User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars/Archive 8

List of Billboard number-one Dance Club Songs
Just letting you know, I've reverted your move of List of Billboard number-one Dance Club Songs (or moved it to a new page). The first letters of the name of the chart, Dance Club Songs, should remain capitalised. The article isn't titled very well anyway.  Ss 112  17:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No it isn't, because that's like saying "List of Billboard number-one Hot 100". Dance Club Songs is the name of the chart. So options include "List of Billboard Dance Club Songs number ones", "List of number ones on the Billboard Dance Club Songs chart" or keep it generic like I had it "List of Billboard number-one dance club songs" much like "List of Billboard number-one country albums" and "List of Billboard number-one rap singles of the 2000s", which makes the most sense to me. The chart names change all the time but the type of song being measured on these charts remains the same. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just realised it's better that way. I didn't really think that one through. I just saw that the title of the chart wasn't capitalised and thought it was an error on your part. I initially meant I reverted back to what Calvin999 had it as, but corrected that by capitalising "Songs". I'll request a re-move at WP:RM/TR. The article's title history is strange.  Ss 112  18:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Argentine singles charts
Hi, thanks for the edits and corrections you've made to the articles on the number-one songs in Mexico. I would appreciate it if you also gave us some help with the articles on the number-one songs in Argentina, which you can find here. Cheers. --CHUI372 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sundayclose
I am here to report you that my edits from a few articles are being reverted from User:Sundayclose and I'm now being accused of sock puppet of a then block user who has also made edits from articles like mine. Please do something to make users like Sundayclose to stop vandalizing Wikipedia because i'm just trying to make Wikipedia a better place and me articles notabke so they can fit the notability guide! Please help me, or else i'm going to have to end my contributions from Wikipedia! TheBigProject (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't keep bothering you here Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, but I wanted to suggest that you look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MrWriter245 before wasting a lot of time on this. This sockmaster has been around for at least five months and has numerous confirmed socks, always with the same pattern: same articles, same pleading that "I'm just trying to make Wikipedia better", and same whining that he/she is not a sock, then getting blocked for socking. Cheers! Sundayclose (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would believe this is the same person as MrWriter245. I attempted to help that person out without results, so I assume that's why I got a message on my talk page from someone I otherwise have no history with. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for helping me out on the Pink Season (Apink album) page! Much appreciated!

ISynpi (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to me! I plan to add to add sources from What I Heard and Screaming Skin in the next few hours. Just give me some time to throw them together! I really appreciate the note!

User:Ramossman (User talk:Ramossman) 20:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey thank you for helping me edit the Inside A Dream (EP). I've been using the visual editor, so I didn't know if I could remove the extra tracks on the template. Deven.smith (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Visual artists has been nominated for discussion
Category:Visual artists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Roses of Red
Why are you canceled this page?--Musicale 89 (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Chicken and egg problem
Regarding your revert on the Category:Ivor Cutler albums page, I was aware that the eponymous category goes away automatically after the parent gets deleted. However the parent category won't be deleted if it's not empty. So I was planning to get around that small technical problem by temporarily removing the template and adding it back after deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why won't it get deleted? It's not a C1 speedy deletion candidate. It qualifies as a G6 speedy deletion as a result of the CFD discussion. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 15:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The very last step of a non-admin closure is pressing the delete button by an admin. Fortunately there are some admins around who routinely do so. But they won't do that if they see the category is non-empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Merging infobox single and infobox song
There is an ongoing discussion on whether infobox single and infobox song should be merged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you. Erick (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Our Goodman
Our Goodman is a 12.5 kb article with 13 refs. Why did you revert the rating to stub-class? Scolaire (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article had no rating at all, so I didn't revert anything. It did look like that the "history and content" section was just lyrics though which is not real content, so I rated it as a stub, but I see that it is more than that. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 22:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the stub rating here, so that it would appear in the Unassessed song articles category. That's why when the stub-class rating reappeared I thought you had just reverted. Thanks for the reassessment. Scolaire (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017
Hello, you participated in the deletion discussion for the article List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017, which was deleted as a result. I have taken the closure to deletion review, and it may interest you to take part in it. Thank you. ℯ xplicit  06:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of a load of Brisbane/Queensland local football clubs for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether several articles about Brisbane local football clubs are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Centenary Stormers FC 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. Cabayi (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion nomination of Category:Activists from Idaho
Hello Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Category:Activists from Idaho as an unpopulated category under CSD C1. That criterion did not apply because the category was not empty.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Malaysian film actors categories
After closing this discussion I found that there is a Category:Malaysian film actors by studio. For consistency, would you want to nominate the subcats of this category as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will soon. The one I nominated was the only one populated at the time and the rest were empty. Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 06:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Michelle
On Rubber Soul the song was called Michelle and not Michelle (song), why did you revert the Disambiguation page?--Io Herodotus (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On disambiguation pages, you use the Wikipedia title of the article not the actual name of the song. Please read WP:DABPIPING. Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 02:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hadji87
Hey, I just saw you tagged that IP address's page with a template that they're a sockpuppet of Hadji87. I seem to recall you saying on another IP address's talk page (or perhaps it was just to another user) that you had been monitoring the IP addresses Hadji87 has used for a while (and they generally return to edit 2017 in British music charts with them). Are you intending to take this to SPI or report them? (Also, in a case of coincidence, just looked at your contributions after you tagged the IP's page and saw you had edited some Spin Doctors pages—while I was listening to "Two Princes"!)  Ss 112  03:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've noticed it for some time now but for the most part he hasn't been excessively disruptive (bordering it at times maybe but overall just annoying). So I started tracking the IP addresses Hadji87 uses to identify abuses should or when they occur. I have a feeling we probably have similar musical tastes. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 03:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Can you please revert your edit on the song Go To War. Like I said, the T is upper case just like most articles billed the song as.Unicornaholic243 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of publications and websites will use non-standard capitalization for titles but that doesn't trump Wikipedia's Manual of Style. If you think it's wrong you can request a page move by following the instructions at WP:RM. Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply to your AC chart requests
OK. I just finished the 1982 one. I'll take a break at your request. Also let them know that I worked so hard on those articles and would hate to see them be deleted, they are also free to edit the articles and put references in them. Anyways, let me know when the discussion has closed so I can catch up. Thank you. Ty654 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to be going in your favor, but I would just hate for you to continue while at AfD and they get deleted. My main thing is that there is nothing significant about reaching the top 10 on these secondary charts and has meaning to anyone except for the artists themselves and chart-philes (which I count myself as one). Otherwise, its simply a measuring tool that no one covers outside of Billboard or whomever the provider is for a particular chart. Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Container category?
Would this be considered a container category? Category:Trap music albums? --Jennica ✿ / talk 23:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No. As a subgenre, it's possible that a music act could release a trap music album as a one time thing outside the act's main genre, which in that case the album article would get categorized as a trap music album and not categorized as such through another parent cat. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Andy Williams album pages
I have created album pages for Andy Williams that originally included information about the songs he was covering on those releases, but you have noted that you don’t feel that this information is relevant to the album page in question. I wrote the articles to include what I would want to know if I was looking through these pages, and I realize that most of these songs have links to their own pages that would provide this information. But when there’s an album with 8 or 9 or up to 12 songs with separate pages, I couldn’t see many readers methodically going through each link to a song page and then returning to the Williams album page to continue with the next song page link. If the success of a song being covered had no relevance to the album on which it was covered, then there would be no point in linking to the song page to begin with. And if we’re not going to include information on the album page that can be found on the individual song pages, then we would need to start deleting songwriters from the track listing that are included after any song that has its own page, which is obviously not going to happen.

I’m sure you know that Andy Williams was part of the Easy Listening roster at Columbia, and over the course of the late ‘60s those artists were increasingly encouraged to cover current pop hits. The idea was to record songs that would increase album sales, and the level of chart success achieved by the original artists indicated how familiar his record buyers would be with the list of songs displayed on the front cover. So when you say that this information has nothing to do with how it came to be on an Andy Williams album, I have to respectfully disagree.

My reasoning is similar as to why I include Billboard chart statistics for the songs on his greatest hits albums. The success of each of the selections contributed to why the buyer would want to purchase the album, and the question I would think the reader is asking would be, “Are these actual hits or just album tracks?” Yes, his discography page does list his charted singles, but again I think it’s much more enjoyable for the reader to just have the information in question right there.

Even if we agree to disagree, I wanted to explain the choices I made so that you at least understand my reasons for them. Danaphile (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not about not including anything from the articles on the songs, it's about not including things not relevant to the actual recording or production of the album itself. Most sites with info about the album, not to mention the album itself, list the songwriters of the songs, making it relevant to the album. The song selections for these cover albums aren't based on their chart position in Billboard magazine, they are selected because they were popular recordings and it doesn't matter whether they went to #2 on Billboard or #22, unless it was a conscious decision to choose only songs that were top 10 hits or only #1 hits (which then there would probably be a source explaining the concept of the album). Million Seller Songs, for example, could include a sentence that each song was certified gold by RIAA (except for one, according to AllMusic) thus making each a million-seller even though by other artists, but it would be overkill to say this one sold 2 million and that one sold 3 million. It would be like if Katy Perry decided to remake "Smooth Criminal" by Michael Jackson for a new album and in the album's article you explained how the song went to #7 for Jackson and won best music video awards and later went on to become a #23 hit for Alien Ant Farm. Unless those are specific reasons as to why she decided to cover the song (which would have to be sourced, of course), the most I would expect to see is "the top 10 hit by Michael Jackson" in the article. Remember, the reason for Wikipedia is provide information to readers on notable topics not help them decide if they should go out and buy an album or not. You are doing great work here, and certainly don't want to discourage that despite a disagreement in this area. Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying your position. I was seeing so many deletions over the past few days that I felt my explanation might ease any frustration I was causing. Danaphile (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Number eleven peaks on Uk top 10 chart
I saw you had removed the section on songs which charted as high as number 11 in the chart on articles I have been working hard on and researching. I understand where you are coming from that the article is about top 10 singles but I felt they were an important part of chart history and could be included in background section (chart fans presume a lot of those songs reached the top 10). I am going to undo your edits but hide the table from main space, I spent ages researching this thinking it was good background information (although a list article I wanted them to be comprehensive) and ideally would like a standalone article about songs which only ever reached number 11. Any help you can give towards these top 10 articles would be appreciated. :) 03  md  14:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT a site for fans. See WP:FANCRUFT. Top 11s in a top ten list is complete trivia and extraneous information. I will take this to RFC is necessary if you don't stop. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you make a list of songs that peaked at number 11, I will immediately nominate it for deletion. There is already precedent with the deletion of number two singles (Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.), Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015), and if lists of number-two singles are WP:LISTCRUFT, why did you think list of number 11s wouldn't be. Articles for deletion/Billboard Hot 100 11 to 20 peaks is another example were similar lists were deleted as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

List of all songs by Atif Aslam listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of all songs by Atif Aslam. Since you had some involvement with the List of all songs by Atif Aslam redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Peace and Silence
Good evening. I just left this note over on the talk page for the Peace and Silence article and I was wondering if you would care to offer your .02 about the second course of action I mentioned taking, especially since it was you who redirected Fathom That to that article back in 2015. I want you to know that I bear no ill will toward you for doing that, I totally understand why you did. Actually, I'm surprised nobody else has bothered undertaking the first course of action I mentioned in my aforementioned note, and that is redirecting the Peace and Silence article over to the Travis Bracht article. I will gladly do just that but first I wanted to get people's input about the second course of action that I mentioned in my note: creating a new article for Peace and Silence over on Metal Wiki. It has crossed my mind that I may be out of luck there since ownership of any all material added to Wikipedia passes over to the site once it's been added. Still, I figured it was worth a shot to see if I could clear this with the PTB here on Wikipedia. Even though I started editing a few years before you, my total edits are a but a fraction of yours, which is another reason why I was wondering if you had any ideas as to any bureaucrats or admins I can talk to about creating a new article for Peace and Silence over on Metal Wiki. Thank you for your time and kind consideration regarding this matter. Shaneymike (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I added Phantom Blue albums in the power metal albums section
According to Metallum (The Metal Archives), they are labelled as a melodic power metal band in the genre section - https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Phantom_Blue/2575

The reason why I added Veronica Falls albums in the jangle pop albums section and also the dream pop albums section
According to Rate Your Music, the band are labelled as jangle pop as well as dream pop - https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/veronica-falls

Speedy category deletion
A category in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is probably not going to be deleted by an admin unless it's empty but I'm not absolutely sure about that. So hopefully for you I'm just wrong. A safer procedure is to nominate the category for speedy deletion at CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've G4'd category recreations before so I'm surprised at how long this one has taken to be reviewed by an admin. I mean, it was created by the same person who recreated it the last time. At that time, he asked for continued discussion at a new CfD, which I did, and the result was the same. I don't see where things have changed to have it now. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No surprise on my end, I suspect that admins just routinely ignore non-empty categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So if a category gets deleted in CfD, anyone who doesn't like the result could just recreate and repopulate it, and it will have to go through another CfD?
 * Fortunately it doesn't occur too often, at least that's my impression from what I see on CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Categories may get salted though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

cats on redirects.
You wrote, in your summary, "there is no information about this song except that it is track 7. If we're going to categorize meaningless song articles/redirects, we should create redirects for every non-notable song on every album ever released and glut the artist's songs categories." If a redirect exists, then it must be for a purpose, to categorise it by artist is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the number of people creating redirects for every track on an album. Perhaps the redirects should be deleted? A much more practical solution, otherwise we will have a redirect for every album track. What say you? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Something like Category:A Day to Remember songs is ridiculous. If I'm looking at that category, I want to find out more about songs by that artist. 1) I have to scour through the list of 86 "pages" for ones that actually have articles, 2) if I do click on one of the redirects, it's got to have something more in the target article than just noted in the track listing to making categorizing it beneficial. I don't have a problem with redirects in general and I have no problem with categorizing redirects, but I don't think every redirect needs to be categorized if searching through the category becomes a wasteful exercise if all I learn is that "Here's to the Past" is track 11 on For Those Who Have Heart. I would agree with you that such redirects should not exist, but they do and if the most pointless ones are being categorized, it will encourage others to do the same such as was done for A Day to Remember's songs. Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we agree, save that if a redirect exists, then it should be categorised. I have had a discussion or two with those creating through the their album collection without much apparent success. But my argument is if a redirect exists for a song there should be a purpose, therefore to additionally categorise by date, main performer and songwriters is appropriate. If you are looking for say, a Bruce Springsteen song, then the categories will help in the search as much, if not more than a redirect. I am also perturbed that song titles are rarely original and sooner or later we are going to have multiple edit wars on the redirect title. Furthermore, the search function at WP is good enough not to need song redirects at all. Any category containing only redirects should be deleted, and some already have been. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Films tagged as albums
Thanks for this--I've seen that there are several which need to be fixed, so I'm doing that now myself. The problem is that a lot of films are in categories for soundtracks by year. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * True documentaries should not be considered video albums as well. I'm only going through these because I had cleared Category:Unassessed Album articles through F as well as Q, X, Y, Z, and I want to clear them from the queue as soon as possible to focus H-W. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Out of copyright in 2017


A tag has been placed on Category:Out of copyright in 2017 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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. AusLondonder (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Category rename
Category:Allan Holdsowrth album covers/Category:Allan Holdsworth album covers. Thanks for spotting this. I would recommend that in the future you move the category talk page so that the new category name is on my watchlist. Alternately, you can forgo db-typo and instead post it to WP:RFD/S in which case a bot will move it and it will remain on my watchlist. Something to consider. Thanks. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed Category:Allan Holdsowrth album covers was an empty category and I was going to tag it as db-catempty, then I noticed the spelling error and that Category:Allan Holdsworth album covers already existed, so instead of waiting a week as required in the empty category process, I thought I would speed up the deletion process by noting it was an obvious typo and tagged it as db-typo. I don't care about your watchlist. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

AFD for an album
I see you edit album articles a lot. Any chance I can get you to weigh in here? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

New Wave (Powerman 5000 album)
Can I get you to weigh in on this? Another half assed attempt at an article by Jax 0677. At this point I think we should consider ANI'ing them because they're deliberately ignoring discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a decent amount of reviews and other coverage of the album out there (although none from sites that are listed on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE), and with the album due to be released Friday, I'm hesitant to suggest deletion as there can be a lot of improvement done in a week's time. Jax is one of the oddest and certainly the laziest editors I've ever come across here and loves WP:Wikilawyering. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any reliable reviews at first glance, hence the AFD. Do you think his laziness and lawyering warrant an ANI? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what could actually be done in case of laziness. He seems It would be great if he added infoboxes and clearly significant sources to new articles. There would have to be a trend of such creations being continoulsy taken to AfD and being deleted to take to ANI, I would think. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Navbox categories
Hi! I see you've been tidying up some musical navbox categories. I don't know if you're aware, but per WP:CAT, we shouldn't categorise templates in article categories, so, for example, A. R. Rahman does not belong in. -- wooden superman  11:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I rarely do that but certainly did so in that case. It is common practice enough where I never remove an eponymous category that is present in a template, although I will add the recommended sort key ("τ") if necessary. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Demis Roussos
Hi, I wonder if you'd like to get involved at Template talk:Demis Roussos. The other editor in the discussion did try pinging you. -- wooden superman  09:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Flicker (album) categories
Per this edit you made to Flicker (album), I was quite sure those categories (despite there only being three) had been arranged alphabetically, which is what some prefer. I understand per WP:CATDEF they don't have to be, as it says "Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first", but I think ordinarily it would be a pointless thing to rearrange as some editors have arranged them alphabetically deliberately. Perhaps it's also a stylistic point of difference?  Ss 112  03:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * → -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me

to
 * → -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Years of the 10th century in Denmark has been nominated for discussion
Category:Years of the 10th century in Denmark, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart achievements for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart achievements 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/List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart achievements 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, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CheetaWolf (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I took the closure of this AfD to deletion review to get some extra opinions on it, and while they've endorsed the original closure, they've allowed immediate re-nomination (see discussion here). If you still feel that the article should be deleted, the steps for re-nominating it are at WP:AFDHOWTO, I'll be happy to assist if you want my help. I'd also recommend reading WP:BEFORE so you can strengthen your case for deletion, and make it easier for others to participate. Iffy★Chat -- 22:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'll wait a couple days and then just redirect it. I doubt anyone will notice or even care. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)