User talk:Popcornfud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Popcornduff)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
"no one is going to think the game is going to be hurled out of a building" on response to the argument on the talk page of Sonic Frontiers. When I read that I just pictured someone getting so angry at the game they just chuck it out the window. I got a good laugh out of that statement. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Holidays![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Popcornfud, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,

JOEBRO64 16:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sequential / DSI navbox[edit]

Regarding your repeated removal of the Prophet-10 from Template:Sequential Circuits: While I hear your argument that a navbox is not the same as a list, the Prophet-10 is distinct enough from the P5 that it's not readily evident to the uninitiated that they would share the same article, so people unfamiliar with these instruments will have serious difficulty navigating to the P10 from the navbox. For other technology discussed on Wikipedia, it's routine for navboxes to have redirected entries for similar reasons; an excellent example is the Boeing-Stearman Model 75, which had an unusual plethora of differing designations for the same basic aircraft with minor mechanical changes. The Sequential/DSI navbox is by no means complicated or overlong, even if all the remaining unlisted Sequential/DSI instruments are added to it, so I fail to see a good reason to remove the P10. Carguychris (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prophet-10 is distinct enough from the P5 that it's not readily evident to the uninitiated that they would share the same article
This, imo, is why we shouldn't do it. Having both links looks like Wikipedia has two separate articles - it doesn't. It adds confusion rather than reduces it.
Navboxes are for collecting articles under a shared theme. They aren't for trying to anticipate what readers will search for (which is what redirects are for).
If it's standard to do this across other navboxes in some areas of Wikipedia - well, that doesn't sound like a good standard to me, and it certainly isn't standard in navboxes other areas. For example, in video game navboxes, we don't include separate links for DLCs that are covered in main articles, even though exactly the same logic you're arguing for would apply. Popcornfud (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Please see my question here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone left a message for you at Shenmue III's talk page.[edit]

I think he's referring to that edit you just reverted long ago, and also asked if you are familiar with the original Shenmue actors: Eric Kelso and Paul Lucas, whom they did not officially reprise their roles in Shenmue III. KeboBulaon (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fan editor research interview[edit]

Hiya, Popcornfud! I don't know if we've directly interacted before (or at least, in the recent past), but my name is Gen. Quon, and I'm an editor who works largely on pop culture articles about the X-Files, The Office, and Adventure Time. I'm also working on my PhD in library science, and my dissertation is on the information behaviors of fan editors. (Here's a more detailed outline of my project, if you'd like to read about it!) My work is largely autoethnographic, but I'm also wanting to work qualitative interviewing into the works. As such, I've been reaching out to editors to see if they can share their experiences with me. Given your interest in music and video games, I figured you might be a good person to ask. Would you be interested in chatting with me about your information experiences here on Wikipedia (e.g., where do you get info, how do you determine if it's legit, etc.)? I'm more than happy to provide additional details, if you'd like.--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!) 18:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gen. Quon: Sure, I'd be happy to help. Send me an email. Popcornfud (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Health and appearance of Michael Jackson has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Quaffel (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Be My Slave (Japanese film) poster.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Be My Slave (Japanese film) poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're on a roll...[edit] the MOS discussion. Primergrey (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aimee Mann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geffen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Music barnstar.png The Music Barnstar
Thanks for all of your work on the Radiohead articles. It's always good to see people with taste around here. ― Tuna + 14:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your thank you note is very much appreciated y[edit]

Hi Popcornfud,

Your thank you note is very much appreciated!

Friendly congratumbrrrldrss's like your's are especially efficient for waking up after hibernation...

All the Best!

Steveshelokhonov 20:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ulimited Love[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Singles criteria, states regarding singles: "However, even publications such as Rolling Stone or NME, while offering reputable music reviews, are not necessarily reliable for classifying a song as a single or not. They should not be the only source cited when classifying a song as a single." I had NME, Kerrang, BLABBERMOUTH, Pitchfork and there are much more online. Why the change on Unlimited Love?

Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't looked at this situation in detail yet, and I may have made the wrong call. I'll give it a thorough look soon. Popcornfud (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, let me know something. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you seen ...[edit]

the most recent issue of The New Yorker where they mention second mentions ? If they can mention Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation, The Signpost certainly should give it a second round of praise. Would you mind if we reprint your essay? Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Essay. Feel free to copyedit it or any other article awaiting publication at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Thanks! Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, ain't that something. Thanks for letting me know. The Signpost issue looks good to me. Popcornfud (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Seven years!

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit on Street Spirit, which included a change regarding naming conventions and for overlinking. My understanding of MOS:THEBAND is that Mid-sentence, per the MoS main page, the word the should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: the Beatles so I've since changed the phrase to conform especially given that all references of The Darkness in their own article includes the article "the". I've also relinked class consciousness as per MOS:UNDERLINK: Articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases. The term is a Marxist expression and my understanding is that this is not going to be immediately understandable to some readers. Happy to discuss if you disagree, cheers! tofubird | 23:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Hey, Hey, Rise Up![edit]

Updated DYK query.svg

On 6 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hey, Hey, Rise Up!, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" is the first new Pink Floyd song in more than 25 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hey, Hey, Rise Up!. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hey, Hey, Rise Up!), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]

May songs
Rapsfeld, Gnadenthal.jpg

Thank you for the article which is also featured on my talk today! - a song for you: Glauben können wie du, sung by the person I have on DYK today, right below the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

today performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK - and more May pics--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Roger Waters[edit]

I have nominated Roger Waters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amen Break & the Impressions[edit]

Hi Popcornfud,

A year ago you reverted unsourced edits on the Amen Break page that had described how Amen Brother took more than just a guitar lick from Curtis Mayfield, and that the two credited musicians had played with Mayfield.

I've just put in the same fact in with more detail and a source. The Winstons as a whole had been the Impressions' live backing band immediately prior to the recording of Amen Brother, and the Impressions version of Amen was one of their two top ten hits.

The similarity with We're A Winner is huge, Amen Brother is effectively the same tune with a new lead line - a quick listen to the two tracks would amply demonstrate that to anyone's satisfaction.

Gregory Coleman and Richard Spencer's pages both mention them playing with Mayfield and The Impressions.

I hope this meets with the standard you like to see, but if not please let me know and I'll find further sources.


Guiffang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guiffang (talkcontribs) 09:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Unfortunately, I have reverted your additions again for two reasons:
1) The source you added,, appears to be a hobbyist site rather than a high-quality reliable source.
2) It looks like you added another piece of information, "which had been one of the Impressions' biggest hits", that wasn't in the provided source for that sentence (the Economist) and I couldn't see it on the Soul Walking site either.
I'm sorry, I know this is probably frustrating. I understand that the information you want to include is probably true, and it looks like it would be a good addition to the encyclopaedia if we can find reliable sources for it, but at the moment we're missing reliable sources and that goes against Wikipedia policy - see WP:RS. Popcornfud (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sukida[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sukida requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hi Popcornfud,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elegant variation[edit]

Very cool that the elegant variation essay got linked from the New Yorker! --Macrakis (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and thanks for your additions to the essay over the years. Have you received your paycheck yet? Popcornfud (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, isn't it great! I'm planning to retire on my Wikipedia royalties. --Macrakis (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kenny Loggins - Danger Zone.ogg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kenny Loggins - Danger Zone.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Popcornfud.[edit]

Can I change werecat into werewolf when I'm editing on the Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video) page at Wikipedia? Aidanyeckley29 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would you do that? The person who designed the costume specifically described it as a werecat. This is quoted and cited in the article. Popcornfud (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to change werecat into werewolf when I was editing the Thriller music video page on Wikipedia. 2601:541:8200:6C7C:448B:488B:2240:4BDF (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please help me?[edit]

Hey. You're pretty good at editing and cleaning up articles. Could you please help me clean up Untitled Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film. Averyfunkydude23 (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for Klonoa edits[edit]

Thanks for your edits at Klonoa Phantasy Reverie Series. I was having trouble with that passage. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I learned something![edit]

Thanks for this edit! I didn't know this essay existed and never knew why the word "title" was changed by others in my works without explanation. Panini! 🥪 04:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I misread the diff. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panzer Dragoon Saga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page G4.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson[edit]

I have nominated List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ableton Live version history table[edit]

The recent re-addition of the ableton live version history table is akin to the iOS software update page.

It is only the major versions, like 9.0, 9.1, 9.5, not 9.1.1, 9.1.2, etc. Please keep the table in place. It is useful as a general overview to the history of the software. (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am moving this discussion to talk:Ableton Live where other editors can see it. Popcornfud (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Smile" reversion[edit]

I noticed you reverted my recent edit at "Thom Yorke": I disagree with the reversion, but don't want to start an edit war, so I'm setting out my rationale here. In short, my edit was to clarify that Thom's side band is called "The Smile", NOT simply "Smile". Source for this is the band's official web page:

Wikipedia's article about the band is also clear that the band's name is "The Smile", though the erroneous title "Smile" is used extensively in the article, and should be cleaned up just as I did in the "Thom Yorke" article. I was going to do it when I had time, but again I wanted to get this resolved with you before doing that and provoking more reverts!

With that in mind, I ask respectfully that you undo your revert on the "Thom Yorke" article. Ian Page (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ian Page: Hi there. I'm a little confused. What about any of the Wikipedia pages makes it seem like they say the band is called "Smile"? Popcornfud (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm befuddled: your comment never appeared on my end while I was editing! In fact, I appended to the bottom of what was visible to me. How utterly strange. I'll have to double check future Talk edits to ensure no repeats. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Happy editing. Popcornfud (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ZZ Top, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Standard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"we can't use Twitter commentary as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles"[edit]

That's fair, but the incorrect numbers mentioned in the Sales section come from a Twitter post. The blog cited was written by someone who got their information from Daniel Ahmad's twitter commentary, not actual data. There is zero data to back up the claim beyond Ahmad's tweet, which contains nothing but a screenshot of a line graph that isn't even labeled or backed up with a source. In contrast to that, I did cite data which shows the actual numbers of concurrent players at the time of launch, "Half-Life: Alyx - Steam Charts"., but you removed that along with the twitter commentary. But yeah, sure, Twitter isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia. Except, of course, when the citation points to a blog that references the tweet instead of directly to the tweet itself. Piccolo113 (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this. It seems like the best thing to do here is just remove all the info entirely. Popcornfud (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should B-sides be mentioned in sections other than “track listing”[edit]

Hey, saw your edit on californication and the WP article attatched to it. Does that mean that info about b-sides and outtakes aren’t necessary at all in album articles, or are they still welcomed in sections other than the track listing (say, a “background” or “recording” section or something similar)? Especially with a band like RHCP where each album session creates a load of B-sides and outtakes. Thanks! Elephantranges (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there. Information about B-sides and outtakes in the prose is all cool as long as it's sourced to a reliable secondary source. For example, I covered the B-sides "Spectre" and "Ill Wind" in the article for the Radiohead album A Moon Shaped Pool. However, per WP:ALTTRACKLIST, there's no need to include track lists for B-sides, outtakes, extra material. We just keep the track lists simple. Popcornfud (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should add that you should also keep WP:DUE in mind. Mentioning B-sides etc is fine but we don't need loads of information about them when they're not as important as the other tracks. Gotta keep it all in proportion to what's important and what's covered by sources. Popcornfud (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to know, thanks!

Elephantranges (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK nomination of The Shaggs[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of The Shaggs at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
For being unflinchingly polite and accepting when you discovered that your DYK submission, despite the extensive amount of work you invested, could not be approved. In most of my admin work, I'm dealing with people who are trying to evade responsibility for their actions. It restores my faith in humanity when somebody stands up and says, "I goofed, my bad". And for that, I award you this barnstar. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RoySmith, the article is now GA if we want to open the DYK back up. Popcornfud (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

False titles[edit]

Per our mini-edit-war on Valve Corporation, do you think it's worth making a proposal to the manual of style on whether to use false titles? I don't actually care either way as long as it's consistent across wikipedia. I've only been able to find this brief 2017 discussion on it: -9yz (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I think it would be unlikely to gain support as it's not the kind of thing that the MoS is really built to govern. In other words, it's not a major point of disagreement that needs to be settled so editors don't spend time hashing out the same arguments over and over again forever. The MOS actually allows a lot of leeway between how articles on Wikipedia are written, and there's inevitably going to be a lot of variation. Whether the entire encylopaedia uses false titles or doesn't probably isn't something that a lot of editors are going to feel strongly about, or feel needs a policy behind it. (But who knows — maybe I'm completely wrong.)
Like I said in my edit message, I don't see false titles as a major issue. When I revert other people for adding them, I do it mainly in the spirit of education, because I think most people automatically think they're a zero-cost way to trim words without realising they slant the prose slightly. I mean, that's what I thought too, as I merrily trimmed definite articles from hundreds of articles for years, until something started to itch me about it and I finally discovered that there is 1) a term for this concept and 2) a school of thought against it, of which I eventually became persuaded. If other editors think they're harmless then that's not a hill I'm going to die on. I just want to make sure people are adding them in knowledge of the arguments for and against. Does that make sense? Popcornfud (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bring Pablo Honey to GA?[edit]

Since all Radiohead albums and their discography are GA / FA, the promotion of Pablo Honey would allow a good topic to be created for the band. You seem to be the primary contributor the the article, so thought I would run it by you first. I'm willing to try to bring it to GA (haven't looked close, but I don't think too much more needs to be done) but wondering if you'd rather try to promote it. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've written 2 album GAs, and 2 album GANs, but they were all rather obscure albums, so I don't really know how this would go for me. But this article looks to satisfy broadness and to be in good shape, so I think I could take up the challenge. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey. I'm personally not too bothered about FAs and GAs, but if you wanna nominate the article, I'll help out in the review. Popcornfud (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good, will begin clean up! Thank you. P.S. do you have access to the 2011 Mac Randall book? It's in dire need of page number additions. I found an edition on the Open Library, but it's too old, and I can't find the book at my local library. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, if you enable the "let editors email you" feature I can email you a copy. Popcornfud (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I have the "let editors email you" feature enabled. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 14:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sent. Popcornfud (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, this is annoying. The Kindle copy of the book doesn't have page numbers. For example, the info about the producers looking for work in the UK is at "location 1282". Not sure how to work with that. Popcornfud (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(this is a really late reply but I'm only working on the article again now) I see. That's unfortunate, since page numbers add a bunch more verifiability. Perhaps I can just switch some of the citations to the 2000 version, but that's probably unideal. I'm not even able to open the kindle version at the moment because of DRM. Thanks for the help, though! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind, the 2011 edition is on the open library! Somehow I missed that haha. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Shaggs[edit]

If nobody takes up the GA, I'll do it, but it will be in a few weeks. As said on BLZ's talk, think the page is excellently written, but do think you could subtly introduce some dry humour, and even within wikis voice, the writing could be more self aware and nodding. Anyway currently obsessed with demos and outtakes of [1]. Your a suberb stuart there. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, thanks for the kind words, they are appreciated! As for the humour thing... I'm not really of the feeling that Wikipedia is the place for that. Personally, I don't see the Shaggs as a great source of laughs myself — there's some stuff that's inevitably going to be sort of funny about their story, but really it's the story of an abusive, cultish family. Popcornfud (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok thats news to me, having listened to them on and off for years. Gives a totally different spin. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Shaggs[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Shaggs you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vladimir.copic -- Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ed O'brien and Phish[edit]

The source includes a quote in which Ed O'Brien says "I'm really influenced by Phish". Kofsdl (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stand corrected — I misread the source and was too quick to revert, apologies. Thanks for the addition. Popcornfud (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topics to keep in Return to Monkey Island[edit]

Hi @Popcornfud, thanks for your recent edits to the article! I am a bit puzzled by the removal from the article of (almost) any reference to the decision to keep the development secret. Several sources have discussed this topic, which was considered important. I fear that deleting anything about it from the development section deprives the article of a significant aspect of development, which was affected by the developers' decision. What about re-introducing it and its associated sources? ► LowLevel73 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I think that was a mistake on my part. Looking at my edits, I didn't mean to remove as much as I did. I'm a bit busy right now but I'll sort it out later today - or feel free to go ahead and revert now and I'll look at it again later. Popcornfud (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, no need to revert, I was just a bit confused. Thanks for the clarification. :-) ► LowLevel73 (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yo. I took another look and actually I think I was right to cut what I did.
Basically what I trimmed was this:
Gilbert told Grossman that he wanted to keep the development secret and reveal the game on an April Fools' Day.
Which IMO we don't need because we have the following paragraphs:
Return to Monkey Island was developed for two years in secrecy. Gilbert said: "I did not tell anybody. If you were not actually working on this project, you didn't know about it. I didn't tell my best friend. I didn't tell my mother, I didn't tell my sister."
... which covers the secrecy, and:
On April 1, 2022 Gilbert announced on his blog that he was working on a Monkey Island game
... which tells us, well, that Gilbert announced it on April Fool's Day. So there's no need to tell us that he wanted to do that. He actually did it.
At some point later I'll go deeper and look at the sources to see if there's more detail we can pull out. Like, maybe Gilbert explained why he wanted to announce the game on April Fools' Day and we can add that in. I'm just copyediting based on what's already in the Wikipedia article right now. Popcornfud (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Shaggs[edit]

The article The Shaggs you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Shaggs for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vladimir.copic -- Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Just letting you know (and I'm sorry if this is disappointing), but following the GAN fail for Panzer Dragoon Orta, I've done a rethink of my priorities, and I can't go on with my original intention of carrying Orta, Zwei and Crimson Dragon through GAN. It's too much, in an area I became briefly fascinated by but haven't got the determined passion to make good on ala Shadow Hearts. I've delisted the GANs for Zwei and Crimson Dragon, since it didn't seem right to continue with them. You did great work on Saga, and supported me through the Orta and Zwei rewrites, so I think it best to leave them with you. Maybe I'm being a coward, but I don't think I can do this series justice. I hope my contributions can provide a base for any future work. ProtoDrake (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! Relax, that's no big deal. I never really got involved in supporting the GAs for those — just took a few cursory glances and some simple edits — and I'm sorry I wasn't more use. Honestly, in my view, GA and FAs are all kind of a much of a muchness and I don't ordinarily place much weight on them. Good luck out there. Popcornfud (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capped The in title[edit]

The relevant discussion explaining my edit is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Midsentence capitalization of the. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roland TR808[edit]

It is well known Duran Duran used the TR808, and Nick Rhodes was honored by Roland with a lifetime achievement award: The article and reference that you deleted says this: The Fairlight CMI, an Australian invention, was very significant in the beginning of proper sampling and digital synthesis. There weren’t many of us that had one at the time. I remember it was a very elite club as it was very expensive, but we had one along with Kate Bush, Peter Gabriel, Trevor Horn, Art Of Noise. The Akai samplers were another. Those Akai samplers made a real big difference. And the Linn Drum along with the Roland TR808 really revolutionised the sound of music through the early ’80s. We used drum machines from the very first album.

I am going to put it back because I do believe you were erroneous in removing their contribution to the popularization of the instrument. Askkaty2write (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but that source does not say that Duran Duran used the 808. All it says about the 808 is this part: The Roland TR808 really revolutionised the sound of music through the early ’80s". That doesn't necessarily mean Duran Duran used one on their records. If you want to include this information, you'll need to find a reliable source that directly states it.
Also, please note that if you repeatedly restore edits without consensus, you'll wind up blocked. So please straighten this out on the Talk page before putting it back again. Popcornfud (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly don't want to be blocked, but it's a well known fact - an actually fact, and not a ding on you but some things posted on Wikipedia are not actually factual - that Duran Duran used the 808 heavily on their first two albums, which is one reason Nick received the Lifetime Achievement Award from Roland. Can you make a suggestion on how this can be added? All of the support documents found online are from Reddit boards and online Roland groups. I know YouTube videos are not accepted. Askkaty2write (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you can't find this information covered in a reliable secondary source (see WP:SECONDARY), then it probably isn't notable and doesn't need to be added to the article. Popcornfud (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can, but it's mostly print from 1982. There is a book from Roland coming later this year and I know it's covered in there. Hopefully that will be sufficient. Thank you for the feedback Askkaty2write (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stating that CloudFlare and IETF capitalize Internet is not OR[edit]

I fail to see how you can come to the conclusion that stating that CloudFlare and IETF capitalize Internet is original research. It isn't, it's literally provided within the source cited. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Where is that stated in the source? Popcornfud (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources (CloudFlare and IETF) both consistently capitalizes Internet in their documentation. I don't see anything in WP:OR that states that this qualifies as Original Research. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there you go. It doesn't state it. So Wikipedia editors figuring this conclusion out ourselves is original research.
CloudFlare and IETF are dubious sources notability-wise anyway. What shows that the style choices of those organizations is notable? We should really be looking for high-quality secondary sources that report what organizations are doing and using that as a sign of notability, not relying on linking WP:PRIMARY sources. Popcornfud (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how this is original research when it's a consistent practice to capitalize Internet. Nonetheless, both sources are notable as they deal directly with Internet infrastructure. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have reliable secondary sources mentioned the style choices of those organizations? That's what indicates notability for Wikipedia, not whether the organizations deal with internet infrastructure. Popcornfud (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not relevant in the context of this article. Anyway, I did find better sources both for CloudFlare and IETF, so I'm using those instead. Since I can't find any style guide for the NewYorker (though I'll keep an eye out), I'm not including it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"That's not relevant in the context of this article." No, it is — this is the standard for notability across Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But CloudFlare and IETF are both inherently notable organizations. IETF literally is responsible for maintaining it. CloudFlare is a major player in the Internet's infrastructure. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I understand what you're saying.
I mean, let's be clear here, Cloudflare is a notable organization, it meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, and accordingly has a Wikipedia article.
But that doesn't automatically mean that everything Cloudflare ever does is now a notable act for Wikipedia and should be recorded.
For example, if Cloudflare was bought out by Microsoft, this would be covered by secondary sources such as reliable tech news sites and so on. This would then warrant coverage in a Wikipedia article.
So: have Cloudflare's style guide choices been covered in a high-quality secondary source? If not, then they're probably not notable.
Does that make sense? Popcornfud (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't follow. The capitalization of Internet by many of the sources linked under usage are only referenced by the sources themselves and not mentioned elsewhere. We'd have to get rid of them, such as Apple, Microsoft, etc. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, those probably ought to go too. (But at least they're not WP:OR.) Popcornfud (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, can you find any proper third party citations (that don't reference Wikipedia) that indicate that CNN has intentionally switched to lowercase internet? I'd like to add that as a reference rather leave it unreferenced like it is now. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't searched for the CNN thing, and I'd support removing any claim that isn't cited to a good source.
Frankly, in my opinion, that whole article is a bit of a mess. The capitalization debate received a flurry of coverage from a handful of good sources not too long ago, but it ought to be possible to summarise these in a paragraph or two in the main Internet article.
I fear the article is in danger of becoming an indiscriminate list of stuff, as we just slowly collect mentions in style guides of every organization and style guide big and small, which suits none of Wikipedia's goals. Popcornfud (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I 100% agree with you that the article is unwieldy. Want to boldly merge this article into Internet? I'd support that. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IIRC I nominated it for deletion at some point 2 or 3 years ago and the consensus was to keep it, so I'm not sure I'd get away with it. (But if you want to give it a shot...) Popcornfud (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could jointly try to nominate for deletion/merge again and see what happens. Up to you. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dilly Gent[edit]

Hi - given your interest in all things Radiohead-related, you may want to cast an eye over the above newly-created article... I've taken out most of the promotional wording, but I still wonder just how notable this person is. A long list of being "creative director" and "video commissioner" (is that a notable position?) doesn't convince me... her notability seems to rest on the Grammy for Meeting People Is Easy and co-creating From the Basement. Richard3120 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. Doesn't smell notable to me per WP:GNG. Gent gets a passing mention in Radiohead coverage sometimes, but that's about it. Popcornfud (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On closer inspection, it kinda looks like Dilly Gent may have created this page herself. Popcornfud (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or someone who works for her... it certainly looks autobiographical, or approved biography in nature. Richard3120 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've nominated for deletion. Popcornfud (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Shaggs[edit]

The article The Shaggs you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:The Shaggs for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vladimir.copic -- Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Shaggs[edit]

Hello! Since The Shaggs passed GA that makes it eligible for a DYK nomination. Considering you tried it before do you plan on trying it again? Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that's why I went for the GA (an arduous process I usually never bother with). I pinged RoySmith, who did the original DYK review, above, but they haven't responded yet. I'm in no rush. Popcornfud (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:LeAnn Rimes (album) § Album name same as artist's name. Sundayclose (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Radiohead - Official Hail to the Thief Interview CD cover.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Radiohead - Official Hail to the Thief Interview CD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short description length[edit]

We had a long discussion about this limit which resulted in updates to WP:SDFORMAT. The TL;DR findings were:

  • There is no consensus to impose an absolute maximum length requirement
  • There are instances where overly long descriptions will be truncated
  • Most topics can be adequately described in 60 characters
  • A significant number cannot be adequately described in 40 characters

~Kvng (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's more of the discussion ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, having read all that, I see nothing to persuade me that the very long SD at dynamic range is inevitable. I like the approach suggested by MichaelMaggs in that discussion: For example String theory can't reasonably be defined, but uses the broad expression "Theoretical framework in physics" to make it clear that it's something to do with physics. Could that be possible here? Popcornfud (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TFA nom for Panzer Dragoon Saga[edit]

I have nominated Panzer Dragoon Saga to appear as today's featured article for January 29. As the article's FAC nominator, you are invited to join the discussion by clicking on this link. Z1720 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Planes, Trains and Automobiles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Louis Airport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Iron Lung[edit]

Hi Popcornfud. The My Iron Lung article has the statement that ""My Iron Lung" was also released as a single." I've checked though sources, official and unofficial, including Discogs [2] and the band's website [3], and I can't find details of this single. You added the text last year [4], though without a source. Can you recall where you saw this information? If not, no worries, I'll just remove it until a source can be found. SilkTork (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there @SilkTork. It's a confusing situation. As far as I can tell, this was indeed released as both a single and an EP. This is sourced in the body of the article, not the lead (per WP:CITELEAD).
Here's how Mac Randall, in his biography Exit Music, which is cited in the article, described the release:
On September 26, the first product of the long-running Beckie sessions, “My Iron Lung”, was issued in Britain in four separate versions - two CDs, cassette, and 12-inch vinyl — each with a different track order of B-sides. This multi-format release was, like the re-release of “Creep” had been, a despicable ploy on the pay of EMI to get Radiohead fans to buy the same song several times, thereby inflating its chart position.
So he essentially sees it as a single released in different formats, seemingly. (He refers to it as a "single" later in the chapter.) However, numerous sources also describe it as an EP, and the cover title is written as "My Iron Lung EP" on several versions of the release.
Here's one of the single editions Discogs. (Note that unlike other versions of the release, this cover does not say "EP" on it.)
It may be there is a better way to summarise all this, especially when the sources are unclear. I will review the sources again. Popcornfud (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been looking into, and making adjustments as I discover info. Yes, there were two 4-track CDs released. Under the UK chart rules, a 4-track CD is counted as a single. There was also a 7 track, 28 minute CD released, which classes it as an album. So this particular release, in its various versions, counts as a single, an EP, and an album! That's a little special! ;-) SilkTork (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Panzer Dragoon Saga scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Panzer Dragoon Saga article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 29, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 29, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you today for the article about "a 1998 role-playing game for the Sega Saturn. Saga is the most critically acclaimed Saturn game and appears on many lists of the best games of all time, but was released in very limited quantities and few people got to play it"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Merry![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!

Hello Popcornfud, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023.
Happy editing,

JOEBRO64 14:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

JOEBRO64 14:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Re: "The problem with disambiguation hatnotes" - totally agree! W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Glad someone agrees because usually no one's impressed when I argue that point. Popcornfud (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]