User talk:Rockmusicfanatic20

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Article changing
Please do not edit or change articles as you did in Points of Authority. See WP:SECONDARY SOURCE 86.17.231.129 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"Bloat the chart box"
WP:BRD applies to your reverts, by the way, so don't edit war, and please be realistic. Two extra characters is not "bloating" anything by any definition. MOS:DATERANGE says it is "generally preferred" to keep the years full. We are not short of space considering chart names are always longer than any year span is going to be, e.g. "Chart (2023–2024)", and I've made sure sets of music articles are consistent in this regard. You don't need to make unnecessary changes because you prefer "2023–24".  Ss  112   04:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Ss112, thanks for coming to my talk page. Perhaps "bloat" wasn't the right word to say, but I think you get what I'm trying to say. Personally, I would say that having it has "Chart (2023–24)" looks more concise, and if they aren't separated by decade or century or whatnot, then it looks better that way because I honestly think it looks more ugly otherwise when a full year doesn't need to be stated when you already have the full previous year stated. Kind of like how the English Premier League (or any other sports league for that matter) does it by seasons in "2023/24", I haven't seen it when it's "2023-2024". It is very worth noting that this isn't a Wikipedia mandate or rule to adhere to it, but rather a preference and we are arguing over a presentation issue as the same guideline literally says it doesn't mind it as long as the two years are consecutive to each other. I don't think I'm being unreasonable with what I'm saying, so I honestly think this is nonsensical and silly to want to fight over. You mention consistency, I generally haven't seen this outside of the music scope on Wikipedia at all, so would it not make more sense to do it that way anyway? At the end of the day, Wikipedia literally says this is merely down to preference, and you clearly prefer it the other way which is fine so maybe it would be great to have a conversation surrounding this with other editors in the music scope to see what they think also. I hope you had a fantastic New Year's and I wish you the best for the rest of the year. Kind regards. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of songs recorded by Bring Me the Horizon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halsey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of Certification Table Bottom
I had to correct four of your edits in a row (1, 2, 3, 4) so I thought I'll leave you a message. The footnotes on the bottom of the certification table, specified by Certification Table Bottom, must match the ones actually being used in the table itself. If you need help, I'd be happy to assist. Please ping me or leave a message at my talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I always got confused by this to be honest, as I can't actually work it out. I use all the modern bottom template for the certifications, on those templates there are no issues but when I apply it for the early Sum 41 albums and 30 Seconds to Mars (album) for example, the proper way of the certification key never appears on the bottom notes section of the table. Safe to say, I probably need a little bit of a guide. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple really. The bottom should match the table. There are four types of footnotes, namely sales (*), shipments (^) sales+streaming (‡) and streaming-only (†). The default for Certification Table Bottom is to show sales (*) and shipments (^). Let's take 30 Seconds to Mars (album) as an example. If you look at the table itself, only sales (*) is used. Therefore, we need to remove shipments, hence, true is the correct usage. If we look at something like Die a Happy Man, the table uses sales (*) and streaming (‡), so we need to remove shipments (^) and add streaming (‡). Hence we use true and true. If we look at Sex on the Radio, only shipments (^) are used by the table, hence we need true, which removes sales (*). Finally, Addicted to You (Avicii song), the tables uses sales (*), sales+streaming (‡) and streaming-only (†). We therefore remove shipments (^, true) add streaming (‡, true) and lastly, we add straming-only (†), which is true. As a final note, if the table does not use any of the four footnotes, use can replace Certification Table Bottom with table end. I hope this short tutorial is helpful. Muhandes (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a massive help, and I shall incorporate this to the best of my ability in future. Many thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)