User talk:Magatta
| This is Magatta's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Welcome 21stcenturyrockfan!
I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Rock Airplay chart
[edit]Hi, please be careful when adding the Rock Airplay chart to tables for songs that reached their peak position on the chart between 2009 and October 2012. The Rock Airplay chart wasn't introduced until October 20, 2012, which was when the Hot Rock Songs changed from becoming an airplay chart to a multi-metric chart using Hot 100 methodology. So Billboard's history of the Rock Airplay chart is identical to the current Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart June 20, 2009 through October 13, 2012 because they are the same during that time frame. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, I agree to take more caution when editing articles about songs in that era from the future, also, regarding that accidental chart deletion I made at Never Say Goodbye, I like to double-check with an artists' chart history on the Billboard website, I recently found out that not all artists' chart entries have been archived and some may have been left out by mistake. Please be assured that I from now on will also check sources properly before changing or removing them. I also noticed you went right ahead and changed those articles I mistakenly edited to their rightful revisions, so great job on that front. Apologies for the errors and apologies if it was a waste of your time rectifying them, and once again thank you for your guidance. 21stcenturyrockfan (talk) 01:12, 4 September, 2020 (UTC)
- Based on Billboard's site, you've done things correctly, but it's just that Billboard backdates history when they change chart methodology and names. Like when they added streaming data to the Billboard 200 and created the Top Album Sales chart for pure sales, the history is shown as the same for both charts on their site for dates prior to Top Album Sales existing. Regarding the Hot 100 Airplay, I don't believe Billboard considers earlier incarnations of the Hot 100 Airplay official before BDS technology. They use a chart that debuted in late 1990 called Top 40 Radio Monitor to represent the beginning of the Radio Songs history, which is why it doesn't go back to the '80s (and why you won't find "Never Say Goodbye"), even though they published Hot 100 sales and airplay component charts back then. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Smooth Up In Ya has been accepted
[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
AfC notification: Draft:Wild Child (W.A.S.P. song) has a new comment
[edit]Your submission at Articles for creation: Wild Child (W.A.S.P. song) has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Question!
[edit]Question. I saw you keep changing my edits. I’m not upset. I’m just curious is all. You do realize that goo goo dolls is a post-grunge band and a lot of those songs and albums have the post-grunge inspiration? If you feel differently let me know and I would love to pick your brain on why you feel the post-grunge shouldn’t be associated? Chase1992 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a policy on changing/adding genres, which can be viewed here, and although you may make them out to be a post-grunge band, others may challenge this point of view if it isn't backed with a reliable source, even if you think the genre is obvious. Please note that adding unreferenced genres may make others believe that it's okay to do the same on other articles, which may result in an edit dispute. If you have any further questions, I would recommend asking the Teahouse. Magatta (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Ahh gotcha. Didn’t know that. Appreciate the info! Chase1992 (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
[edit]Were you the one who edited Sad But True? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonerphoenix93 (talk • contribs)
- It was me who undid your recent edit, as it appeard to have added incorrect information. May I ask why you changed it when it was already correct, along with removing content on other articles such as this or this without adequately explaining why? Magatta (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Glass Animals
[edit]I made the change but the reference is the same that was already there before, so no need to have a new reference. If you look at the reference you'll see that it is consitent with my change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:12C0:A59:816:FE56:37EC:7B61 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- When I undid your edit, I was talking more about the fact that you altered the sales amount, contradicting the amount stated in the source. It states that "...Dreamland arrives at No. 7 with 60,000 equivalent album units earned. Of that sum, album sales total 43,000, while SEA units total 17,000..." which makes a total of 60,000 sales. Both physical sales and SEA (Streaming Equivalent Album) units were calculated in this case, as many album sales evaluations nowadays incorporate the two formats in the overall total, since it has now become common for people nowadays to stream music instead of buying it. Magatta (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Please source all peaks you add to articles
[edit]Please source peaks you add to articles, as you did not do so at Twin Atlantic just now. The main UK singles and albums charts have central archives listing all the top 100 peaks an artist achieved like this, but Scotland and the component charts, like the UK Indie charts, do not. You need to source each album's chart position individually. Please remember to do this in future as it's a big problem with UK artists' pages. Thank you. Ss112 18:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Of course you can manage to fix an error [1], but yet you couldn't source the peaks in the first place. Makes sense. Ss112 18:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ss112 Seeing as you fixed the problem already, I don't see what the big deal is anymore? I now understand the issue with the UK album chart archive and will take note of that in future to make sure that inconvenient edit, which now I realise wasn't properly constructive, will not be repeated. Trust me, I don't like insertion of unsourced/improperly sourced content all the same, but this time I didn't realise that the peak sources where listed individually and assumed it was the same on other discography-related articles, where it was all linked into a single source, so that new albums could be inserted without having to provide an additional source, and I was wrong to do that just now. That error I happened to correct was yours, by the way, so maybe you ought to look out for your own mistakes. Magatta (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Are you saying you think I followed up my initial message here thinking you made an error...in a citation I added? My point was you're concerned enough to correct me a minute later because I forgot a numeral yet couldn't source the edits in the first place. I'd rather make a mistake an editor will fix very soon after (as there are editors on Wikipedia who get notices when date errors are made and patrol the site to fix them—no matter though, you fixed it for me less than a minute after I made it!) than add unsourced information in the first place. One's against our policies, the other isn't. I'm glad to know you won't make the same mistake of adding unsourced information again. Thanks for your explanation. Ss112 19:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ss112 Seeing as you fixed the problem already, I don't see what the big deal is anymore? I now understand the issue with the UK album chart archive and will take note of that in future to make sure that inconvenient edit, which now I realise wasn't properly constructive, will not be repeated. Trust me, I don't like insertion of unsourced/improperly sourced content all the same, but this time I didn't realise that the peak sources where listed individually and assumed it was the same on other discography-related articles, where it was all linked into a single source, so that new albums could be inserted without having to provide an additional source, and I was wrong to do that just now. That error I happened to correct was yours, by the way, so maybe you ought to look out for your own mistakes. Magatta (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding my edits on "Somewhere I Belong"
[edit]I want to absolutely say, the last thing I want to do on edit pages is to go wage war against each other. This kind of thing needs to be avoided at all costs, hence why I came here to your talk page. I need to tell you my perspective of the edits I made on "Somewhere I Belong". I was browsing several Wikipedia pages and wanted to check out chart positions, I did this for Somewhere I Belong after browsing other song articles such as Olivia Rodrigo's "Good 4 U", realising the websites they linked to were completely different. Rodrigo's song as well as other songs that came out in 2021 like Ed Sheeran's "Bad Habits" linked directly to the RMNZ website. The New Zealand charting references were odd to me as Somewhere I Belong's reference went to charts.org.nz, instead of the charting company's website (Recorded Music NZ). I'm aware in my edit arguing my point, I said it went to Top40-charts.com, that was a wrong assumption because the source in the article said "Top 40 Singles", which I thought was a subdivision of a third party website which is clearly not the case on further inspection. I admit and apologise for my mistake and assumption there on my part.
In an effort to construct the source better, I went directly to the official charting website (Record Music NZ) and tried to find the week that the Linkin Park song peaked at number 1. I don't think you realise how difficult this can be to do when there is no artist page. You mentioned consistency, other sources in the same article link directly to their charting company websites (Official Charts Company and Billboard), as well as other articles and it baffles me that the single template for New Zealand doesn't link directly to the charting company website. This is why I notice why the New Zealand charting positions are typically "bloated" as some editors like yourself may say. This is also consistent at this point with other songs that did also chart in New Zealand just in the year just gone. I felt this was the better edit for me to make. I'm aware the other source from the template is acceptable, but it looks more like a third-party collection of charting positions instead of formally being from the website it originates from. I felt my edit was far more improved as a result and it also feels quite frustrating for you reverting an edit that I would say was drastically improved upon.
I hope you can see and understand my point with the edit I made. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Rockmusicfanatic20: First off, I understand where you are coming from with the edit and the good faith behind it. As I stated before, the New Zealand source directly links to the Hung Medien archive, which is automatically linked with the macro (or the "single chart") template, which MOS:CHARTS states that "The use of the macro is strongly encouraged, as it automatically creates a correct reference for the chart entry, allows changes to sourcing sites to be accommodated by editing a central location instead of edits across thousands of articles, and will permit future implementation of a bot to assist in vandalism reversion." The same applies to various other countries' chart archives, such as Australia, France, Spain, Sweden and other European countries (see WP:GOODCHARTS) where the entries of other countries compiled by Hung Medien will also be displayed on the page. Whereas manually linking the chart peak to another website when it is already explicitly stated in the aforementioned template just seems unnecessary and that's what I meant by "consistency" with other chart entries, where they are all formatted the same, providing ease of access to people who would go out of their way to verify the sources. I'm not implying you were "incorrect" to change the source, as it wasn't technically wrong, but we should always stick to the Manual of Style. And yes, I totally understand how confusing it can be with sources when the artist doesn't have a page on that source like Billboard and the Official Charts Company.
- Additionally, just a piece of advice, when adding future chart peaks in other articles, I would advise using the "single chart" template as often as possible. (This isn't mandatory, if you want to continue sourcing using the manual format style, go ahead, and of course except for charts that don't have a "single chart" template). This will also save you time when sourcing the charts, instead of spending a tedious amount of time applying the manual chart style, where it requires an excess amount of syntax. Thank you for your communication, and I'm glad we were able to discuss this, and I'm open for further discussion if required. Magatta (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
LB discography
[edit]Hello Magatta. Hope you’re doing fine. Id appreciate if you don’t revert the edits. I have restructured the discography on a much more comprehensive way.
Please let me know your thoughts before reverting anything. I’m confident we can find common ground.
Cheers , Cambodia3DBY (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Cambodia3DBY: I reverted your previous edits because they appeared to violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and included a few typos as well.[2] I also couldn't help but notice that you may have been logged out whilst editing the page,[3] which violates Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts. Please take the time to become aware of these policies when making edits. Thank you. Magatta (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Rock Airplay
[edit]Tonight I was rumbling through Linkin Park's Billboard [History] page and when I went to the US Rock Airplay charts, I noticed a bunch of them were missing from their article pages so I went through each article charting tables to add all of them. An hour or so later, I notice you revert them all "based on the Rock Airplay chart not being a standalone chart until October 2012". This, especially as I went out of my way late at night in the hour from 01:00-02:00 when I'm tired and to then see you revert all of that effort is admittedly very frustrating. So I thought I would just take it up to discuss it with you.
Per Wikipedia:Record charts, it is always advised to add the US Rock Airplay chart. You say that it is unsuitable for inclusion, I find that is rather contradictory of the purpose of the guidelines on the Wikipedia:USCHART. "Regardless of other chartings, you may add any of the charts to the right → Rock Airplay" As we know, these songs did chart on the main Rock Airplay chart. But then if we don't include that on the basis of it being apart of the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs as it says "From its debut on June 20, 2009, through October 13, 2012, the chart ranked the airplay of songs across alternative, mainstream rock, and triple A radio stations in the United States." This essentially cancels out the validity of the point of the Rock Airplay chart? So then regardless of them charting on the chart, they don't apply to be included on articles despite what the guidelines say. To that point if we aren't allowed to add them prior to October 2012, then would we be able to add either Mainstream Rock or the Alternative Airplay? "If a song has charted on neither Hot Rock & Alternative Songs nor Rock Airplay, you may add any of the following." Even though they did chart on the Rock Airplay chart despite it directly correlating to the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs, it says you only add them if they didn't chart on the Rock Airplay. Though then if you added the Mainstream Rock or Alternative Airplay chart, you'd very likely be reverted under the argument that it's removed BECAUSE it charted on the Rock Airplay chart. Do we just leave out all of the Rock Airplay chart if that's the case? I personally think it's best to keep the Rock Airplay chart in because some form of Rock Airplay chart has to be reported as a chart position to some degree on article pages.
Also, I thought I would add that "Burn It Down" was still charting in October 2012 after the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs format changed meaning that the Rock Airplay chart would still be suitable for inclusion regardless of the outcome of our discussion as it charted on the Rock Airplay chart for 29 weeks starting of the week 5 May 2012, meaning it dropped out of the chart after 24 November 2012. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Rockmusicfanatic20: The point I'm trying to make is that although artist's songs that supposedly charted on the Rock airplay chart prior to it's introduction in October 2012 are archived within their chart history pages on Billboard's website, it doesn't mean they are valid information, considering they were identical to their peak position on the Hot Rock chart, as the Rock Airplay chart had yet to be introduced. Side note: I learnt my lesson on this the hard way as well, if you go up further on this talk page, you will see another editor explaining the problem with me doing the same thing a while back, where they stated: "The Rock Airplay chart wasn't introduced until October 20, 2012, which was when the Hot Rock Songs changed from becoming an airplay chart to a multi-metric chart using Hot 100 methodology. So Billboard's history of the Rock Airplay chart is identical to the current Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart June 20, 2009 through October 13, 2012 because they are the same during that time frame", which is what I'm trying to get across myself, as it's an issue with Billboard's chart archive. Also, regarding the rock "component" charts (Mainstream rock, Alternative airplay, AAA, etc), they should only be added in charts IF a song hasn't charted on either the Hot rock OR the Rock airplay charts, If a song has charted on ONE of these charts, then no other rock charts are needed, as they are component charts of BOTH the Hot and rock and the Rock airplay charts. If you have any further questions or opinions regarding Billboard charts, I would recommend starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Thank you for discussing. Magatta (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)