User talk:HumanxAnthro/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Italy (Musica e dischi) for newer songs

Per WP:RECORDCHARTS, we already have the Official Italian Singles chart which is registered to IFPI (the international federation for phonographic industry). Its confusing for many readers to add a second chart without prior discussion. Can I politely ask that you please stop adding it for now until there is a consensus at WP:RECORDCHARTS? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

-{ Talk }-, politely, hell no, because none of what you said is how we determine chart inclusion. There's no such thing as a nation with only one *official* chart, and no limit to how many *official* charts of a nation can be included. We wouldn't being including the Rolling Stone Top 100 positions on songs also on the Billboard Hot 100, or multiple Romanian charts from different companies at a time, or inclusions of both the Dutch Top 40 and Single Top 100 at the same time if Wikipedia worked based on your mindset. That fact that it could even be debatable on whether M&D is too insignificant to have its position included is laughable. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 22:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What happened to Assume good faith- comments like "is laughable" and "the fact it could be debatable" are hardly welcoming and inviting of conversation and dialogue. There's an established precedent that the key chart to include is one that is established and for which there is evidence or coverage that it is widely recognised as the chart of the country in question. These charts are usually aligned to and recognised by the relevant recording industry association of said country. Rollingstone is obviously a highly respectable publication much like M&D however the chart itself Rollingstone Hot 100 has received minimal notoriety and therefore its not considered essential or necessary. WP:RECORDCHARTS actually sets out the three conditions

1. It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. Recognized national measurement firms, such as Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Brazil or Monitor Latino for Latin America, are legitimate sources of charts.
2. It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources.
3. It is static, that is, the data in the chart cannot change. This excludes dynamic "all-time" charts, such as the ones published by Hung Medien.

Do you have any links to the methodology of the chart? I think it should be discussed properly at Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts. I did ping you to discuss it there. It's better than just a wholesale/arbitrary adding to lots of articles. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Lil-Unique1 I have continued the talk on Wikipedia_talk:Record charts 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 22:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I had just changed my comment to add: "Thanks for explaining at WP:RECORDCHARTS. Should start a discussion and obtain consensus so its added to the good charts guide etc." ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding more rows to headers on discographies

Hello again. I've noticed on several discographies on my watchlist (recently Ariana Grande discography) that you are adding additional rows to the headers of wikitables in what appears to be a preference for how it looks or for the formatting over a simple line break. Adding additional rows to the header of wikitables muddles how screen readers handle and read through which chart belongs to which country—they handle simple line breaks better as these are on the same line of code, versus a visually impaired reader not getting the information on which chart belongs to which country immediately, as the chart is then placed several (sometimes many) lines down in the code if additional rows are addded. So it's a significant MOS:ACCESS problem. I know there are quite a few discographies that do this already but it's already an issue on those. We shouldn't be introducing it on even more. Thanks. Ss112 02:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your manual reversions

Stop manually reverting my edits if you don't agree with them, as you did here and here. In case you failed to notice, I'm also trying to keep the article markup consistent, and it's pretty evident that you're copy-pasting and/or rushing through your edits without giving them a second glance, so I have to clean up almost every time I see your username in the revision history. The least you can do is lessen the tedium when you can. Thank you. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stop making contentious replacements on discographies

HumanxAnthro, please slow down with the contentious discography edits. You are replacing columns with strange reasons not based in guidelines. You're talking about every continent in the world needing to be represented now whereas this is not part of any guideline or assessment. I do not understand how New Zealand would ever be a better substitute than Australia, a significantly larger market. Discography charts are an overview of where an artist charted best. Sometimes that's focused in one part of the world—we can't ever hope to represent every continent, especially where they've failed to chart in some or significantly in some. Of course, bigger markets factor in sometimes too. There's no reason Asia needs to be represented on Rihanna albums discography if she has not been that successful there. I don't understand where this reasoning is coming from, and it's almost every time I go on my watchlist you're replacing columns or making formatting decisions on discographies that are either against the MOS or not widely supported. I don't want to leave a message on your talk page every day or even want to take issue with your edits, but I'm feeling compelled to with the decisions you've been making. Ss112 04:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if having continents represent wasn't a problem, Ss112, did you even the see the Japan positions? She absolutely has done better there than in Australia if you saw the positions. Every one of her studio albums was a top 20 hit there, a majority of them top 10 or close. While she is also super-successful in Australia, she failed to chart her first album there, plus a reissue that failed to chart there charted in Japan. Plus, I'm pretty confident the 115-mil-populated Japan has a bigger music market than the 25 mill-populated country of Australia. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 04:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If there is no MOS of what countries can be represented, and this isn't that big of a deal, why are you complaining about it on my talk page? 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 04:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, don't compare these column replacements with the previous MOS-violating rowheader issue that I wasn't aware of. The fact you're taking this so seriously as to feel "compelled" in some nebulous way is... well, it's odd. Also, you get that not being in a guideline doesn't mean it's not "widely supported". 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 04:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing this matter to the rows at all. It's just adding up. By "widely supported", I meant widely practiced. I also was not comparing Australia and Japan—I was comparing Australia and New Zealand. That being said, I don't see any need for any of these replacements you've made. It is somewhat in an MOS—per the recommendation of WP:DISCOGSTYLE, "There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart." Which is saying it's charts that are important, not countries and where they are and needing "representation" which is the reasoning you have provided. Seemingly going out looking for charts to replace is just strange to me. Is it that important to you or is it something to do? You weren't even weighing up the success in each market in your edit summary/ies, you were talking about "Asian representation" and in other summaries, "Nordic" and "North American" representation. I don't know what sort of criteria that is but it's not a good one for the reasons I mentioned in my initiai message here today. Also, nowhere have I said this isn't a "big deal". Clearly it is otherwise I wouldn't be coming here. But that being said, I'm just asking you to slow down. Is that too much to ask? If you can't slow down, then I guess we're going to run into more disagreements, and I will eventually raise your edits with an administrator because you are making contentious replacements. I don't wish to have repeated arguments with you. Raising a concern here doesn't mean I want to have an extended back and forth over this one article or matter because you have proven you will just make the same sort of replacement on another article, then another, then another. It's the frequency and the reasoning you provide I have an issue with. Ss112 04:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) When did I say to have countries of each continent represented even when they never charted there? Some of my edits on Zucchero Fornaciari, for example, involved removing and replacing columns that were entirely filled with dashes. (2) In retrospect, I probably should have been more clear in my reasoning for doing what I do more often in edit summaries, but to put this on record, I've never rejected my judgement of in which countries did the artist do better. It's just not the *only* judgement I used. While obviously there are accessibility reasons for keeping the column limit at 10 and thus the presentation of charts will be limited by that, there's issues of WP:UNDUE emphasis in suggesting (by not including) the artist had no or little performance in nations that don't have English as the predominant language, even if relatively speaking not as good than in AUS, CAN, US, UK and NZ.

On a side note, it happened to be Rihanna and Ariana did better in Japan in terms of albums that the columns that were replaced, so even by MOS standards (that you support) of only including the best national chart performances, my replacements would be valid. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 04:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with cutting the charts down to 10 or you adding Musica e dischi as a source to Italian columns. I have a problem with editors needlessly replacing charts. It hasn't just been you, it's just currently you making those sorts of edits. I have had issues with editors replacing columns on discographies before, including on Ariana's discography. Most of the time, including now, I don't see a compelling reason for the change. The chart positions and such are pretty decent in what was there versus what you've replaced it with. Again, I am not getting into the specifics of these discographies here because there will be more, and I'm not looking for a back-and-forth. My request was simply asking you to slow down and stop finding things to replace seemingly for the sake of it. If you can't do that then I suppose the issues will keep arising. I can't stop you from editing discographies nor am I trying to, but I am trying to put my concerns to you. I am done commenting on this matter here now because I don't want this to drag on. Thank you. Ss112 05:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• If your edits related to discographies keep getting contested, please start doing some wider discussions like at Wikiprojects and/RFCs. You guys need some fresh blood in these discussion, as it seems otherwise you just argue circles. HumanxAnthro, that WP:BURDEN would generally fall on you. Just continually pushing forward while continuing arguments isn't really working out here... Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not exactly sure what's going on here, but I again am telling you that the way to solve disputes like this is wider community involvement in discussions. You're an experienced editor, so I'm honestly quite confused as to why you're choosing endless arguing and aggressive edit summaries instead. You know how we solve disputes. So do it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)