox's chronology left out for being one of the four "exclusions." –Dream out loud 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Beatle album articles tweaking
You're doing a great job with the tweaking. I did catch one problem with the Past Masters, Volume Two article. Because the LP version was released as a double LP combined with volume one, the side numbers on the label are side three and side four. The record label photo is included in the article to back up that fact. Steelbeard1 23:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 23:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Band infobox when dealing with defunct groups
We dealt with the issue of 'current members' of defunct groups before when the infobox was less flexible. The infobox template has since been modified to deal with defunct groups. The template may say 'current members' but the public infobox simply says 'members'. The public infobox used to say 'current members.' Steelbeard1 23:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 23:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied to your latest question in my talk page. Steelbeard1 10:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Love in the Time of Science
Thanks for your fixes. I thought that might be pretty redundant :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Strip unorthodox chronologies?
Sure, I'll be glad to do this. I'm a bit busy right now but I promise I will look into this soon. Jogers (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They should be all gone now. Let me know if I missed something. Jogers (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Jesus and Mary Chain
Hi you tweaked my recent change to the tables of Singles and EPs. I have reverted it for now, because of some concerns. Please see the concerns at Talk:The Jesus and Mary Chain. We can quickly thrash something out and come to some sort of compromise. I just want to avoid bad vibes with a simple revert of back and forth thing :-) --Deon Steyn 09:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅Sorted thanks! I added a not of agreement to the article talk page and haven't changed anything to your last edit. If all collaborative editing could only be this quick an painless ;-) Deon Steyn 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Track lengths...
Regarding your revert on the UF album, I know they are listed in the example on 'WikiProject Albums' (as distinct from being binding policy), but do you believe that is actually encyclopaedic information of note? regards Merbabu 09:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PS, I guess my thinking is that track durations are superfluous unencyclopedic info of no notability that are only included because they are there. Remember, wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive list of any info. In what way are they useful? They appear on any album sleeve or mp3 read out. But, i can hear other peoples' viewpoint. Merbabu 09:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 09:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Albums
Hey, you should make an message in the edits to tell people not to edit the pages with "Side one/two". Just make an arrow like this: so people won't do it :) -- Jennica  13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 18:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion :) - -- Jennica  20:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In Flames
Sorry, my edit summary didn't refer to your edits, it referred to the edits an anonymous user did. That anonymous user deleted descriptive content in the members section. However, I saw your edits and there really is no need for the extra links, see WP:EL. If persons want links to sites where they can go listen to In Flames music they can go to the official in flames website. And I already know about WP:OWN and I knew someone was going to throw that in my face the minute I reverted one of their edits. --Leon Sword 20:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I just read WP:DASH and it never says en dashes should always be unspaced, it says they should be unspaced when used for numbers but when used with dates or "complex ranges" they can be spaced. And for the external links I just think it is more appropiate to note that those are all official websites and not a link to a spam site. --Leon Sword 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the excess wikilinks in the session members table are somewhat redundant (when I wrote the article I aimed for consistency). By the way WP:EL is for external links not wikilinks. --Leon Sword 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said before, WP:DASH never says that en dashes should always be unspaced and under the "Dash guidelines" section it says that spaced en dashes are in current use on Wikipedia. Really it's a matter of preference and I think dates are different than numbers, thus I space en dashes when using with dates and unspace when using with numbers. --Leon Sword 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For example when talking about dates (1999 – 2000) and when talking about numbers such as page numbers (27–30). That's really the point that WP:DASH tries to make but also leaves it to preference. --Leon Sword 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well since there is no strict guideline yet regarding en dashes I think it looks cleaner as they are and the extra external links that provide nothing more than is already offered are unnecessary. Otherwise, the redundant wikilinks in the tables should probably be unlinked. --Leon Sword 21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Grammis is the Swedish organization that gives out the awards, the word itself is probably swedish (I don't really know though as I don't speak Swedish). However, in all sources that I have come across on google, the band itself calls the award a Grammy. I think I'm going to post more sources to fix that news archive problem, the reference is there you just have to look for it. --Leon Sword 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Grammy is the award name. I just checked a few more interviews for verification. No one calls the award a Grammis, they only call the organization that. Furthermore, the wiki article Grammis itself states that it is the swedish version of the grammy awards. --Leon Sword 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, we agree that it's Swedish. So can we agree that we're editing the English Wikipedia and not the Swedish Wikipedia? The word "Grammy" appears to be the English equivalent of the Swedish word "Grammis" and since this is the English Wikipedia, Grammy should be used instead. --Leon Sword 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, but I don't think it's up to us, a bunch of Wikipedia editors to decide whether it's right for the Swedish people to call a Grammis a Grammy in English, that's lawyer work. Anyways I added the word "Swedish" before every mention of the word "Grammy" so that it's less ambiguous. --Leon Sword 18:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you have only shown that in Swedish the award is called a Grammis, but you keep evading the fact that in a lot of English sources including In Flames' official website the award is called a Grammy. To further prove my point do a google search of past winners with the word Grammy and you'll see that the term is in common use. --Leon Sword 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not letting this go despite your intention to walk away from it, but I still think we can come to an agreement over the issue. I still firmly disagree with what you are trying to prove - since sources seem to speak against you. However, I have edited the In Flames awards section one more time to try and provide a solution we can both agree on, please check it out and comment. --Leon Sword 03:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, I put Grammis in quotation marks to emphasize that it's a foreign term, but I just found out I'm supposed to use italics instead, according to Manual of Style (text formatting). By the way thanks for the constructive criticism. --Leon Sword 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Professional reviews
the page say: "The following sites provide reviews that you can use in album tables:" so i think Scaruffi is a good example of the phrase about By The Way. internet is full of music site with not good reviews of that album..but probably some rhcp fans don't want to admit it! Zagozagozago 10:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. --PEJL 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

just a question...
are you watching me or watching the pages i edit? I am just curious :D -- Jennica  16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. --PEJL 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's all cool. I respect what you do. -- Jennica  23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ArtistDirect
Thanks for the heads-up re ArtistDirect reviews. It was my impression that this site is primarily for selling music and so it wasn't appropriate as a link from WP. Also, given that there was already an abundance of other reviews in the infobox in question, I didn't think removing one would be problematic. But since it's among those listed on the project page, I'll put it back in.

I'm slowly but surely cleaning up a mess I made when I first started editing here back in February. The first project I got involved in was cleaning up broken links. At the time, all of the Pitchfork URLs were broken. While I was at it, I applied the star rating template to the Pitchfork and some other reviews. I didn't become aware until I had done this on literally hundreds of pages that I was violating WP:Album rules. So now I'm going back through each article one by one and undoing all the star rating templates I added. What fun! --Sanfranman59 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Pitchfork, I say amen to that! I couldn't believe it when I started checking the links today only to learn that they once again changed their URLs. At least this time they created a redirect page. The last time, the links led a 404 error. --Sanfranman59 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere Out There
Can you explain why you nominated this for speedy deletion? --Richard 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it satisfies WP:CSD, "a disambiguation page that only points to a single article". The disambig page refers two two entries, but only a single existing article. (I nominated a similar disambig page with one entry with an article and one entry without an article a few hours ago using a custom deletion criteria, and it was removed with a reference to CSD G6, so I assumed this case was covered by that.) --PEJL 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you check again? It looks like there are two links; An American Tail and Somewhere Out There (song).  I don't think this is quite right.  After all, there is also the Ronstadt/Ingram song "Somewhere Out There" which is arguably more notable than the Our Lady Peace song.


 * Perhaps it should be Somewhere Out There (Our Lady Peace) and Somewhere Out There (An American Tail) with Somewhere Out There (An American Tail) redirecting to An American Tail.


 * What are your thoughts?


 * --Richard 20:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no existing article for the song in the film An American Tail. That kind of primary article is what I was referring to above, and what I believe the criteria refers to. The entry for the song from An American Tail should possibly not be included in the disambig page at all, if it doesn't satisfy WP:MOSDAB. --PEJL 20:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to barge in here, but there already is an article for the American Tail song. Here it is, not named according to standard conventions: Somewhere Out There (1987 single). It was quite a big hit. --Paul Erik 04:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind you barging in. Hopefully, PEJL won't either. Thanks for finding that article. I was wondering why it didn't exist already and I guess I just didn't look hard enough. Now, here's my problem. I just created Somewhere Out There (An American Tail) which covers much of the same information but not quite. Somewhere Out There (1987 single) os about the single and Somewhere Out There (An American Tail) is about the MTV music-video. How should we resolve this? I think a merge is clearly in order but I'm not sure what the title of the merged article should be. --Richard 05:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * According to naming conventions song articles should be disambiguated with the artist name and "song", see WP:SONGS. I've moved the song articles accordingly. As for the merge, I suggest using Somewhere Out There (James Horner song). --PEJL 09:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Too Late
Hi. I was just wondering why you changed the format "February 10 – March 17, 2007" back to "February 10, 2007 – March 17, 2007" - my rationale for my edit was that if the two dates occurred in the same year, it's redundant to mention the year for both of them. Extraordinary Machine 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't like writing on my own talk page, so do you mind if I reply here? :D I didn't know about that, so sorry; I'm not familiar with ISO date formats. Manual of Style (dates and numbers) doesn't seem to mention anything about it, so maybe you should mention it on the talk page. Anyway, thanks for explaining, and keep up the good work in bringing articles into line with the style policies and guidelines - your contributions don't go unnoticed! :) Extraordinary Machine 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I forgot to reply, sorry. Are you sure about it affecting non-ISO date formats? I just changed my date preferences to the UK setting (I'd not previously specified a setting) and it rendered as "10 February – 17 March 2007", which looks okay to me (I live in the UK). But removing the year does affect the ISO format, so I'll try to remember when I'm editing other articles - oh, and thanks for the link to the old discussion. Extraordinary Machine 18:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

of Montreal vs. Of Montreal
I would like your input for correcting the spelling on this talk page again, as another user wants to do it as well. As I wrote there, I tried to discuss it on the conventions' talk page but with no response but before correcting the spelling for "Of Montreal" to "of Montreal" I wanted to make sure that you will, if not like it, at least not revert it back :-) --SoWhy Talk 08:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied at WT:NC and Talk:Of Montreal. --PEJL 11:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Master of Puppets
Ah... my mistake. I've reverted my revert... if that makes sense. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removing covers from album infoboxes
I wasn't aware of that standard. Thanks for letting me know. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misc in album infoboxes
Hi! Sorry for the late reply. I didn't have an edit conflict, it's just that your edits didn't feel right to me. For example, I think that the songwriting credits would look way neater if the were between  markups. I also think that the British release date should be added as the main release date on the Introducing Joss Stone article, as Joss is a British musician. I don't really read those WikiProjects—I know it may sound wrong. But I'll try to play by the rules from now on. Funk Junkie 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

L.A. Woman
Too true I was a bit zealous, moving articles of persons and the standard only applies to personal names. Clearly, looking at the art, it is "L.A. Woman." Reversion is appropriate. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Elevator album
I just didn't trust his edits. I mean do you really think he got the track times down to the fraction of a second and then rounded them, and THEN made the mistake? I mean, most basic media players don't even show you that kind of info.► Chris Nelson  07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 07:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Style issue
Two linebreaks sounds fine to me; I guess I only have one linebreak to keep consistency with my section header style. CloudNine 21:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Singles
Ah, I had absolutely no idea that this was a surfacing necessity on album info boxes. Personally, I think the addition of singles are irrelevant in general to the album and don't really shed that much information, as the user could simply visit the respective singles' articles. Regards, NSR 77  T C  21:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your user talk page. Feel free to respond there. --PEJL 21:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Really I don't see any need to restore the section, but if you see it necessary, I'm not going to stop you (hope that doesn't sound offensive, don't mean for it to be). Personally, I'd like to wait until it's become more of a widespread thing until it is re-added, but if you feel like now is the best time, then go for it. Regards, NSR 77  T C  21:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I just realized that each one of them were added by an unregistered IP user. NSR 77  T C  21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not questioning the competence of newcomers, but the fact that he or she is unregistered could be an indication that they do not know Wikipedia's policies, therefore foreign to the situation. NSR 77  T C  22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh, yeah the same thing is happening to me. Every other section appears to be all right, I'm not quite sure what's up with that one. Thanks for pointing it out. Best wishes, NSR 77  T C  22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm
Just apologised to NSR77. Oh dear. I was looking at your contribs and clicked on the wrong talk. But yes, thanks for the catches. Ceoil 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCartney Albums
Hi. I have a question for you. Regarding McCartney albums, when there is more than one edition of an album, shouldn't we indicate it in the discography? After all, the British All My Best! and Ameican All My Best! are virtually separate albums. After all, the discography notes Back in the US and Back in the World as separate albums (even though they are virtually the same thing. Likewise, the 25th anniversary edition of Band on th Run is treated as a separate album.  (Personally, I think that one should be listed as a note under the original release.

Since you seem to be the person keeping things in order here, I have another suggestion for you to consider. What do you think about the Paul McCartney album discography being broken up into subcategories ("Rock & Pop", "Classical & Instrumental", and "Experimental")? They could all be listed under Albums, but then under the various subcategories. The "Classical & Instrumental" category would include Liverpool Oratorio, Sanding Stone and Ecce Cor Meum as well Thrillington and both versions of The Family Way. The "Experimental" category would include both Fireman albums, as well as the Liverpool Sound Collage and Twin Freaks.  The rest of the stuff would be listed under the "Rock and Pop" category. That's how I file them in my collection. It seems to make sense to me, especially as McCartney didn't perform on the classical stuff. Just a suggestion. What do you think? MCB/Boulder 7/10/05


 * I responded a few days ago at User talk:67.177.195.177. --PEJL 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"tweak formatting"
You are the king of the wikignomes ;) 86.137.57.73 20:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. ;-) --PEJL 21:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mayer #5
Just thought I'd point you to this in case you see any other crystal additions relating to John Mayer. You also might want to cite WP:CRYSTAL when removing to explain why you're doing it. Ciao! -- linca linca  13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Help!
For some reason, in the Dookie article, the "Writing and composition" section and the "Accolades" are mixing into each other, and I don't know how to fix it! May you help? Xihix 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see this has been fixed. --PEJL 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you think of it?
I did some extremely major re-editing on Dookie, almost changing the whole article, as you probably saw. How do you like it? What else should I add? Do you think it's ready for some kind of review, like GA? Or a peer review? Xihix 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Roundup
Thanks for reverting that silly edit of mine. I have no idea why I used that buggy code. --Eliyak T · C 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Flagicons
Where exactly in WP:Flags does it say I can't put the flags on album pages? -- Jennica Talk 16:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Beatles Chronology
Since when are compilations not in album chronologies? Did I miss a discussion somewhere where this consensus was established? --Analogdemon (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I responded at your user talk page, as you've already noted. --PEJL 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks a lot! NSR 77 T C  19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Give Ireland Back to the Irish
Hi again. I don't doubt that the label says that. Our convention however, is that such notes are not considered part of the song name, and the song name should be in quotes. See also all the other examples in this article, with various "(live)", "(remix)" and similar notes. Therefore I'm reverting this change once again. --PEJL 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with not putting the subtitle of the song in quotes (or not capitalizing it, for that matter). As I said before, you seem to be maintaining this site well, and my hat is off to you.  However, if the B-Side of "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" is only distinguished from the A-Side by simply putting the word "version" in parentheses, don't we risk countless well-meaning revisers erroneously inserting the word "instrumental" in the parentheses?  The B-Side is not merely an instrumental version of the A-Side, it is an entirely different arrangement, don't you think?   ---MCB, Boulder 7/22/2007


 * I've responded at your talk page, which for reference is at User talk:67.177.195.177. --PEJL 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Keane
Thanks for letting me know. I won't revert again :)--Fluence 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the changes. If the current version of the album with your edits is OK, I'd like to keep it like that.--Fluence 22:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your help!
Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I need a help from you with regards to templates. For more information, please view this page. I feel that it is paramount to achieve consistency with regards to templates. If you know how to correct this, it would be much appreciated. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 05:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see this has already been fixed. --PEJL 09:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Music of Final Fantasy VII
I thought you might want to see the changes that were made. I don't think it's possible to have a better compromise between guidelines, and a well written article, in this multi-album page. Thank-you for your help.Happypal 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Californication charts
Fair enough, you are the formatting king after all :o) I was just concerned about how it might appear in different readers, for ex. PDAs and so on. The same goes for different browsers and resolutions. I would prefer using a fixed column width as you suggested instead of hard coding line breaks (they should be written as btw). Not quite sure how to do this as wikitables are very confusing (I much prefer using plain HTML, heh). What did you think of moving the chart links to a seperate section? Kamryn · Talk 09:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me about the cite thing, I'll get onto that now if I don't fall asleep before I press the 'save' button (going entire nights without sleep really impairs my short term memory). You have a good point about the horizontal screen sizes, I hadn't considered that. I guess your way is indeed better! :) Taking a look at the Notes section in Californication, I think a good few of the cites could do with cleaning up. I wish there were an easier way to edit references without having to go searching for a in the source.

however, habit has ingrained it into my soul. Kamryn · Talk 10:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of  being acceptable, it's certainly easier to type! I think I'll be sticking with

Re: Capitalisation
Good morning beautiful, how are you today? Are you good, sweetness? I hope you are. "...the first genre in the list should be" - 'Heavy Metal' is the first and only genre in the list... and what did your little humpty dink quote say? Scar ian Talk  09:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 10:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, hold on, you have just changed a guideline in order to suit your argument, that's not right. That is your interpretation of it... the next guy could have a completely different take on it. You haven't made any sort of consensus on what should be used or anything to that effect. That just isn't right... People could say, "Yeah - from a superficial point of view it looks better to have it as 'Heavy Metal'," or "It said the first genre in the list should be capitalised, not just the first word,"


 * When I pointed out that the guideline didn't fit your reasoning behind reverting the edits, you changed the guideline... Don't you see how utterly queer that is? This is kind of reminiscent of 1984. Scar ian  Talk  10:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I did write that particular guideline in the first place, so I can attest that the new wording matches the intended interpretation. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 17. Note that the example used is "Pop, rock", where the first word and first genre are the same thing. I made an oversight when I drafted that guideline, and failed to consider cases when the first genre contained multiple words. Note that your proposed interpretation falls apart quickly, as it would lead to for example "Heavy Metal, speed metal", which looks plain weird. --PEJL 10:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To the first part of your reply: "We shall see.", to the second I meant: If there was only ONE genre in the list, which there is, it would look better visually. Do not think of me as an aesthetically blind fool, sweety. Scar ian  Talk  10:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So basically you are proposing changing the guideline to something like "Note that most genres aren't proper nouns, and shouldn't be capitalized, but the first word in the list should be if there is more than one genre, otherwise the entire genre should be capitalized."? Feel free to propose that at WT:ALBUM if you feel that would be an improvement. As for what looks better, that's entirely subjective. --PEJL 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for arguing with you, big guy (Amount of edits you've made). Lib's (the I.P.), told me to watch over "his old haunts", so I tried to. Unfortunatly for me, I am not that well rehearsed when it comes to policy... and little ol' me got beaten down... hehe, you take care! It was lovely arguing with you... in a way :-D Scar ian  Talk  04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

reply re cap talk
I am actually a stickler for "1st word only" genre caps. My edit to the Black Album was actually to rollback the previous IP who had vandalised the genre completely. In my error I didn't realise I had rolled back to a version that had incorrectly capitalised the "M" in the genre label. Sorry for the mix-up. 156.34.142.110 11:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. --PEJL 11:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Street Fighting Man
Would you mind contributing to the peer review for "Street Fighting Man"? I'm looking for one that's quite comprehensive, looking for words to avoid, original research and the like. Shooting for Good Article status. Thanks in advance. Stan weller 06:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Genres
You realize that almost no albums on Wikipedia have their genres seperated by commas, right? I mean I know it's the official policy, but most albums' genres are seperated by line, not comma. - Razorhead Augst 12, 2007


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 10:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Revolver US Release
Hey PEJL, I spent a lot of time getting that American infobox for Revolver (album) in there as the release IS significantly different. I don't appreciate you removing it without so much as a reason or comment. . . please observe the note I left and do not delete it! --Soakologist 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 00:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding . . . I now understand your rationale and your compromise is fair enough. --Soakologist 03:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Type "demo" on Template:Infobox Album/doc/type
Hey, no problem. Cheers to getting that changed, now I have been able to start clearing out Category:Non-standard album infoboxes. -- Reaper  X  03:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Using regexes when manually editing articles
Just out of curiosity. How do you do it? Jogers (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 13:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up
I was doing some vandalism patrol today and apparently I did a pretty good job. Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism to my user page. --Sanfranman59 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infobox Album category
When the code is updated, there isn't a way to apply changes from one place to another; i.e., a diff from a user subpage can't be magically applied to the Template:Infobox Album. The total code was copied from your user subpage and placed into Template:Infobox Album because that was the desired new code. However, it's no big deal; it's an easy fix. Coincidentally, another edit was requested for an image override, so we'll do the two at once. Just let me know when you're ready and I'll make the modifications. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be better to have a sandbox and testcases like Template:Infobox Country? --MZMcBride 04:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox color template
Funny what turns up in Google searches. I think last November I was testing for updating the project page or something. But with that template, I can't test what other words work. ;-) -Freekee 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just came across that one a little while ago.:-) I don't really use that chart in my sandbox anymore. Just never deleted it. Thanks, though. -Freekee 17:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Boldface for current albums in Infobox Album chronology
Thanks for notifying me. And just as a heads up, the edits recently made under the IP address 24.59.100.246 were meant to be under this username. Should anything else need to be discussed over those recent edits, I would prefer it if comments be directed towards my current username. Thanks. Pele Merengue 05:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Guitarist
Template:Infobox Guitarist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kudret abi 05:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming Convention
Thanks for the link to the naming convention. I think the convention on Wikipedia is wrong as it contradicts what I learnt at school - albeit that was a long time ago so the rules may have changed - and on over half the CDs in my collection all the words are capitalised - though interestingly 1 exception to that is "One of These Nights" by Eagles. Anyway I'll stick to the convention now I know it. Thanks again. Kelpin 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Band
The reason I made that edit was so the articles could be converted to using Infobox musical artist more easier by EBot. I have made a list of which articles transclude the template here: User:FMAFan1990/Infobox Band (edit links are provided so that one need not to click "edit this page"). Since this is a tedious task to do by myself, I am enlisting help here: User:FMAFan1990/Infobox Band/Sign-up. I hope you can understand. FMAFan1990 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 04:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on my talk page as well. FMAFan1990 04:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Love in the Time of Science
"...missing edit summary makes for guesswork..."

Can I quote you on that? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Band talkpage
Check out the message I left here: Template talk:Infobox Band. FMAFan1990 04:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on something
Does a tribute band deserve to have their recorded cover of a song mentioned on the song's page? Stan weller 06:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. --PEJL 11:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well these covers (on two separate albums) appear to be self-produced and marketed by the band. They read as adverts on the song pages and add nothing to the overall quality of the article other than making it look cheap. I think the information on which songs they have covered is best left to the tribute band's page. It sets a bad example to other tribute bands. Is it such a stretch to assume that a tribute band is going to cover a song by the band they are emulating? Stan weller 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Genre formation in info-boxes
It looks like I did in about every godamn infobox on Wikipedia, and I thought that was the correct way. I've formated boxes like that for about half a year and no-one has ever complained. Are these rules new or something?

And by the way, it looks better this way...--Gustav Lindwall 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 18:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Personnel subsections
Please refrain from adding subsections to the Personnel section on the Evanescence albums, as they are completely superfluous to the needs of that section, being little more than short lists already. There is no policy or guideline that states subsections must be used in place of bold text, at least none that I can locate. Please do correct me if you can find such a statement, but I looked into this long before now. Cheers. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Weezer (The Blue Album)
Hey, why did you unminimize some of the front for the tracklisting? Also can you rate the article? Cowbellcity45 20:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I get it now. Cowbellcity45 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Amiina vs amiina
the band's name is written as amiina. Amiina is a misspelling, the conventional rule for capitalisation of band names does not apply. see for a good precedent here L!nus 11:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Music Samples
As you already know. I'm working my butt off on trying to get the Blue Album to Good article status eventually becoming a feature article. I want to include a music sample. But I am unsure how to do so. So what are the instructions or where can I find instructions to do that. Thanks. Cowbellcity45 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

amiina
lordy! you are too fast for me with your responses. I'm working on my edit to the discussion as we speak - watch for an edit there in the next five minutes --Eitch 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM
On WP:ALBUM you said "As the number of reviews should be limited, and as languages other than English are not understood by a large number of readers, reviews in languages other than English should generally not be included unless the language is especially relevant to the album in question..."

If limiting the number of reviews is the rationale, it only applies when the number is too large, that is why I have adapted what you said. It's not what I want to say at all. Kappa 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I noted in my previous message, I think this should be discussed at WT:ALBUM. --PEJL 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your revert
Hi, sorry if I did something wrong, but I honestly believe the changes I made to Endless Wire (The Who album) were correct and fall within the guidelines set in everything you listed. You reverted to incorrect capitalization, punctuation, made up words, and incorrect song titles. Before I revert your revert, please give me specific examples. Some changes may be "incorrect" (probably just formatting ones that don't affect the actual article) but if the good ones out weigh them, you should have left it or just fixed the incorrect ones. -Rocket000 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, after reviewing my changes I found some that were wrong. I guess I was in a hurry and using automatic tools can lead to overlooked errors. However, your revert made things worse so I'm partially reverting your edit while fixing the things I did wrong. Here are just a few examples of my changes you reverted:


 * studio -> Studio Why would you capitalize every other first word (like the genre) in the infobox except this one?


 * 11th -> eleventh per Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and for consistency.


 * "Mike Post Theme," -> "Mike Post Theme", The comma's not part of the title (WikiProject Music/MUSTARD).


 * "Won't Get Fooled Again/Old Red Wine" -> "Won't Get Fooled Again"/"Old Red Wine" Two separate titles.


 * "Man In A Purple Dress" -> "Man in a Purple Dress" Just one of numerous examples of incorrect capitalization per WikiProject Music/MUSTARD.


 * "Sadly, the song was not included on the album..." -> "The song was not included on the album" This wasn't a quote. It totally violates NPOV

I'm aware of the trivial nature of these changes, but all these little inconsistencies are makes Wikipedia look unprofessional and sloppy. I believe both our intentions are good and if you still find fault with my editing please point out to me specifically what I did wrong, so I can improve. I'll admit I haven't fully read every "official policy and guideline" of Wikipedia (which they themselves are contested and change all the time); I just do what I believe is correct, but I also respect the "consensus" on these issues. If I am aware of how I should be doing something I will do that way instead. - Rocket000 00:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've responded on your talk page. --PEJL 10:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing those things out to me. Here's a few comments and questions.


 * The "studio" thing I figured was some policy thing, but it doesn't make sense to me. Should the genre (or any other common name) be lowercase to then? Maybe you can explain it to me.


 * "Pop art" - I agree with lowercasing any genre after the first one, however the article says it's with a capital "P"


 * As for WP:ALBUM, I believe it is totally wrong. The policy should be changed. A-side/B-side listed as separate songs unless they're a medley.


 * I didn't know that "utilizing" was the British form of spelling. I would of left it. Now I know!


 * The comma thing is highly disputed. I believe since it's a UK article with UK spelling, the dates could be either or, just as long as there consistent. From now on, I'm leaving dates alone until we reach a consensus.


 * I use to remove whitespace as a separate edit, but someone complained that it was a waste of resources and to only do it if I make other changes. That is why I do them all together.


 * Thanks again. - Rocket000 05:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've responded on your talk page. --PEJL 10:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to explain these issues to me. One last thing, about the "Pop art" thing I was referring to the article, A Quick One. The article mentions it should be capitalized (see the fourth paragraph), but after checking out the link you provided pop art, I see that it shouldn't. -Rocket000 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Formatting of album genres
I didn't really know that. I just saw that there were a few columns in the table that had the ^br /^ thing, and that the genre section was no different. That's my fault. I left it alone when there were slashes though, ex: Metal/Hardcore/Alternative. So thanks for that insight.

B T C 21 September 2007 15:17 (UTC)

Wikinews Interview with John Vanderslice
You edited the John Vanderslice article. Wikinews is schedule to do an interview with Vanderslice this Wednesday, September 26. If you have any questions you'd like to ask John or know about John, please leave them on my Talk page. Thanks. -- David  Shankbone  15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again
Some editors just can't seem to listen when they are given directions. 156.34.212.136 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tonight's target for superfluity = Motorhead. 156.34.226.99 00:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * refs=clutter. If they are diffusing some kind of edit war I can see the justification. But when the field has been in a long term dormant peaceful place... sticking the refs in is more of a 'nah-nah-nah-come-n-get-it' sort of edit... almost an invitation to try and start an edit war. Mr. S is under particular scrutiny right now in a possible blocked user sockpuppetry type of situation so when I see his edits I pay particular attention to them... more for suspect-sock-style than actual guideline faux-pas. But if he is starting to follow the rules.. it's a good thing. While I have your attention could you review some of the recent edit summaries from this user... who seems to want to skew a few GL's in his own POV-ish sort of way. I agree that no consensus was set in stone. But there was certainly more "constructive" feedback to avoiding the ugly 's while the negative arguments were simply just "I like 'em and you can't do nuttin' about it... so there". + WP:FLAG might as well be a policy... pretty much every admin who owns a music article ( did I say own?... Admins don't 'own' anything do they :D ) sticks to WP:F_cruft like it's a law. Thanks for your input. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 12:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jogersbot false positive
I have no idea yet but thanks for the note. Jogers (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's strange, I couldn't figure out why this happened. If you watch this page please let me know if this happens again. Regards, Jogers (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It was because Talk:Live (Iron Butterfly album) redirected to Talk:Live (band). Jogers (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is quite unusual situation but I'll try to skip redirects altogether. Jogers (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem does not occur when an article is redirected but when the corresponding talk page is redirected and the article is not. Jogers (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Formatting issues
That particular track already contains bracketed information. This makes the placement of additional bracketed text cluttered and confusing for the reader. Just64helpin 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This was in response to a message I left on your talk page. I've moved two other responses from you there to keep the conversation in one place. Please follow up there, as I'm watching that page. --PEJL 13:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I'll still edit here to alert you. Just64helpin 13:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am alerting you of my reply. Just64helpin 15:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable reviews
I think this guy's review additions are nn. Your thoughts? 156.34.208.95 23:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 06:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fwd: Fusion genres to show
Could you join into this conversation and provide your insight. Thanks 156.34.208.95 00:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --PEJL 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I figured you could tweak it out. 156.34.212.248 10:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Eagles
I see you're active at the moment could you please revert I've already reverted 3 lots of vandalism today so can't touch the article again today. Thanks. Kelpin 13:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I know a user who got blocked for reverting vandalism because he did more than 3 reverts. I argued with the Admin that this was nonsensical but he refused to budge.  In future though if its obvious vandalism I'll revert it - if I get blocked I can always point to the advice I was given today (which seems like common sense to me). Kelpin 13:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my spaced em-dashes
Well, the heading says it all. Just wanted to post a quick thank you for the correction on Template:Extra musicsample. And now that I'm here, I'm also gonna ask for a little piece of advice, on my edit of that template. The edit summary of my last edit there is partly wrong. Because the change removes an empty space for both IE and FF (although the empty space removed in FF is larger). Should I make a bogus edit to correct my edit summary or should I just leave it alone? -- Pepve 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your correction/tweaking/clean-up
Hi PEJL, thank you for your endless corrections of info I submit amongst the Tori Amos pages! I often have info to add, but am not well-versed in Wikipedia rules just yet. I certainly do not intend to muck up the Tori pages. Thanks for keeping me in line. I'm learning a lot from you! :) --Pisceandreams 22:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Perhaps you should see Talk:Black_Sabbath. Some people just can't play by the rules... uh.. I mean guidelines... er... Project directives... y'know what I mean :D. Good luck with this one. As always... have a nice day! 156.34.230.78 02:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My userpage
Thanks for the fixes on my userpage :-) Jogers (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

RHCP Discography
Thank you so much for your great formatting help in my attempt to improve the article. You know how to perfect charts and tables far more effectively than I. Thanks again! NSR 77 T C  19:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sig
Hi, I am working on it, After I've sorted out my signature length, I will substitute the template with the new one, --  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   13:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinkin about going back to the old style, but i'm still going to work on my existing one to make it shorter. -  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   13:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Butcher Cover
Please don't revert without discussion. No such thing as "original butcher cover." The Butcher cover is the "first Y&S" cover and it definately isn't an alternate cover. I adhere strictly to the 3RR. So please discuss before getting heated and reverting again! Sixstring1965 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 16:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your change to the article. Please understand that when you arre reverted more than once, it is time to take your case to the discussion page, and not attmept to argue your point in an edit summary. You have clearly seent hat it is not an effective method of making your point. I am not saying your edit is wrong; I am saying you need to prove your case to the rest of us in the Discussion page. Failing to do so can be easily perceived as disruptive.
 * As well, I would like to point out that as of your last edit here you currently stand at the 3RR threshhold for the next 24 hours. Pleae do not violate 3RR. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am discussing it, see User talk:Sixstring1965. I think the parties arguing that this article should not adhere to the album guidelines need to explain why it should not. --PEJL 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding to both the statement here and in my User Talk page, this is a discussion that should be taking place int he Article Discussion page, as this is not a more personal issue, but one that is specifically about the technicals of the image use and description.
 * PEJL, while you may consider usingthe edit summary to get your point across, it clearly isn't working here, which makes it necessary to discuss the issue further. Edit summaries are not the place to carry on extended conversations - essentially quips - to influence other editors to accept your viewpoint.
 * Six-String can be pretty excitable, but his heart is in the right place. Work with him and help him to understand what you are doing. You will both end up as better editors and people by working together rather than at odds with one another.
 * I suggest that this matter gets discussed on the Article Discussion page, so as to involve other editors. I will address a possible alternative there after one of you posts a new section about it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kent
I made a template for the kent albums, ep and singles. I think that you shouldn't change the layout of the singles because it is better organized the way that I did it. There are so many singles that I figured it would be best to separate them into some sets of albums, Kent-Verkligen, Isola-Hagnesta Hill, Vapen & Ammunition - Du & Jag Doden.... it looks much nicer this way than if they're all thrown into there together. (LAz17 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)).


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 16:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that you made other changes too... I took them off by accidentm, sorry. (LAz17 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)).

Infobox's peak position
Pls see this page. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Weezer Discography
I reverted it back to the way I had it because I feel it looks 50x better that way.  cowbellcity45  talk  20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I just don't understand why we must do "that format." Why do we have to have a format that looks worse than the format that I think is good? I feel my way is visually more pleasing. Why does everything on Wikipedia have to be such a problem?  cowbellcity45  talk  16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Information
I did some researching and (I'm fairly certain) the regular edition of the album is listed as 1000BPM, while copies that have bonus tracks list the song as 1000 BPM. Natural instinct would be to go with the regular edition title styling, so it was a small mistake on my part. Vanishdoom 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tweak capitalization
I noticed the Techno article has a section titled "Production Techniques / Technologies" when it should be "Production techniques and technologies". Since you usually keep an eye on that stuff, would you mind fixing that? Just64helpin 11:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like User:W guice beat me to it. --PEJL 12:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone struggling with capitalisation
Hi, PEJL. Can you please explain to Donniedarkofan2006 why this is wrong. I've tried explaining it on their talk page, but they won't listen. Regards, Funeral 16:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been listening but you don't have a convincing argument. I'm going to leave this alone now because it's annoying and boring. Donniedarkofan2006 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Funeral 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

reverting reversion
as a reply to this: what i was trying to say is that rather then reverting revisions and putting see WP:MUSTARD or something similar in the edit summary you should post a comment on either the users talk page or the article's talk page arguing why you keep reverting their edits. clearly the fact that people keep reverting your capitalisation edits means that they do not agree with you, nor with your argument. therefore you should point them to the place where the guideline is being discussed (which is here) and ask them to contribute there. and please also provide some other argument for sticking to the current guideline rather than just saying it is the guideline. in the meantime you should refrain from re-reverting edits made by others. Arcayne made a similar comment in the User talk:PEJL section above. --L!nus 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Deus (band)
I've placed a 3RR warning on Elice's talk page. Do you still have the article watchlisted, so we may counter these no discussion/no rationale reverts appropriately, without being in danger of running afoul WP:3RR ourselves? - Cyrus XIII 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In Rainbows
I see your point, but the reason I replaced the template was simply that it's very difficult to quickly discern the rating when the 10-star template is used, with its minuscule stars. I'm not going to revert the page, though. Atlantik (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 00:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT
it is highly ironic that you quote WP:POINT in your recent (rereversed) edit summary of the amiina article, considering that it states (among other things) ''This neglects two important things about Wikipedia: it is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (These are arguably not defects.)'' which is precisely what i have been trying to bring across to you since this whole thing started, namely: THERE ARE POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GUIDELINES. --L!nus 14:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Far less ironic than the fact that you are missing the point of WP:POINT. --PEJL 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * i understand the point of it completely. i deliberately didn't go into that because i didn't want to point back at you and say "all of that applies to you as well" (maybe even more so, i am trying to find a way out of this, you just keep pushing your point ) --L!nus 15:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Radiohead
Yeah, why not? –FunkyVoltron talk 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

High Culture

 * This barnstar is well deserved. Your dedication is appreciated, PEJL! Jogers (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Introducing information in album infoboxes
A question about this edit of yours: "infobox should summarize article body, not replace it". Are you saying that all of the information in an infobox needs to be replicated in the article body? That's not current practice at all. There are plenty of album articles where the producer is only listed in the infobox, and nowhere else in the article. Not to mention record label, recording details, exact release date, etc. I don't see the point in duplicating all of this information; it's extra work and just introduces more chances for inconsistent data. And I believe most readers can find who produced an album much more easily by looking in the infobox, than by hunting through a possibly long list of personnel credits. Wasted Time R 13:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 13:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

video albums

 * never having done one before, i hadn't really any idea what to do with it, to be honest, so i copied it from another DVD. thanks for the advice.  tomasz.  21:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

edit > completely misunderstood first time. i am on the same page now. shall i move 'em again? again, ta for the advice. best,  tomasz.  21:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Feel free to follow up there. --PEJL 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D
Hey PEJL. May I ask for your input? I'm banging heads with User:Unless you over whether the article for Year Zero's remix album should be named Year Zero Remixed or Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions. The section dubbed Album titles and band names says "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band))." I interperet "Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D" as stylized typography, Unless doesn't. I want to have consensus at the talk page before moving it again, and I'd appreciate your input. Cheers. -- Reaper  X  22:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have commented on the article talk page. --PEJL 22:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Niandra
The album is relatively peculiar. My disc states "Tracks 1-12 are Niandra Lades" and then "Tracks 13-25 are Usually Just a T-Shirt". However it is not a double album. Really I don't mind which way is used. Regards, NSR 77  T C  14:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you'd know this better than I, what is going on with Frusciante's infobox? NSR 77  T C  21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't know. It all of a sudden turned into massive coding but seems to be fine now. NSR 77  T C  21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, long time no speak
A passing thought. You really should push for some concensus towards commas vs. breaks. The project is becoming over-populated with "breakers" trying to make infoboxes that are longer than the content available for the actual artist. Both the music and the album examples show commas being used.... but the wording within the guideline doesn't support due to the minority "breaker" neighing too loudly whenever the subject gets broached. If examples are to shown as guides for proper editing... the something concrete needs to be laid down to back up what shown in the examples. I have read all the discussions and have never yet heard a valid( intelligent :D ) arguement to use the breaks over the comma. 156.34.238.220 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Box content question
Ever look at the infobox for Yngwie Malmsteen? He is an individual performer... and yet he has current members and former members? I am not a fan of "Sir Pompous", but I've always believed the guitarist's backing band had the nickname "Rising Force"... similar to the title of his first album. And I could likely be wrong about that. In either event... can an individual have "members". I know where the superfluity is originating from... he has had many different musicians in his backing band. But... looking at comtemporaries such as Joe Satriani or Steve Vai or similar... who have also had many a stellar musician in their backing bands... none of them seem to list any members. Should the Yngwie J. article list that type of content inside the infobox? 156.34.213.29 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * re: linking back to my Static #... I can never remember my static IP to link to. If I need to ask you a question... you can go ahead and answer me right here on your own talk page and I will come looking for it. That way you don't have to chase me down. At the University where I work... all of our proxy servers will refresh themselves several times through the work week. If I am at my desk my # is static. But If I am toting a laptop and wandering around the campus(which is 80% of my time) then my IP changes often depending on which faculty library I am visiting. Don't bother trying to chase me down to respond to me. I can find you a lot quicker than you can find me. I don't want to trouble you anymore than I am simply by picking your brain for quick template queries. You are the expert on those and the only editor whose opinion I hold of value when it comes to project specific questions like my last content question. "Hunt and peck" no more :D . I will seek your replies, if you have one, right here. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Genre delimiters
Hello. You might be interested in giving your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to earlier comment
I am a bit lost??? I haven't requested a change to the format @ WP:ALBUM. I think all I had to do there ealier was a quick/double RVV on a user who was trying to alter the guideline text without discussing any proposed changes. 156.34.142.110 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I was reading my talk page... inadvertently clicked a different talk page by mistake and read a message... not intended for me... thinking it WAS for me because I thought I was still on my own talk page??? I blame a drastic shortage of coffee and an overdose of leftover Halloween candy :D. 156.34.142.110 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. --PEJL 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

dotted-line boxes at MOS
Thanks for fixing it; can you do the other one too? Tony  (talk)  14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. They do look disruptive, but that seems fine. Tony   (talk)  15:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oasis (band) navbox
I adjusted the linebreaks on Template:Oasis because otherwise the navbox causes the page to scroll horizontally (I'm on a 1024x768 screen at the moment). What does it look like to you? CloudNine 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Documentation reverted 20:51, November 3, 2007
An explanation is available here. – Conrad T. Pino 21:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please visit here. If you'd like a phone call then please send me your phone number via Wikipedia email. – Conrad T. Pino 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Patrick restored my problem #ifexist: edit which you reverted (all perfectly fine). I'm here to offer my help as I have another idea to try. I haven't done so because it appears you're working with Infobox Single/sandbox. We can collaborate (each on 1 template) or work serially (each on both but after the other is done). Please let me know your preference at your convenience. Thank you and good night. – Conrad T. Pino 06:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The next bright idea is at [[Template talk:Documentation. – Conrad T. Pino 08:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Patrick debugged and remimplemented the "#ifexist:" edit last night. I slipped in the "Revision 2" change, notified him and I presume he tested "#ifexist:" with "Revision 2". These are the net differences in our work. Consider checking your test cases for problems. If you're satisfied then I won't need the Infobox Single/sandbox. Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 18:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm available to help but I need more information because I don't know what WP looked like "before" and the "after" (right now) looks OK. Of course I don't know what I should be there. To speed up the process, can you take a phone call? If so then email me your phone number using Wikipedia email or if you prefer my phone number is on my web site. Alert me via my user page the communication method you prefer to use. – Conrad T. Pino 19:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to find the lines at the top because I didn't now where to start looking but once I did a text search then the spacing difference became obvious. Give me 15 minutes to setup Documentation/sandbox. – Conrad T. Pino 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK Documentation/sandbox and Documentation/testcases are setup but the mystery deepens. Go view Documentation/testcases output and code which are different in different ways than WP:SONG. I'm setting up User:ConradPino/template/testing/testcases. – Conrad T. Pino 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No joy, User:ConradPino/template/testing/testcases is still different because the Infobox Single/doc has conditional logic. I'm studying that now. – Conrad T. Pino 20:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's done (I hope). The space you described and was caused by the combination of Documentation and Documentation subpage. User:Patrick added new lines to Documentation to deal with other issues and Documentation subpage was already emitting some itself. The prior count was low enough to not matter but 3 consecutive new lines generate in the HTML stream which I saw in my test cases. I edited Documentation subpage to emit less and the space between "This documentation is transcluded from ..." and "Code" at WP:SONG is reduced. My examination of the HTML looked clean after Documentation subpage ending. Take look and judge for yourself. – Conrad T. Pino 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome &amp; THANK YOU for I'd not a clue without your sign post. – Conrad T. Pino 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

uncat albums/EPs by year, WPSS-cat
Possibly; I didn't take account of people applying album-stub templates to things-other-than-albums. Next time, I think I'll skip anything with anything that looks like a 'date' category of any sort, album or not.

On a not-remotely-related matter: I notice the edit you recently made to WPSS-cat changes its background colour on every category page transclusion (it's not intended to be a talk page template). Is this in line with what you planned (or the recent wave of standarisation of same)? Alai 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's a problem, necessarily, I'm just trying to understand the change in question. It shouldn't ever be used on talk pages, so the effect of the change seems to be to alter the colour on every usage (aside from any misplaced ones, which I don't doubt exist). Are you saying it's been the "wrong" colour all this while? (BTW, can you place any reply on my talk page, please, rather than on my bot's?) Alai 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page templates only go on talk pages, but as it's not a talk-page template, that doesn't imply anything in this case. Is there a standard colour scheme for category page templates, or is the current behaviour simply the default from the metatemplate? Alai 22:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll point WPSS at that discussion. I can see there's a case for distinguishing it from the talk page standard, or at any rate for not arriving at that colour via the "talk" route, as seems to have formerly been the case. It leaves somewhat open what it should be, though. Alai 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WPSS-cat
You might wish to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting. WP:WSS has used this on thousands of pages for more than two years without hearing a single complaint about it, and I find it somewhat surprising that you begin modifying such templates without consulting the relevant WikiProject. Please establish consensus before making such edits. Have a nice day. Valentinian T / C 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying me. I was being a bit WP:BOLD, but I'm certainly willing to discuss the issue. --PEJL 18:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Jogers/Template:Album
All dealt with. Good work with the cleanup. By the way, would you like to be an admin? I'd be happy to nominate you if you wish. Requesting all these changes all the time must be a hassle :-) Jogers (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you could easily pass the RfA. Adminship is no big deal, right? :-) Anyway, let me know if you change your mind. Jogers (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your attention
- That boy is citing things that aren't even policies...! He's beginning to annoy me and I don't even care about the whole comma/line break argument... ["Annoy" is an exaggeration but it's the closest word I am hazarding] - He's been told off for edit warring on the IM page before and I have written several warnings to him about it before... (According to an admin the IM article has always had commas) Any thoughts? Scar ian Talk  18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I basically need to know whether I can revert it using a) A policy/standard rule (i.e. "IM article has always had commas wait until consensus is reached for standardisation" - but I've used that before to no avail) or b) for vandalism because of his previous warning for edit warring on that particular article? - Any thoughts appreciated. Scar ian  Talk  18:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I skimmed through most of it. That was the original reason why I came here. There's nothing that can be done until a consensus can be confirmed but I doubt that'll ever happen... let's be honest. Scar ian  Talk  19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Oasis
Here's an example of the table formatting error in the template (Using Mozilla Firefox (2.0.0.9) on Windows XP at the time). Any ideas as to what could be causing this? CloudNine 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not the ideal solution, but this seems to fix things. (I adopted the solution from Template:Nirvana (band). CloudNine 22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Album cats
Should Category:Album articles without cover art and Category:Album articles with infobox field language, which are currently in Category:Albums, be moved to Category:Album articles needing attention?--Fisherjs 11:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Extra track listing template
Hey PEJL, few things regarding your change to this template. Cheers! -- Huntster  T • @ • C 08:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Is something wrong with, or is there a reason why, the !- template should not be used?  It worked fine from what I could tell.
 * 2) The empty cell that was removed was intended to act as a separator between sections of the infobox, since the template can use two separate colour sections for its own use.  I'm placing this back in since it was there *long* before I made my update and does serve a designed purpose.
 * 3) On the /doc page, you made bold the "current track" bit.  I understand the issue has gone back and forth for a long time, but the last I'd heard was that bold was a bad idea when in use like this for the same reason it was a bad idea for use on album chart tables...that it was not only an unnecessary use of bold, which MoS says to avoid, but it was perceived as a violation of NPOV.  Has something changed?


 * Regarding point 1, perhaps !- should be deprecated in favour of your method...it certainly makes sense, even if I'm unsure whether the process savings would be significant enough to note. I'll come back to point 2 in a moment.  As for point 3, I can see where the bolding process for navigation footers might be applicable to the infoboxes.  No big deal in any case.
 * Okay, regarding the empty cell spacer, I haven't tested it but the code may work as well, and may be more favourable in terms of letting the server format as it wants to.  However, if kept, this format would be best served by placing it in each of the "Misc" field items, to visually separate one from another (rather difficult currently when each instance is the same colour).  Or, and I thought of this just now, completely reformat Extra track listing so that there is no difference between using the  and  fields...have it so there is only a single coloured header box, thus removing any doubt as to the division between sections.  Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, that would be the better option, and would be exceedingly easy to code.  I'll whip up something in my user sandbox.  Thoughts? --  Huntster  T • @ • C 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so the code has again been updated at Extra track listing to resolve this issue and another one posted on its talk page. The second bar has been removed, and the documentation updated to show the use of  field.  Let me know if there are any problems.  Also, I noticed the Extra musicsample template the other day, and had to wonder just how much value there was to it, given that it seems a bit of a stretch to justify fair-use on a music clip in the infobox (outside of critical commentary).  I know we are lenient with the album covers in infoboxes, but this seems to be going a bit too far.... --  Huntster  T • @ • C 01:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re Extra musicsample, I think it's ridiculous to say location in an article affects fair use. A sample in an infobox is just as legitimate as a sample elsewhere in the article. Putting it in the infobox is an aesthetic issue only. If the use of a sample qualifies as fair use in an article, where it physically appears in that article is almost irrelevant. Putting the sample link in the infobox because putting it elsewhere (A) hides it or (B) breaks the flow of text is no reason to object on a fair-use basis. Boy, I hate the fair use police! John Cardinal 05:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Extra musicsample, see WT:ALBUM if you haven't already. --PEJL 11:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just read it. First, the discussion is about album articles, not song articles. Second, the discussion has a whopping total of two people talking to each other. Two people make short comments and then change policy, a great example of a general problem in WP. Can you please explain what you wanted me to learn by visiting that discussion? How does it apply to changing Extra musicsample? John Cardinal 14:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize you were talking about song/single infoboxes specifically. I wanted to alert you to the discussion, to give you the opportunity to join in. The problem with too few editors being involved in discussions is quite simple; get more editors involved. No policy has been changed yet, it's still a draft. If you disagree with any part of the draft, please raise that at WT:ALBUM. In this case my interpretation is that the changes in question are mostly required for compliance with Wikipedia's policies on use of non-free media, so that part may be difficult to change. --PEJL 16:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Documentation merge
I write you as an active Documentation editor. A merge of Documentation and Template doc is underway and both are highly visible template systems. Errors during their merge are potentially widely disruptive. Given this is my first big merger I ask how do these things get organized (if at all) and finally done? To mitigate errors I'm trying attract review participation by proposing work and reporting progress for this merge here. Is this much talk appropriate or over done for a merge process like this one? TIA – Conrad T. Pino 09:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wanted you to know your 10:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC) advice mattered and the result is Documentation/testcases. – WP:SONG looks reasonable. More vertical space can be squeezed out but IMO that should be discussed there before implementation. Thanks again. – Conrad T. Pino 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're aware does  and now

do

Conrad T. Pino 09:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

track listing + video infobox

 * didn't realise about the indents/italics. thanks for your information. good to keep abreast of things.  tomasz.  12:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick question re: non-genres
Just noticing (because I am old and slow)... why does Arena rock have a genre box?? It's one of those "umbrella terms" like "extreme metal" that are clearly not a genre... just a 'term'. Wiki is overflowing with these little goofs. But this one is one of the more obvious ones. Thoughts? 156.34.223.178 18:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't have enough experience with genre articles to comment on this. --PEJL 16:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Album infobox formatting
When the infobox if formatted without all of the redundant spaces it makes navigation a lot easier because fields are on the same line. WP:ALBUM does not explicitly state that they should be left with the spaces. I suppose it is just user preference, however I won't revert your edit. Thanks --  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Album/link/doc
Good question... It's part of some prep work for putting together a guideline page for the templates used by the FILMS project. As there's quite often crossover between albums/films (i.e. a soundtrack section in a film article), I'm hoping to link to that template as a guide on how to use it. You're right, though, probably should be in the "documentation" rather than the link/doc... I'll move it over there asap. SkierRMH 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean looking at the album listings... will keep that in a separate sandbox list for now rather than including. SkierRMH 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

British Sea Power
Why the merge on the Remember Me singles? The two versions are radically different and had different roles/importance. Two articles on physical releases have become one on a song. Change back? It also skews the chronological links between singles, etc. Me677 00:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Song Remains the Same (album)
Thanks for your interest in my edit, but, as I read it, WP:ALBUM does not specify that a reissue tracklisting should be in the same section as the tracklisting for the original release. In this case, I feel that the sections describing the reissue should be next to each other. Alcuin 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The track listing should be under a primary heading named "Track listing". If there are significantly different track listings for different editions, these can be listed under sub-headings.
 * 'Can be' is not the same as 'must be' or even 'should be' Alcuin (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You Always Sing The Same
Hi there. I don't know if you remember this but we've discussed this subject earlier. Anyway, I recently saw an auction on ebay where a copy of the original LP was for sale. On the back cover the track name is "You Always Sing The Same", not "You Always Sing". The auction ends in about 3 hours when I write this so in case all the images disapper from Ebay I've saved them on my computer. If you want to have a look at them I can e-mail them to you. I'll go ahead and change this on The Red Hot Chili Peppers (album) article now. Thanks. Tooga - BØRK! 17:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Release dates
I know you might be currently inactive, but since you were heavily involved with WP:ALBUMS, I think it's worth bringing this to your attention: WT:WikiProject_Albums. Spellcast (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Scaruffi discussion
Are you interested in weighing in here? Thanks Jgm (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

List of musicians...
Hi PEJL, as a significant contributor to the article, you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums. Regards, Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 07:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Inherant problems with the Start date template.
I am sending this because you are a recent editor of templates start date or end date. I have proposed these templates be deprecated in favor of Bot calculated date artithmetic. Example of an alternate generated human readable microformat date may be found at Siege of Tsingtao- see date-mf. Correct treatment is really beyond the reach of wikitext templates for the forseeable future, and generates contorted template specifications that intimidate authors. I am proposing a template with human readable date, and that a Bot make periodic passes for conversion to canonically correct microformat values adhering to ISO8601. If you are interested in the issue, please see this thread. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Late Registration
Well done.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Lights in This Town Are Too Many to Count for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Lights in This Town Are Too Many to Count 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/The Lights in This Town Are Too Many to Count until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.  Puffin  Let's talk! 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Early Years (Petra album)


The article The Early Years (Petra album) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not meet WP:NALBUMS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Bells of 1 2


A tag has been placed on The Bells of 1 2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Blues Explosion albums
Category:Blues Explosion albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Bocals
Hello. I know you've long since retired, but on the off chance that you still read this from time to time I hoped you might be entertained by this and this! Only eight years. :) With best wishes, DBaK (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Live(Neil Young album) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Live(Neil Young album). Since you had some involvement with the Untitled Live(Neil Young album) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 3 (Suburban Kids with Biblical Names album) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3 (Suburban Kids with Biblical Names album) 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/3 (Suburban Kids with Biblical Names album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Rathfelder (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Don't Go Gently


The article Don't Go Gently has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of We Are Not The Infadels


The article We Are Not The Infadels has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not meet WP:NALBUM"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of U.N.P.O.C. (musician)


The article U.N.P.O.C. (musician) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Appears to have received no reliable coverage beyond that Uncut review. Has an AllMusic bio but it's uncredited, and the same text appears on Spotify and Apple Music so that may have been written by someone at Domino Recording Company. I'm not seeing notability here."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 16:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of U.N.P.O.C. (musician) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article U.N.P.O.C. (musician) 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/U.N.P.O.C. (musician) 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 until the discussion has finished. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 04:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)