User talk:Richard3120/Archive 5

September 2020
Hi Richard, I am hoping to get back the info from my page World Textile Art Organization that was deleted. It was deleted within 24 hours of my writing it and about an hour (at most 2) after its speedy deletion nomination. I was in the middle of finding new sources to dispute the notoriety issue when it was deleted. Can I please get my info back?

BF (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)thebaconfairy
 * Hi – you need to put in a request at WP:REFUND. Please note that this is why articles should not be published before they are fully ready and have enough sources – you can't use anything from the organization's own website or social media pages as independent sources. It needs to have been discussed in-depth in independent sources such as newspaper or magazine articles... blogs aren't an acceptable sources either. Richard3120 (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Blackpink best selling album in china
Why did you deleted my edit on the list of best selling girlgroups and albums Everything i put was relevant and real content with reliable sources Those are facts so why did you deleted my edition Moonlight Entm (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the sources are not reliable, and the source does not say it was the best-selling girl group album in China. Richard3120 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources were reliable, there where 2 official QQ music pages, the other one doesn't say it but we know for a fact that it's the best selling girlgroup album in china cause no other girlgroup album has reached those album sales as blackpink in china Moonlight Entm (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * QQ Music is just a streaming site, all it shows is that the album exists and is available to buy. iTunes and Spotify don't prove anything either. And you can't just say "we know", you have to provide reliable independent sources that explicitly say "this is the best-selling album by a girl group in China... everything on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources as stated in WP:RS. In any case, a list that only has one entry is pointless... it's not a list and there's nothing to compare it to, so it's not providing any informative detail at all. Richard3120 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

QQ music is digital, all the sales there are pure, and the album by blackpink has now become the best selling kpop girlgroup album in china and by a girlgroup too in general, it's nothing like spotify/iTunes, in china you sell pure sales, and theres proofs like the official article Moonlight Entm (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

No (Boris album)
Hey, thanks for sprucing up my new article for No (Boris album). No need for arguments, but is there an actual Wikipedia rule about not using all-caps in an article title? If there is I can't find it but I may be looking in the wrong place. In any case, this album's title really is NO in all-caps, and the whole " No (stylized in all caps as NO) " arrangement is really awkward and not a good reflection of reality. ☆  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) ☆ 01:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies if I aggrieved you with any of my changes – if you really feel the title should be changed back to NO, I personally won't argue about it... getting into an edit war over the capitalisation of one letter would be a truly worthy entry into the Hall of Lame, and neither of us wants an argument.
 * I think people have tended to defer to bullet point 3 of WP:TMRULES when debating stylisations in titles, but I agree with you that this is a grey area when it comes to album/song titles. For example, this rule is the reason why Aurora (singer) is written like that in all her Wikipedia articles, despite the fact that she herself and most reliable sources use AURORA in all capital letters, and so editors have extended this rule from artist names to album names as well. The difficulty in saying "this is how the artist calls the album" is knowing where the line is between all caps being fine and being just a stylisation. Wake Up! (Hazel English album) was styled Wake UP! by the artist, and some reviews kept this format, but others didn't. So which is the "real" album name? Another one is No Dream, which according to the artist should be N O   D R E A M (with that spacing). But it doesn't have that format on the album cover, some reviews just had NO DREAM in all caps without the spacings, and others just standard font No Dream. So are the all caps acceptable, but the spacing is a stylisation?
 * Given this kind of confusion, you can see why many Wikipedia editors have decided to follow WP:TMRULES and just say "no stylisation for any album title" because there's no clear indication as to what's stylisation and what isn't. I had a similar issue with the album See You When I Am Famous – what reliable sources exist all use the twelve exclamation marks used on the cover. Other editors argued this was a stylisation. But we have albums with more than one exclamation mark (New Boots and Panties!! and Get Happy!!, for example), so two exclamation marks are acceptable but twelve aren't... what is the rule for when the number of exclamation marks becomes "too many"?
 * And yes, I agree that saying something is stylised as "all caps" or whatever is cumbersome, but unfortunately it seems to have become commonplace on Wikipedia that everything has a stylisation, even when it isn't... for example, look at You (James Arthur album) – the opening line says "styled in all caps", but I look at the album cover in the infobox, and to me, that's just the typeface used, there's no stylisation going on. Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. It appears to me that folks have taken the "stylisation" thing way too far, to the point at which the guidelines have become very unclear. Oh well, if it becomes a crisis the two of us could contribute to the resulting policy discussion that achieves nothing. The article for the Boris album can remain as you left it, but I would not be surprised if someone else reverts it.
 * While I have you on the line, there's something I've been meaning to tell you. Recently, I got into Nick Drake because of you. A few months ago I was casually looking at your user page and saw that you are a Drake fan. I have always been aware of him and thought about exploring his music for years, but never got around to it. So after seeing your page, I went to iTunes and bought A Treasury. Don't know if Drake-heads consider that to be a worthy compilation, but it sure got me started. ☆  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, to be honest those rules need clarifying. But because they affect a whole lot of other areas on Wikipedia,not just albums and music, I'm sure nothing will get done. I sometimes think Wikipedia needs some kind of full-time "board of directors" higher up just to review all the guidelines and Manuals of Style.
 * I'd probably say Way to Blue is the more well-rounded compilation album, but I'm not going to be snobby about it, just thank you for the compliment saying that my user page made you go and check it out. I'm working towards getting all three of his albums to GA-class level, but if you know anything about Drake's history, you'll know just how hard that is due to an almost total absence of facts and concrete information - I've added the few contemporary reviews of his albums that existed into their respective articles, but there were no articles written about him in the UK music press during his lifetime, only one short interview was ever conducted (by all accounts torture for everyone involved), and no video footage of him exists as an adult. Almost everything written about him was written after he died, most of it decades after he died, and consequently there's a lot of contradiction in people's memories of him and lots of blurring between fact and fiction. It appears that even his own record company didn't know the release dates of his first two albums and those are now debated as well. Richard3120 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, the band that started this discussion, Boris, has done an indirect tribute to Nick Drake. See Akuma no Uta. ☆  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) ☆ 13:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Ruth Aylett
Please assist in deleting the Wiki page for "Ruth Aylett", regarding lack of notability! Many thanks.HunterDawn (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article would have to be proposed for deletion first before anyone can think of contributing their opinion on whether the article should stay or be deleted... this is exactly what the other editor advised you to do, because it can't be deleted without a discussion first. And you shouldn't be asking other editors to "help" influence the outcome that you want to see... this is canvassing (see WP:CANVAS) and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Help and teach me for biography article creation
Please advise me... Thank you AmeliaUS (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what are you asking me to do. Any biographical article needs to demonstrate that the subject is independently notable (see WP:BIO) and that the sources for all information in the article are reliable and independent from the subject (see WP:RS). In other words, if the only sources you can find for the subject are his/her own social media, official website, YouTube or blogs, they probably aren't notable enough for an article. They should have received articles (preferably not interviews with the subject themselves) in newspapers or magazines or reliable websites. The best thing is to draft an article and then submit it at Articles for creation. Richard3120 (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Parichay (song)
Good morning... I just voted in the disastrous AfD at Articles for deletion/Parichay (song). Since the original intention seems to have been changing the redirect target rather than deleting the whole thing, I think either of us could do a non-admin close of the AfD and fix the redirect ourselves. Let me know what you think.  DOOMSDAYER 520 &#124; TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 16:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ... yes it was a bit of a mess, I was puzzled at first at what the editor was trying to do because it did look like vandalism, but talking with him I see now what his intentions were and I'm sure it was done in good faith. I have no problem with a non-admin close, I'm just never sure about doing them myself in case I'm overstepping my authority. Fortunately I think everyone, including the nominator, is in agreement with the correct way to go, so perhaps the sooner the AfD is closed and this can be sorted out,the better. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hii,, I'm Dev, I think the edit made by nominator is definitely count as vandalism, sorry I'm going to ping you both...thanks.
 * After I submitted my vote, the IP person above jumped into the AfD discussion with accusations of vandalism. It appears that the nominator and one or two IP editors have a dispute that spilled over into this AfD, for all the wrong procedural reasons. I did the non-admin close for the AfD and redirected the original song article as stated. ++++++ Note that I am conversing with Richard here; if any of you other folks read this, iron out your differences in the appropriate places with the correct procedures.  DOOMSDAYER 520 &#124; TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 20:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doomsdayer... Dev, whatever this is, we all agree that it's not an AfD dispute – it appears the issue is over where the redirect should point to, so that's for WP:RFD. I see your IP address has now been partially blocked, so perhaps you won't be able to participate in that discussion now. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Asya (singer)
I'm not sure what you intended to do on this page, but I think it's definitely misplaced. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * yes indeed... there seems to be both a Asya and Asya (singer) for the same purpose, and I'm not quite sure which one is actually in use. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You just created the latter &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and that's what I don't understand... I simply followed the link to the talk page from the existing template, I didn't try and create any template. So there's some direction error on the former template. Richard3120 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed I think! And I deleted the erroneous page &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, that looks like it's done the trick... sorry to have been a nuisance, I realised that something was up when I clicked on the talk page for the template, made the edit, and then found I couldn't go back to the original template page, but I couldn't see where the error was. Thanks for sorting it out. Richard3120 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Devil Without a Cause Tour
I'll have you know that Wikipedia page for the Devil Without a Cause Tour is STILL a work in progress, finding references for tours taking place in the 1990s is hard but I'm not giving up on finding more, the reference you are seeing is mentioning proof of the tour NAMES, Thank you. User:thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Under Construction idea, I'll try to add that once I learn how, User:thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ok I added it in, I just said "once I learn how" because in Wikipedia I always assume it's a large learning process, but thanks for the advice User:thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still working to find references, so far it's not as difficult as I thought, but not all of them are great, but I vow to continue my journey for sources User:thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to thank you for the advice and being flexible with me, I am currently getting over a loss of a family member but I am still on the hunt for good resources, thanks User:thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for your loss. I don't like to jump on people and get into an edit war at the best of times. I was just letting you know that it needed improvement before another editor with less patience decided to delete it, that's all. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the article got reviewed by User:Pichpich, and it doesn't say weather or not it's good User:thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Best selling girlgroup albums in south korea
The best selling girlgroup album in korea is The Album by Blackpink with 1.2M, twice's best selling album has only sold 570k sales, neither of those albums have sold more than 400k, i*zone album sold 500k+ and kill this love by blackpink almost 500k Edit that false/inaccurate information Moonlight Entm (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed yesterday that someone removed the Blackpink sales, presumably just out of spite. This is why I keep an eye on the page, not because I feel I "own" it, but because it's often a target for edit warring and editors trying to make "their" girl group the best, and I try and remove the exaggerated claims.
 * My problem with South Korean sales is that I can't read Korean, so I don't know how to understand information on the Gaon website. If you can help me to understand the webpage, I'll happily help out with fixing the article – I am certain that you are correct about the sales of The Album and other albums, but I just need to know where I can find that information in order to verify it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay, in Gaon we only count physical sales, they update in months so they can count correctly all the sales, for example when they update we can see how much the albums have sold and have increased, they put the sales of the album in the day and of the whole week, for example the source of blackpink's the album being the best selling girlgroup album in korea, gaon page http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=&targetTime=10&hitYear=2020&termGbn=month is also a well known fact, for example we count also sales as they go increasing, kill this sold sold 85,044 sales only in 2020 so it was added and has already sold 493,945 sales in korea as gaon updates, twice's coaster lane1 sold only 477k as of 2020, those sources are wrong while i*zone album sold 500k+ Sources here 2020)
 * JPN: 139,067
 * US: 1,000
 * JPN: 139,067
 * US: 1,000
 * JPN: 139,067
 * US: 1,000
 * US: 1,000

Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh sorry I put the edit cause i didn't know the URL of the pages, while i*zone álbum receiving 2x platinum certification for 500K copies sold http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/certification/list.gaon?serviceGbn=ALBUM Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but can you help me understand something please? The 2019 sales for Kill This Love are 324,577, and in 2020 they are 85,044 according to the October 2020 chart. Why does the overall 2020 chart only show 47,042 sales? And why doesn't this chart show the 1.2 million sales of The Album? Richard3120 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh kill this love has already sold 408k in 2020, now they sold 85,044 in October, which calculates 493,945, is because the album chart works putting how much they copies of the album were sold in the month/days, how much the albums keep selling, that's how we count how much sales the albums have, the album sold 1.2M copies worlwide when it came out but in korea only sold 1M copies, the album has overall sold 2.3M copies worldwide, counting usa/Europe and china sales which are 1M digital copies and is the best selling kpop group album in china in general not only girlgroup, it is cause no other kpop group album has sold this much in china  Moonlight Entm (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still don't understand how you calculate 493,945 sales... there are two numbers for each record, what I understand is that the first number is the sales during that month, and the second number is the total cumulative sales for that year so far. So for Kill This Love I calculate:
 * 2019 sales: 324,577
 * 2020 sales so far, until November 2020: 91,058
 * Total sales so far: 415,635
 * Richard3120 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No because kill this sold superpassed 400k sales in early 2020 now sold other 85,044 sales in October, }} Moonlight Entm (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained where "surpassed 400k sales in early 2020" came from, there are no figures that show that. And I am certain your analysis is wrong, the 85,044 sales are for the whole of 2020, not for the month of October. Richard3120 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Nooo i forgot the links where kill this love superpassed it, but those sources of twice are wrong and not reliable, all those sources doesn't say how much it sold Moonlight Entm (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

About 2NE1 sales
How are you sure that ITV got the sales from Wikipedia? I also have the complete list of 2NE1’s detailed sales, which sums up to 66.5 million. If you’re questioning the reliability of it, then we should also question The Guardian as well. Kenquenito (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the list that ITV published had no sources, but was exactly the same as the completely unsourced version of the Wikipedia article at the time. So clearly they just copied the Wikipedia article, without checking anything. And why should we question The Guardian? That has nothing to do with the ITV list. Richard3120 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

-- ITV and The Guardian never disclosed where they got the figures, to begin with. So it's invalid to say that the former got their data from the unsourced version of Wikipedia, especially if you have no proof. However, I believe that the two sources got their figures from South Korea's official chart, the Gaon Chart, where they disclosed the sales of every artists from 2010 to 2017. Thus, people can sum their sales. The site, however, announced that they no longer display the number of streams and downloads in 2018.
 * I do have very good evidence that ITV got their figures either from Wikipedia or from Insider Monkey... ITV's figures are exactly same as the version of this article published on Wikipedia the day BEFORE ITV published their list. So it's not possible that Wikipedia's figures come from ITV – either (a) ITV copied Wikipedia, or (b) ITV copied Insider Moneky, which is a blog post on a financial trading website, and therefore an unreliable source.
 * But I will definitely have a look at Gaon's figures – as I told MoonlightEntm above, my problem has always been that I can't read Korean so I couldn't find out how to look for official sales figures on Gaon's website. But I will try and do that in the next few days. Richard3120 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sinfonia Latina
Richard regarding the Sinfonia Latina article you removed the picture from stating it has nothing to do with Sinfonia Latina. That sketch is of the Composer Conductor and Pianist of the event featuring this particular opus created by him! Sinfonia Latina would not exist without him the sketch comes from the sixth article second page of Sinfonia Latina historical bibliographic archive: Title: Todo un Exito Sinfonia Latina. Author Gloria Arguelles. Date of Publication May 10, 1976. program review p.2 of 2. I intend to undo this edit however thought I would inform you Deanna Coakley (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC) I do like the info box  you put into the article please respond I welcome constructive conversation and do not want to haggleDeanna Coakley  (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the main picture in any article is supposed to represent the article itself. So you can have a picture of Dieppa later in the article, but he isn't the festival, so he shouldn't be the picture at the top of the article. I'll reinstate the picture in a different place later in the article, is that okay? Richard3120 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I want to acknowledge your contribution and ask that you work on this article with me. I ask that you take another look at it and improve it as you deem necessary I did make some changes based on your initial edit. Also do you think it should be a wiki project?Deanna Coakley (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better – just to be clear, I agree that the event is 100% notable and deserves a Wikipedia article, and by all means have Dieppa's picture there, my problem was having Dieppa's image in the lead to promote it... I mean, we don't use Bob Geldof's photo in the Live Aid article, for example – the best picture to have in the infobox if we can get it is a picture of a poster promoting the event, or a photo of the event itself. The article needs some more copyediting, but I have one question: in what way does the festival continue to the present day? Wasn't it just a one-off event in 1976?
 * No, I wouldn't worry about creating a separate WikiProject... WikiProjects were a popular idea in the early days of Wikipedia to gather like-minded people together on a particular topic. But as Wikipedia's popularity has dwindled and editors have disappeared, many WikiProjects are now dormant, so creating a new one will probably not attract anybody else apart from you and me anyway (I came across this article because I live in Colombia, so I'm interested in WikiProject Colombia). Richard3120 (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Richard3120 The festival is a revival as of last Spring yet Covid19 has changed that. There are two posters one for the first event and the second at Club Campestre which can be found at https://sinfonialatinahistoricalbibliographicalarchive.com/ The problem I have had is that when I attempt to upload on Wikimedia they always delete an image or block me. On the topic of pictures I placed an image Amira de la Rosa in the wrong spot It should be in the Venue section. but I have trouble deleting pic will you please help me with that. I would appreciate it also if you can somehow get Wikimedia to allow the posters lets move forward. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then the festival dates should be "1976; 2019-present" to be accurate. I don't have any influence over Wikimedia, so I can't help you with the images... if you know people at the Foundation, then perhaps you can get their permission to use the pictures - the only way photos can be used on Wikipedia is if they are in the public domain, or the copyright owner has given permission to use them. Deleting the other file should be easy enough to do at Files for Deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


GenQuest "scribble" 04:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)'' is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * many thanks, I hope to enjoy several of those over the next week! Season's Greetings to you too. Richard3120 (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

AfD
Hello, I see that Articles for deletion/Eesti Kullafond is struggling to have a consensus, so I voiced my opinion. My current AfD at Articles for deletion/Red Hot Kinda Love is also struggling to have a consensus as well, so I'd appreciate if you could voice your comments. Thank you, HĐ (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Walsh There Goes The Neighborhood
Richard3120. Unfortunately, in this case, you are absolutely incorrect. I'm sorry to say, and I'll tell you why. I was at a record store one afternoon going through the old record vinyl LPs and checked out The Eagles' 1982's Greatest Hits Vol. 2 vinyl LP. And I pulled out the inside sleeve from the vinyl cover. And on the front and back of the inside sleeve had The Eagles Discography including the solos of Joe Walsh, Glenn Frey, And Don Henley. And above each and every album had an original release date. And when I looked above Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood album, it said May 15, 1981. Oh, and by the way, release dates don't always fall on a Tuesday. I understand they fall on a Tuesday quite a bit, but not always. So the album did first chart on May 16, 1981. Well, anyway, I hate to break it to you but, the album was definitely released on the day before it first charted. You can't argue with facts, so see for yourself. To check out the images of The Eagles' 1982's Greatest Hits Vol. 2 vinyl LP page, go to: www.45worlds.com/vinyl/album/9602051 and that page should come up. When you're at that page, carefully scroll down until you find, Images. When you find, Images, below it, you will see five images. The first image on the left you will see is the back of the album cover. The second image is the front of the inside sleeve. And the third image is the back of the inside sleeve. Click on the third image in which is the back of the inside sleeve to enlarge, and you will see Joe Walsh's discography. Look above There Goes The Neighborhood album, and you will see, May 15, 1981. And just to give you an analogy, Styx's The Grand Illusion album was released on July 7, 1977. And July 7, 1977 was on a Thursday. A release date doesn't have to be on a Tuesday. (Jeckylback (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC))
 * sorry, but no. Neither a record store nor that website are anything like reliable sources. And it was absolutely impossible for a record to chart the day after release - how is it going to sell enough copies, Billboard compile the sales from the record stores, tabulate and print the chart for the next morning in its issue? That issue of Billboard is a week ending date anyway, it was actually published and in newsagents on the Tuesday May 12 or Wednesday May 13. So Billboard must have been psychic, because it published the chart position before the album was released. By the way, there's absolutely no proof that the Styx album release date is true either. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Walsh There Goes The Neighborhood
Richard3120. It's NOT THE RECORD STORE OR THE WEBSITE that's a reliable source. It's the original SLEEVE IT'S SELF that COMES FROM THE INSIDE OF THE RECORD JACKET OF THE EAGLES' 1982's GREATEST HITS VOL. 2 vinyl LP IT'S SELF that's a reliable source. NOT THE RECORD STORE. NOT THE WEBSITE. It's the SLEEVE from the inside of the record jacket. LISTEN AND READ CAREFULLY. The original record sleeve that's from the inside of the record jacket of The Eagles' 1982's Greatest Hit's Vol. 2 vinyl LP. It shows The Eagles Discography including the solos, Joe Walsh, Glenn Frey, and Don Henley. And there are six albums that are shown on the front and the back of the sleeve. And each and every album has an original release date shown above it. On the back of the sleeve, on the upper right hand corner is album No. 10. And album No. 10 is Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood LP. And right above it, it says, May 15, 1981. I'm NOT LYING TO you. I looked at the sleeve. And it must've published the chart position before the album was released. And somehow, the album first charted on the day after it was released. I don't know how, but it did. And maybe somehow, it sold enough copies. And maybe Billboard was psychic, I don't know. It is what it is. And the website address that I have given you, It definitely has photos of The Eagles' 1982's Greatest Hits Vol. 2 LP. There are five photos below the word, Images. The first photo shows the back cover of The Eagles' Greatest Hits Vol. 2 LP. The second photo shows the front of the inside sleeve. The third photo shows the back of the inside sleeve. If you click on the third photo, It will enlarge and you will see the rest of The Eagles Discography that is shown on the back of the sleeve and if you look on the upper right hand corner of the sleeve in the photo, You will see Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood LP. And right above the LP shows There Goes The Neighborhood Joe Walsh. 5E 523 May 15, 1981. Just scroll down until you see, Images, and right below it are the photos that I just told you about and click on the third photo, and look to the upper right corner and there's Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood with the release date above it. You will see the photos at www.45worlds.com/vinyl/album/9602051 or you can see the photos at https://www.ebay.com/itm/EAGLES-GREATEST-HITS-VOLUME-2-LP-HOTEL-CALIFORNIA-1982-ASYLUM-E1-60205-VINYL/303631821862?hash=item46b It has the photo of the album, and below it, there are six photos of the record cover and the sleeve. Click on the fourth photo and the photo of the back sleeve will show on the bigger photo above. Then zoom on the bigger photo above, go to the middle of it and the much bigger picture will come up on the right. then move over to the upper right of the much bigger picture photo, and there you'll see Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood with the release date above it. You'll be able to see it better. And how did I know that Styx's The Grand Illusion album was released on July 7, 1977? I used to view Styx on the internet a lot years ago. And they created a website called The Grand Illusion Home Page which was named after the album. And the band mentioned that it was released on July 7, 1977. You can look up The Grand Illusion album at https://styxworld.com/pages/music (Jeckylback (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC))
 * Right, but the problem is, neither the record sleeve nor a band's official website are reliable sources... they are often created years or decades after the original release of the album, and often have no idea about when the release date is either. The Police's website lists the release date of one of the band's early singles as being a month after it actually charted. The sleeve of the reissue of Nick Drake's Bryter Layter gives a release date of a Sunday, which is clearly nonsense as the record stores didn't open on a Sunday... why would you release a record on a day when nobody would be able to buy it? Subsequent research has shown that the date was wrong, so no, record companies and record sleeves aren't reliable at all. Richard3120 (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120. I never knew that a record sleeve can be an unreliable source. Even a band's official website of their own. But on the sleeve of The Eagles' 1982's Greatest Hits LP, I can tell that it may be original because it's decorated with the same exact record logo as shown on the front cover. And on the back of the sleeve, at the very bottom of the back of the sleeve, it says (c) 1982 Elektra/Asylum Records A Division of Warner Communications, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. And that's the sleeve that has six albums on each side including Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood LP and a release date above every album. Also on the front sleeve shows The Eagles' first album, June 1, 1972. Desperado, April 17, 1973. On The Border, March 22, 1974. One Of These Nights, June 10, 1975. Eagles' Greatest Hits 1971-1975, February 17, 1976, Hotel California, December 8, 1976. And on the back of the sleeve shows Joe Walsh's But Seriously Folks, May 16, 1978. The Eagles' The Long Run, September 24, 1979. Eagles Live, November 7, 1980. Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood, May 15, 1981. Glenn Frey's No Fun Allowed, May 28, 1982. And Don Henley's I can't Stand Still, August 13, 1982. And at the bottom of the sleeve says (c) 1982 Elektra/Asylum Records A Division Of Warner Communications, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. And the vinyl LP and the sleeve seems like original. Doesn't seem like a reissue. I'm just telling you. By the way, Happy New Year! (Jeckylback (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC))

Discussion response
Hey Richard3120, I was wondering if you could possibly read through the discussion I made on WP:CHARTS regarding EarOne being a chart and share a response?

Thank you! Pillowdelight (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

thx
Thanks for copy-editing Heidi Abderhalden its appreciated. However the tag you have added is not at all helpful as it says "some sources may be unreliable". This could be added to our best articles. Surely we need to know which is not reliable otherwise its just saying that nothing is certain ... which is always the case... and we can never improve as we don't know where the unreliability is. Victuallers (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response, ... I understand what you are saying, but then you are saying that the tag should be deprecated altogether as its use will never be helpful. How do we point out exactly which sources we believe are unreliable... list them on the talk page of the article?
 * Basically, I think that pretty much all five sources currently in the article are unreliable – two of them are from the Goethe Instutut which gave the Abderhaldens the award, so WP:PRIMARY, 1000voces is the subject's own website so another primary source, Schaubühne is a theatre in Berlin advertising the production taking place there, and although the Banco de la Republica is reputable, its online encyclopedia is a Wikia, so not acceptable as an RS. This is not to say that I believe the subject is not notable – I can find articles on the subject and her brother, and their award, in reputable Colombian newspapers and magazines . But it does make me think that perhaps Rolf Abderhalden and Heidi's article should be merged... after all, their two claims to fame seem to be founding the theatre, and winning the award, both of which they did jointly. Indeed, both articles pretty much say the same thing already, and I don't see a reason for two separate articles to exist. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree but my main point was that the tag is valueless without an explanation. If you want to do that rework then please have a go, but please stop using that tag or add a tag saying "these two article could be merged" ... sure they "could" but only if someone feels strongly enough to do the work. Victuallers (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * right, and my point was that template doesn't have a parameter which allows for anyone to add any explanation or detail as to which sources are unreliable or why, so I was asking how I or any other editor can add the information that you asked for... the only place I can see to do that is on the talk page. So if there is no way to use the unreliable template other than just sticking it at the top of the page with no explanation, then I can't do what you ask for. Richard3120 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk page would be fine. Someone is going to have to do some work to investigate that. (for instance although one of the resources is a wiki ... then its still a good source imo). Having to access the info on the talk page is only a minor extra task. I'm not sure that adding a parameter to the template will do any good. Many of the templates popular for stamping on articles have parameters (but most template stampers rarely add any detail). Keep safe Victuallers (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and yes, drive-by tagging without any detail isn't particularly useful... I just wanted your opinion on where the explanation could be put instead, as the template doesn't allow for it. The Wiki of the Bank of the Republic may be fine as a source, as the bank's web page states that the wiki is written and maintained by employees of the Bank, so there is some editorial control. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Walsh There Goes The Neighborhood Release
Richard3120. It is NOT A CD reissue of an Eagles album that states the release of the Joe Walsh album. It's the ORIGINAL VINYL LP of The Eagles' Greatest hits Vol. 2 RELEASED IN 1982 that states that the Joe Walsh album was released on May 15, 1981. NOT THE CD reissue. On the front and back of the record sleeve shows the parts of the SAME EXACT DESIGN that's shown on the front record cover. And there are 6 albums that are shown on each side of the sleeve including the solo albums with the Joe Walsh album on it. And right above each and every album has a release date. And on the back of the sleeve, on the bottom left hand corner of the sleeve, it says (C) 1982 Elektra/Asylum Records, A Division of Warner Communications, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. In which this record was released ONLY ONE YEAR AFTER the release of the Joe Walsh album. That's why I do still believe that this 1982 Eagles record sheet would be a reliable source. But I do believe that there are liner notes in CD reissues that are unreliable sources. And I do acknowledge that back in the day when the record stores were closed on Sundays, It was no sense of releasing an album on a Sunday because you would have to wait until Monday to purchase it. Perhaps, maybe you should see if you can get a hold of the record company and see if you can find out the exact full release date of Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood album. There should be a phone number that you can call. Also, the record company might have a website to where you can contact them. Or maybe you can contact them on Facebook, or Twitter. I don't know. But it could be worth a shot. Anyway, I will look up the Wikipedia reliable sources and see if I can find anything. (Jeckylback (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Yes, and this illustrates the problem with believing the release dates from the record label. The sleeve of Eagles Greatest Hits Vol. 2 says that Don Henley's I Can't Stand Still was released on August 13, 1982. But it didn't chart until the first week of September 1982. So from the chart date, I would expect the album to have been released in the week ending August 28... and sure enough, in the issue of Billboard dated August 28, there it is as the spotlighted album of the week's new releases . Supposedly Glenn Frey's No Fun Aloud was released at the end of May 1982, but didn't chart until the end of June 1982. Was Joe Walsh so much more popular than the rest of the Eagles that his album charted the day after release, but nobody bought Frey's album for a month? The more likely explanation is that the release dates for all three solo albums are wrong on the sleeve of Greatest Hits Vol. 2. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

To keep you in the loop
Just to let you know, you were listed at a arbitration request which has been since removed as premature by me. It can be viewed at this permalink. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Richard3120. About the release date of the Joe Walsh album that came from The Eagles Greatest Hits Vol. 2 LP, Okay, You win. Well, I tried. I did the best I could to convince you that the original sleeve of The Eagles' Greatest Hits Vol. 2 Vinyl LP was a reliable source for the release date of Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood album. I tried. Well, it is what it is. But the May 15th release that's in one of the discogs' website, I didn't put it in there. It was there when I checked that website out, But I do already know that it's an unreliable source. I don't even have the account for that website. March 10th came from a website called "The Joe Walsh Website." ThereWillBeTime told me so. I also believe that the Joe Walsh Website is an unreliable source. So, whoever put March 10th in the Wikipedia of the Joe Walsh album must've got it from that website. But maybe Joe Walsh was so popular than the rest of The Eagles that his There Goes The Neighborhood album charted on the day after it was released. Maybe he was much more popular then the rest of Eagles. That probably explains how and why his There Goes The Neighborhood album charted on the day after it was released. I don't know. But he was also with The James Gang before he joined The Eagles. He had a couple of solo albums even before he joined The Eagles. So maybe his There Goes The Neighborhood album was released in the U.K. on March 10, 1981. And in Canada on May 15, 1981. And in the U.S. on May 2, or 5, 1981. Or vice versa. Most likely released in the U.K. on March 10, 1981. In Canada on May 2, or 5, 1981. And in the U.S. on May 15, 1981. Maybe that explains it right there. I don't know. And I never knew that an original vinyl LP record sleeve would be an unreliable source. I just knew that the liner notes in a CD re-issue would be an unreliable source. Anyway, perhaps, I will look up the Wiki reliable sources and see if I can find anything. (Jeckylback (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

"Earning" units is used in the industry
Regarding this edit summary, units can most certainly be earned, considering somebody streaming a song or an album is not a "sale", and streaming does not equate to units that aren't actual copies either in physical or digital form. I find using the term "sold" units that also include streams just as incorrect as you seem to regard "earn"; however, Billboard even uses the term "earn" for example, in their latest article about Bieber topping the Billboard 200. They use it in a most of their articles discussing units being shifted. As it's evidently industry-accepted terminology, in this regard it's good enough for me.  Ss  112   18:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that... shows how out of touch I am with modern terminology. Thanks for letting me know, not a problem at all. Richard3120 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Kunz
Hi there, I noticed you recently asked the moving of Kunz (Singer on the basis he is only a singer, however, if you’ve seen any of his music videos, or even live recordings of his performances, you’d know he plays guitar and will sometimes play completely solo. I draw your attention to Frank Turner, who is described as a musician, as he both sings and plays the guitar. I’m going to rename Kunz’s page as Kunz (Musician), as you rightly pointed out there’s no other musician by that name. Naihreloe (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * no problem... the main issue was that the disambiguation was originally too specific, as "Kunz (Swiss singer)", and there was no need to specify the nationality as there are no other singers with that name from other countries. Feel free to rename the article - I have no strong opinion against it. Richard3120 (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

UK 1982 Year-end charts
I'm sorry for bothering you, but I have recently been making efforts to archive the complete year-end 100 UK charts lists online in some capacity (largely as a result of the Official Chart Company's poor job at doing so). While I've been able to find some, 1982 is one of the many years for which I have been unable to find the full list, and after searching through the revision list for the 1982 in British music Wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_in_British_music ), you appear to have been the user who added the year-end 50 list that is currently on the page. Do you still have access to the year-end 100 list, and would you be willing to share it? Average British Guy (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ABG – you're right, it was me who worked on most of the year-end (and decade-end) charts for the UK... they had a lot of unsourced and false information, and it took me a while to track down, correct and verify everything. While I do have my issues with the OCC, I'm not sure I can blame them for the lack of year-end charts before 1994, as they weren't responsible for compiling them at the time, and they probably didn't have access to official sales figures for a while.
 * As you probably know, the British Market Research Bureau compiled the UK charts between 1969 and 1982. As they compiled them for publication in Music Week's final issue of the year and for broadcast on Radio 1 around New Year's Eve, the year-end charts weren't "full" years, because they had to cut off counting in mid-December every year in order to tally up sales so Music Week and Radio 1 could publish them. From 1977 to 1982 (with the exception of 1979) these year-end charts were updated in various places a few months later, to include the missing last few weeks of the year. This is what I have tried to include in every Wikipedia article.
 * As far as I know, the only place where the full year-end charts for 1982 were published at the time were in a paperback book called Chart File, published by the BMRB's chart compilers. You can see this in the reference [4] at the top of the year-end chart in the article you linked to above. So sharing a book is obviously problematic! However... the OCC recently updated the year-end charts for every year of the 80s on their website – you can see the 1982 chart here. I've checked and it's identical to the chart originally published in the 1983 Chart File book, so I think that should solve your problem.
 * The only year which seems to have been dramatically changed by the OCC's new figures is 1981... "Don't You Want Me" was originally no. 10 on the chart, but has now jumped to no. 1. I'm thinking of writing to the OCC to ask where this new information has come from. Richard3120 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The editing in "The book of us: Negentropy"
Hello, Richard3120

You had edited the name of the title song in the album, "You make Me", you changed "m" in "make" to capital letter. And you referred to Manual of Style/Titles, I'm not English-speaker so I don't understand the rules well. So, I want to ask you, why it have to be a capital since it's the official title of the song. It isn't the specific name?

I'm really sorry for my poor English and thank you for improving "The book of us: Negentropy" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkangsonp (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Kkangsonp – on Wikipedia we try to keep everything to a fixed style of writing. Many bands now use what we call "stylization" for their song and album titles, for dramatic effect... so maybe they will write some titles all in capital letters, like this: "SONG TITLE", and some other times they writer them without any capital letters, like this: "song title". Or maybe they mix the letter styles, like this: "sONg tiTlE". On Wikipedia we don't recognize these stylizations, and we try and keep everything to the same style... this is what MOS:CT is saying. Even if the band say that this is the official way that they write the song, Wikipedia does not use it. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * thank you! I usually check the new articles created as part of WikiProject Albums, and the Beatles' ones jumped out at me when they were created... you don't have to be a big Beatles fan to realise that it's very unlikely that Wikipedia wouldn't already have articles on every Beatles album ever made. So I was immediately suspicious and I looked further into the editor's contributions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello. Please do not vandalize on Wikipedia as you did on The Life Of Pi’erre 5. If you continue your ability to edit will be removed. Travisscottfan33253 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Errr... what are you talking about? The article has one citation, which is a tweet, which isn't a reliable independent source. So yes, saying the article needs more citations is entirely justified, because at the moment it has absolutely nothing to demonstrate any notability whatsoever, per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You Signed Up For This
Hello Richard3120,

You moved the article for the album You Signed Up For This by Maisie Peters to the name 'You Signed Up for This'. This is wrong because it is changing how the album title is stylised on the album cover and its official listings on music services. Officially, the album's title is stylised as 'You Signed Up For This' so the name of the article should follow the actual name of the album. I have moved the page back to its original title as you can't change the name of the album which is why the name of the article should remain as 'You Signed Up For This'. Please do not try to move the article again when it is changing the official stylisation of the album. --Novaredant (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry ,but you are wrong. Wikipedia doesn't recognise stylisations by the artist or streaming services. All titles follow the Wikipedia style stipulated at MOS:TITLECAPS. Many artists style their albums in all capital letters, or all lower-case letters, and Wikipedia doesn't recognise those either. Richard3120 (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if you had actually read the Wikipedia style MOS:TITLECAPS in detail you would know that the preposition word 'for' in the album title being uncapitalised is not a steadfast rule.

In page note [f], it says that some prepositions under five letters can be capitalised if they are a "mid-title preposition, and is found capitalized in almost all independent sources". You can see independent sources from the likes of Clash and BBC News that capitalise 'For' in the album title which negates trying to change the album title to something that is not widely used in sources and general discussion about the album. Lone Wikipedia editiors should not be able to change the title of an album because they personally disagree with it despite the overwhelming consensus on the contrary. Even the Wikipedia style in MOS:TITLECAPS recognises that exceptions can be made for the title of a piece of media so that the presentation of a media title is not something completely different on Wikipedia compared to every other source of information being uniformly opposed. -- Novaredant talk 00:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the condescending message – I've been editing album articles on Wikipedia for over a decade, so I know exactly what it says at MOS:TITLECAPS. And you will find that other editors will make the same change, it's not a personal opinion of mine. You're welcome to take it to the talk page of WP:ALBUMS and get a consensus. I get the point you are making, but this would require a major change across Wikipedia, not just on album and song titles. For example, the singer Aurora (singer) always capitalises her name, and almost all reliable sources report this capitalisation, but Wikipedia doesn't use it. Similarly, the song titles on Billie Eilish's When We Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? are in lower-case, but Wikipedia doesn't follow this stylisation. Richard3120 (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Richard, just a note—I moved this page back to the lower-case f title before I saw the history of Novaredant move warring (I only saw their most recent edit summary), and before I even edited the article proper to see a 150-word rant at the top. I've asked Novaredant to get consensus, like the example in the note [f] he's citing from MOS:TITLECAPS, and start a move request.  Ss  112   06:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Soy Loco Por Ti America
Richard, I'm thinking of starting an article for this album (yeah, Gil's from Brazil, not Colombia). Anyway, how would one stylize this title, accounting for both Portuguese and Wikipedia? I've seen it a few ways, thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ... this was originally sung by Caetano Veloso, wasn't it? Anyway, the first thing to say is that despite both Gil and Veloso being Brazilian, this isn't Portuguese – the title and the lyrics are in Spanish. Strictly speaking, there should be an accent on the "e" in America, so it's "Soy Loco Por Ti América". Then it gets tricky... I know most foreign-language titles on Wikipedia are treated in all sentence case according to MOS:FOREIGNTITLE (which I don't always agree with), and I've seen this title written with a comma after "ti", which would make sense, as he's singing "I'm crazy about you, America". So I'm guessing Wikipedia would have it written as "Soy loco por ti, América", although I personally prefer "Soy Loco por Ti, América". Richard3120 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, I wondered if it was Spanish...I was forced to study French... How does Soy Loco por Ti América strike you? For better or worse, I see it much more in RS without the comma, thanks... Caro7200 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's fine, "por" should definitely be in sentence case as a preposition... let's see if someone comes along afterwards and insists that the whole title should be in lower case letters. Richard3120 (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)