User talk:Bronx Langford

A couple of GAN questions

Hi -- I notice you recently changed your username from Moonlighttt to Bronx Langford. Some of the GA statistics in the database are under your old username. I can connect the two if you want, by telling the relevant bot that the two names are really the same person. Let me know if you'd like me to do that.

Second, I notice that you have four articles nominated at WP:GAN at the moment, and haven't yet responded to the two reviews that have been started, a week or two ago. Are you going to have time to respond? If not, we can just remove the inactive nominations, and you can renominate when you have time. The two open ones can be closed, similarly; there's feedback on both reviews that you may find useful. If you think you are going to have time to respond soon, of course that's fine. There's a huge backlog at GAN and it would be a pity to leave nominations up if you can't respond -- that's demoralizing for the reviewers. Let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, you can connect the two usernames and yes, you can remove inactive GA nominations. Quite frankly, at the time of nominating I didn't expect to be this busy. As for the open ones - if they're closed now, can they be eventually re-opened with you as the reviewer? Thank you. Bronx Langford 20:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply; I'll connect the names and remove the nominations. I'm the reviewer on only one of the two open ones; the other reviewer is Kyle Peake, so I'm pinging them to let them know to close the review they started. When you renominate, I'll be happy to be the reviewer for the one I started, if I'm available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Sorry for the inconvenience. Bronx Langford 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have gathered, I should close the review by simply failing it at the moment, is this correct? --K. Peake 09:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you! Bronx Langford 09:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now re-reviewed; notice your page did not send the notification. --K. Peake 21:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will make sure to fix all the issues tomorrow. Bronx Langford 21:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:I Am... Sasha Fierce Deluxe.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:I Am... Sasha Fierce Deluxe.png. 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) 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations \| March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for To Zion

On 24 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article To Zion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lauryn Hill's song "To Zion" is about her decision not to terminate her pregnancy despite facing pressure to do so? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/To Zion. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, To Zion), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), Schwede 66, and Kusma (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Live in Atlantic City.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Live in Atlantic City.png. 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) 02:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norway cert .

Hello, how is it an update when newer certication is 20 thousand and previous achieved sales level was 25 thousand. It has decresead and transformed into something lower? How does that work according to you? To me it does not make sense. Some other certifications in Denmark and Norway as well have reissues where it goes from gold to gold again and it does not seem continuous. Genuinely curious. Dhoffryn (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thresholds accounted by certifying bodies in numerous countries have gone down within the last 20 years, due to ever-changing industry trends when it comes to music consumption – not just IFPI Norway. Wouldn't it be a complete mess if every single certification table on every single album article included every single certification level said album had achieved just because the unit policy had changed over the years? Doesn't that defeat the whole point of only the most recent certifications being listed within the table?

If you want to keep the original gold certification due to larger units accounted by IFPI Norway, that's fine – we can list both. After all, it's just one additional certification within the table. My only question is where is it explicitly stated that the certification is for the reissue? I didn't see anything mentioned on the IFPI Norway website. Bronx Langford (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends from one country to another, but already by default it is already very messy. Some countries have even changed certifying not by release year, rather then current levels of that year, some like Portugal have even had many certfying bodies. Spain has certs from one book, which are physical ones like from 1979-2001, then new ones from promusicae and then even newer ones from elportaldemusica which is digital/streaming. To be reflecting entirely on the most recent certification, while in a way ignoring previous ones, could be giving a wrong picture. But it's a complex topic. Here I have just observed behaviour from parameters given and the way it is calculated in the table. Made more sense to me that some other release by a newer standard has reached new lower platinum level. Dhoffryn (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. I just thought that IFPI Norway updated the certification in 2020 based on current parameters but it'd make sense for the reissue to be the recipient of the platinum certification given the analysis. Bronx Langford (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]