User talk:Jopla2

Welcome!

Hi Jopla2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Promotional image, distributed for media use.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Promotional image, distributed for media use.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Promotional image, distributed for media use.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Promotional image, distributed for media use.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Promotional image, distributed for media use.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Promotional image, distributed for media use.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABBA did disband

You've extensively edited the article for ABBA, which states the exact opposite of what you just claimed: ABBA did in fact disband. There are also cited articles on Voyage (ABBA album) that explicitly state this as well. Please don't blank content or try to push hot-take claims. Thanks. Ss112 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork has it wrong (linkd from the Voyage page). It's a widely known fact that ABBA took time apart for other projects, the girls for their solo albums and the boys doing their musical (Chess). As the main ABBA page on wiki explains, band members kept their options open for several years, claiming that they had plans to record again as ABBA. It only gradually became apparent that it would never happen. It is only in hindsight we can say that it was quite obvious the group ended in late 1982. In any case, it's not really necessarily to make a specific statement about the group end on the Voyage album page. Jopla2 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...And you essentially just said they disbanded in as many words. Ss112 21:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No disbandment took place in 1982. Jopla2 (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said " it was quite obvious the group ended in late 1982". It doesn't matter if you want to personally use the term "disbandment", to most people that is the same thing. I trust what sources say, not you, and that's the word sources used. It wasn't just Pitchfork, and it's funny that you're trying to unilaterally say "sources using the word 'disbandment' are wrong!" Ss112 06:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the excessive detail in the lead of Voyage

It is never put in the lead of an article who the engineer of an album is. This is the kind of thing saved for an in-depth section about the recording of the album and a credit in the personnel section. Most readers do not care about who the engineer of an album was. The lead is for an overview; engineering credits and adding excessive detail about Ulvaeus not producing the album and this being the first time for ABBA can be put in the body, not the lead.

Most online listings of "I Still Have Faith in You" and "Don't Shut Me Down" were two tracks on one single. Obviously they charted separately because in 2021, "singles" charts do not list collections, only individual tracks. They were really only issued separately on CD single, and there is no way, shape or form CD singles are the predominant format in 2021. Hence I have removed your rewording from "dual single release". WP:BRD applies. Thank you. Ss112 06:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's nothing like that is in any rules. Whatever's considered useful in general can be included in the lead part. Mamma Mia hen party goes obviously won't care about who engineer is but Voyage being the first non-Tretow release is certainly noteworthy. It is neither technical only but apparent for the overall sound. Most fans also know he was considered a cruacial factor in ABBA's sound. The same goes for Ulveaus's role, which is the first for ABBA.

I would say the two singles are clearly 'more' separate singles than a combined 'Double A'. Both exist in separate formats, with individual cover art. Discogs has two digital issues listed that combine the two tracks but one doesn't come with a valid download source. So that's just one combined release, compared to two for "Faith" and one for "Shut", separately. Only "Faith" has so far been released on 7", but Björn has stated that a 7" would be coming of "Shut" as well. If ABBA considered them a 'Double A', why did they release a 1-sided 7" and two 1-track CD singles? 'Double A' makes no sense. What comes to chart, both have charted on their own (along with all tracks from the album now), so defining what makes a 'single' by chart performance isn't very sensible these days. Also, ABBA particularly sell physical copies. Official site still has minimal info about the new releases, so that can't be used as a source. Although, obviously, all the physical formats are separate. When the new releases were announced (on Sept 2), they were referred to as two singles, released on the same day. Official Youtube pages for the two songs state 'Listen to two brand new songs', nothing about them being on the same single. Jopla2 (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your double A-side spiel on the article talk page. In future: start new threads at the bottom of an article talk page, not the top. "Most fans know"...right there you've missed the point. Wikipedia is not written from a fan's perspective (WP:FANPOV). It is for general readers who may not even know anything about a topic. You also cannot speak for "most fans". Nobody can. There are all different types of fans—casual fans included. There is no way "most" ABBA fans would know about some engineer's role in their sound. Even if that is true it's still not relevant to the lead. Ss112 11:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So... I can't speak for the average ABBA fan, but you can? Who are you to decide what's worthwhile in the top part? It's quite a widely known fact that Tretow was an integral part in ABBA's sound and him not being part is very noteworthy, in my opinion. It is an interesting detail the majority of people are not aware of, but I would argue they would find it interesting. The same for Ulvaeus' part. Those are facts, not fan pov. Jopla2 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]