User talk:PhilipTerryGraham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This is an archive of fifty topics discussed and commented on from February 2013 to March 2016, hosted on my talk page. To find a particular topic or discussion, it is recommended that you use the word search function in your browser. In a majority of browsers, including Google Chrome and Firefox, this can be accessed by pressing Ctr+F. Discussions and comments are sorted and named for the day they were first published on my talk page. If you wish to find any contributions made to my talk page between 24 April 2016 to 23 November 2018, be sure to check my second archive. For any contributions made to my talk page after 23 November 2018, be sure to check my third archive.

(28 February 2013) Discussion: File:Call of Duty Black Ops II Game Cover.png

Excuse that harsh edit summary an hour ago, I was at a loss for patience. Lately, few users give poor reasons for their alterations of content that was fine. They back their changes with sarcastic and witty remarks while ignoring guidelines linked to them. As soon as you can provide an file not doctored, cropping is fine, upload it.
Edited comment: « Ryūkotsusei » 08:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Doctored verb

From Google- "To change the content or appearance of (a document or picture) in order to deceive; falsify."

I did NOT change the appearance to make a false box art. Pull out your copy of Call of Duty: Black Ops II and tell me this isn't the box art. While I do have to admit that most box arts on Wikipedia articles don't have the publisher / developer name on them, I still have a problem with how the image is almost perfectly square. This isn't an Album cover! At least make the dimensions so that the image doesn't look as, well, weird!

Also, you claim that my sources are invalid. Let's check File:Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 box art.png, which is another upload of yours that thankfully doesn't look like an album rather than a video game. The source? "The cover art can be obtained from Activision and Infinity Ward." Great Source! Yeah I just stalked you! You don't like that being stalked do you? I don't like being stalked either. Back to the topic, my attempt to locate a source is evidently better than just lazily typing in "The cover art can be obtained from Activision and Infinity Ward.". I could've uploaded a picture of Niagra Falls as the coverart and claim that "The cover art can be obtained from Activision and Infinity Ward.". By your standards, this is a more terrible "source" than mine. Your claim that "I don't even update source info" is a horrific claim from someone who doesn't practice what he preaches.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of fallacies here, but please avoid uploading edited copyrighted images like that. Its not in the source. Its misleading.

« Ryūkotsusei » 08:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Do I have your consent to re-replace the image again and use the amazon source or the same source? Since the boxart image actually does appear in the original source aswell!

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever source you got it from, that's what actually has to be uploaded. I did not see that specific image here, and the Amazon one needs cropping to be console-neutral.

« Ryūkotsusei » 09:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(13 March 2013) Discussion: Powerless (song)

Please take a look at the discussion on Linkin Park discography. I'm sure you won't count "Powerless", "Wretches and Kings", and "Not Alone" as singles.
--Gbuvn (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Powerless" is a single. It was released in Japan on October 23, 2013, instead of "Castle of Glass". While the rest of the world receives "Castle of Glass" as the third single, Japan had "Powerless" as the second single. That's how the music industry works. Sometimes different regions will have different single released. It happens all the time! Some examples I can think of are:

The UK and European release of "Glósóli" and the US release of "Sæglópur", singles from Takk...

The UK release of "Hear Me" and the everywhere-but-the-UK release of "It's Time", singles from Night Visions (album)

Almost the entire Beatles singles discography, being more split than Korea!

The North American and Japanese release of "Days Go By" and the everywhere-but-the-US-and-Japan release of "Cruising California (Bumpin' in My Trunk)", singles from Days Go By

The Icelandic, North American and Australasian release of "Little Talks" and European release of "Dirty Paws", singles from My Head Is an Animal

In addition, I should put out that in now way did I have anything to do with "Wretches and Kings" or "Rolling in the Deep". I had not done any edits that put them as singles, nor have I even mentioned them! If you want my viewpoint to support my argument for "Powerless", here it is. "Wretches and Kings" is a promotional single. I agree with you guys that it's definitely not a single. It was released on September 2, 2010 in the lead up to A Thousand Suns' release which occurred the week after. Although, i'd like to put out that the release of "Rolling in the Deep" would actually qualify as a single. It was released, (with artwork) seperate from the iTunes Festival EP and even gained radio release! That immediately makes it a single if the song is released as both commercial and radio singles. "Powerless" qualifies as a single solely because "Powerless" is the second single from the album in Japan, and not merely a promotional release in the lead up to the album, mainly because the album had already been out for nearly 5 months by then! While the song didn't make any other release besides it's commercial release, it's still marketed in japan as single even if it doesn't have a radio add date. Hell, does the Japanese music industry even have a radio promotional system like North America, Europe and Australia?

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You forgot "Not Alone". It has an iTunes release, an artwork and even a music video. Like one year ago I had a discussion with User:Coltsfan about "Rolling in the Deep" being a single. The discussion finally ended up with removing "Rolling in the Deep" (and "Runaway" from the singles section. My problem is that many people try to bring back Powerless now but no one cares about the other supposed singles, making the selection of singles in the table arbitrary. So look, as now there is a link for a discussion above that resulted in removing "Powerless" which you violated. You may add "Not Alone" and "Rolling in the Deep" or you may remove "Powerless" again. But I won't let it stay the way it is right now.

--Gbuvn (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The rest is up to you. All i'm trying to do is class "Powerless" as what it's supposed to be - a single. "Not Alone" is actually listed as a single if you check Download to Donate for Haiti, although it's a very choppy article, and I don't have the time to fix that! Haha! Unless you're talking about the Linkin Park discography article, which I don't want to talk about. The HTML layout of that page is really confusing. I'm only used to discography layouts like Imagine Dragons discography which works horizontally instead of vertically. It took me forever to add "Castle of Glass" to that page! I'm not going to repeat that. I'm not experienced with vertical layouts. If there was an article for iTunes Festival: London 2011, I would make sure "Rolling in the Deep" was listed. Unfortunately, no such article exists! So other than subjecting myself to another hour of trying to add two singles, there's noting I can do at the moment. Sorry to complain about HTML layouts. :P

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(20 March 2013) Comment

Despite the fact that we're currently in a mini-edit war over at Keep Moving (Andrew Stockdale album), I just wanted to say that I absolutely love your approach to Wikipedia as detailed on your (attractive) user page. Wikipedia has become an awful place full of bureaucracy and people who think they know more than the common man, so it's good to see someone like yourself encouraging people to step up and take control of their encyclopedia. Keep up the good work!
Andre666 (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(26 March 2013) Comment: The Dark Side of the Moon

Regarding this comment, the answer is that Parrot of Doom own's the article.
Dismas|^(talk) 03:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(29 March 2013) Comment: Radio K.A.O.S

Really great additional information. Good stuff. Hope you don't mind the apostrophe edits, a pet peeve of mine, don't want it to detract from great article on a great album
MrMarmite (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(30 March 2013) Comment: Tiptoe (song)

When you created this version of Tiptoe (song), you only had two chart positions to provide references for. So far as I can tell, you got both of them wrong, provided a broken link for the "Rock Songs" chart, and didn't bother to provide a reference for the "Bubbling Under" chart. I've repaired the article since then, but please be more careful in the future.
—Kww(talk) 17:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC))

(6 April 2013) Discussion: willpower (will.i.am album)

Two issues with your edits to the above:
1. it is not been conclusively proven that "T.H.E. (The Hardest Ever)" won't feature on the album, therefore you shouldn't remove it as a single JUST YET. Wait for the track listing. (multiple reliable sources conflict over whether its on the album or not).
2. Per Template: Infobox album only the first release date goes in the infobox, which should remain uncluttered and free from non-standard formatting. the whole (see release history) thing is now depreciated because accessibility issues surrounding small text sizes and the fact that it is non-standarding formatting which complicates and clutters the infobox.
— Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to the first point, I think it's safer to assume that "T.H.E." is not going to be on the album. First off, I'm pretty sure that Jennifer Lopez and Mick Jagger would be listed as features on the album if it was on the album, but according to the official album announcement via Billboard, they are not. The article even made a point out of the fact that the two weren't listed as features! Second, the album has been delayed so many times, I'm pretty sure the tracklist would have been morphed plenty of times. The track list leaked by Amazon last September proves this. There was even a time where Chris Brown was supposed to be on #willpower! Obviously that is no longer happening. Either will.i.am had dumped the track like he did with "You and Me" and "Hula Hoop", or the song was in fact a Fortune cut. Considering "T.H.E" was released nearly eons ago, and that Adams isn't even positive about the song himself, it would be much safer to assume that the song won't be on the album.

To the second point, go to my user page and read what's in bold font. Does it look like I support Conformity on Wikipedia? For starters, I'm not putting small caps on release history tags! I'm already aware of the accessibility issue! I originally did put small caps on release history tags, but then I was informed of the accessibility issue, so that's why I don't use small caps. The whole accessibility issue is completely irrelevant because I don't use small caps. Also, release history tags are for convenience. Isn't that a value of Wikipedia? To create more convenient to access and convenient to navigate articles? Yes, the first date should be the written date, but doesn't that add to the confusion? There are, at the time of writing this, six different regions and five different release dates listed in the release history! Wouldn't people that don't actually know how Wikipedia articles work (The general population of the Earth), be confused when they know that the album releases on April 23, but see April 19 instead on the article? A release history tag exists for convenience. It will tell and direct the reader to read the release history section of the article to see the different release dates for their respective regions. It is also a clever way to keep editors from changing the date to April 22 or 23. That's the more bigger point of the release history tag, really.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 07:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That's now myself and another user who've asked you stop stop adding the "see release history" tag. It is non-standard formatting. Such deviations are not in the template usage document and make it harder for other users to engage in editing of cliques of editors impose their own stylistic ideas. There so far hasn't been any issue with editors changing the release date in the infobox. It clearly says at Template:Album infobox that only the first release date goes in the infobox. Please stop adding the "see release history" unless there is a clear consensus to do so.

Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(8 April 2013) Discussion: Random Access Memories

Regarding your recent edits to the article, I noticed you changed the "Recorded" field to "December 2007 – February 2013". What is your source for this change?
jhsounds (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Consequential evidence. Daft Punk started recording immediately after the Alive 2006/2007 tour, which ended in December 2007. Since the first commercials for the album aired in March, it's safe to assume the album was topped out the month before.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 03:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that would count as original research by way of synthesis. Even if there is a source for the "Daft Punk started recording immediately after the Alive 2006/2007 tour" bit (I don't see one), the second half comes off as a rough guess. Since one of the collaborators specified a start date of 2010 (which is cited in the article), I'm going to stick to that version.

jhsounds (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find the source that said they were in the studio that early, but I could've sworn I read it in an NME article all those years ago! I'm going to scout for the source. I'm just going to leave it the way it is now by your revert until I find them.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 03:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(29 April 2013) Comment: Imagine Dragons

In the United States, collective nouns such as "team", "band", etc. are treated as if they are singular. For example, you would write "the band is going to play a gig" or "the team from Wisconsin is going to lose" not "the band are going to play a gig" or "the team from Wisconsin are going to lose". For reference, compare U2 to Montgomery Gentry.
Ryan Vesey 04:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for adding to my list of things to hate about America! ;)

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(24 May 2013) Comment: Lovers in Japan

Haha, thanks!
--SuperVirtual (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(25 May 2013) Comment: Edge of the Earth

Allmusic proves that a commercial release exists, so it's your task to revert your edits. Thanks.
--Earthh (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please source these things next time, okay?

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 14:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(30 May 2013) Heated Discussion: Supremacy (song)

Please, don't cancel my images. The images are in HD definition. If you can, change the license details, but don't cancel, because the fans can find best images (then best details). Thanks!And please, re-insert Supremacy as the 4th single of The 2nd Law.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbolt93 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an image-hosting site. While I do absolutely thank you for uploading a quality version of "Panic Station", the images are just too large and do come into the firing line for Wikipedia's copyright policies. Also, Supremacy was a radio-only single. Unless you can find a place where I can buy a "Supremacy" single, you can't prove this single was released commercially. "Supremacy" is a promotional single.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 14:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Supremacy has promotional cds, as Madness, Survival, Follow Me and Panic Station.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbolt93 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they all had promotional releases. Your point?

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 14:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You must re-insert Supremacy. And enough. I can understand if you want to cancel Big Freeze, but Supremacy is and will be ever the 4th single of The 2nd Law. That you like it or not. So edit the singles, please. Thanks! Radio or physical, it's ever a single.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbolt93 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"Radio or Physical, it is ever a single" Ah, but this you misunderstand- Radio releases are and have always been promotional singles since the industry began over 90 years ago. Singles are commercial, while Promos are promotional. "Supremacy" was not commercially released, but was released for airplay, therefore, it is not a single. It is a promotional. Also, "Whether I like it or not"? Dude, this isn't how you talk to people.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 14:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

http://muse.mu/news,supremacy-lyric-video-online-now_1500.htm?loc=&currency=gbp now you are convinced? there is written clearly that it's a single. i believe that the official site knows it better than you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbolt93 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but in the space between now and then, has there been a commercial release? You need to prove a commercial release exists. I've said that twice already!

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 15:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

None of these singles has an outlet mall, because they have come out with promotional cd. If we think like you, The 2nd Law did not even have a single at this time. outlet mall-->commercial release (error of Google translator) Do not continue to insist even though you're wrong.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbolt93 (talk • contribs)

So we forgot about the Digital download and iTunes, have we? Of course the other singles have had commercial releases. They're there sitting on iTunes and Amazon! "Supremacy", however, is not. Also, should I note, it's 1:30am in the morning over here, and I really need to get some sleep! Please understand what I am trying to tell you here! Unless you can prove "Supremacy" has had a commercial release of any kind, Digital download, CD, 7" or Maxi, it stays as a promotional single!

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 15:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

you also have the source. what do you want? has always been a single, and will not be deleted for your own business. To me it bothers people like you who insists even when he is wrong. And enough! that is not on itunes or amazon does not mean it is not a single. if it was not released anything, I could understand, but there are promotional cd like all the other singles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbolt93 (talk • contribs)

Say, have you ever watched 12 Angry Men? Funny, because you remind me of the 3rd Juror! Always ignores the evidence presented to him and completely ignores them to stick to his own prejudice opinion. Also gets really heated up whenever he's disproven or contradicted and tends to say nasty and mean things to his calm, relaxed opponents. I really need to get some sleep over here, man. I've already told you promos have been promos for nearly a century of music and you still haven't proven a commercial release of any format exists. You cited an official news post telling us that "Supremacy" would be released to radio, because let's face it, by single they mean BBC Radio 1 rotation, and other than a few rebellious words that other wikipedian would actually have you banned for, that's all you've given. I keep telling you over and over again- promos are promos and there's no "Supremacy" download, CD, 7" or Maxi. Please listen to me and if you're going to reply again, please say something constructive other than "uhh, you're wrong and I'm right. Duhhh deal with it." If you do, i'm just going to go to sleep and notify the Wikipedia overlords in the morning. I'm going to say it once again unless you didn't hear it the first fifty times- Commercial releases are singles, not Promotionals, as it has been for over 90 years and "Supremacy" is not available to purchase as a single, therefore, it is not a single. Please. Listen.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 15:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(31 May 2013) Comment: Ísjaki

The reason why I've removed the track listing was because its use is uncommon for the single articles (at least as I observe, I've extensively used it for individual song articles). It also consumes space even though it has been collapsed, however it can stay. I didn't mean to be rude and I'm sorry for the misconception.
Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Dude, relax. I didn't actually say you were being rude, I was just making a defiant comment. Sometimes I feel like everyone on Wikipedia is taking everything too seriously! World War III is probably going to break out because somebody used heavy sarcasm on a Wikipedia talk page! (Yes, that was a joke.) As for the track listing template, it is actually used in a lot of infobox single and song templates, so it's not really uncommon; wikitards just don't like organization and convenience, so some infoboxes might be missing a template because such people like to remove things that make articles look and feel good. I'm not saying you're one of them, i'm just saying there are such people roaming around! :P

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 17:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(7 June 2013) Discussion: Follow Me (Muse song), Supremacy (song)

Please, do not start to take away everything the others publish.

Now I'll explain again the difference between A-SIDE, B-SIDE, REMIX and LIVE, because surely you do not understand.

The A-SIDE is a song different from that of the single proposed and is taken from any album of an artist, and can only and exclusively be considered A-SIDE if the version of that song is a studio .

The B-SIDE is a song always different from that of single proposed, but that has not been published on any album (although in some cases it is released as a bonus track in the Japanese editions).

The REMIX is a completely different version of the same song of the single proposed, therefore can not be considered either as A-SIDE, either as B-SIDE.

LIVE Recordings follow the same standard of REMIXES, but with one exception: the live SONG proposed can be considered a B-SIDE, only if it hasn't a studio version or a b-side (always studio version).

Clear now?

This discourse on the fact that "the individual does not exist" is simply ridiculous. I did not say that, I just wanted to clarify, especially for those who does not understand and does not want to mess ideas. So before returning to my job as a correction, please inform and in case you do not find an explanation of the changes, you have to ask me personally. Thank you!

PS: the same argument also applies to SURVIVAL.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbolt93 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Remixes and Live versions are not functioning 'parts' of a single. They are just merely descriptions. There is an "A-Side" and a "B-Side" of a single because this was the design of the Gramophone record. The main song is put on an "A-Side" and an additional "B-Side" was chosen to fill the other side of the record. Therefore your argument that makes Remixes and Live versions different from the A and B side is completely and unbelievably wrong. My statement was not ridiculous at all - If a remix or live version is not an a-side or b-side, what side is it on? Is there an invisible third side to the record? There is no such thing as a c-side in the music industry, your comment that it isn't on the a or b side means that the single is non-existent. It's common sense. Surely YOU do not understand what a single is.

Being the smart person I am, I can predict that the next thing you're probably going to say is that Remixes and Live versions cannot be on the A-Side. Let's take a look at the Rihanna singles "Cockiness (Love It)" and "Pour It Up". The singles themselves are remixes of the original song. This is because most single releases tend to differ from the song's original version on it's parent album. In this sense, live versions and remixes can be A-side singles. Your argument that made "Supremacy" a single again was that the live version was the single release, much like the release of "Apocalypse Please". This is correct. Release of live versions constitute the song as a single. But now that you're saying it's not on the A-side, it can't be a single, can't it? If it's a B-side, what's on the A-side? We already know no commercial copy of "Supremacy" exists other than the live single, and that B-sides virtually don't exist on a 1-track single, so what gives? If the Remix of "Follow Me" is not the single, and there's no commercial release of that single with an album version, "Follow Me" should be a promotional single aswell, and we don't want that, now do we? Remixes and Live singles are singles and can be A-sides, as we can see with "Apocalypse Please", "Follow Me" and "Supremacy".

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(9 July 2013) Comment: Theo's Little Bot

Hello RazorEye! I noticed you disabled User:Theo's Little Bot, an bot account which performs several different tasks. Was it behaving incorrectly? I don't see any obviously wrong edits in its contributions. Please let me (or better yet, the bot's owner User:Theopolisme) know so we can get the bot fixed ASAP. Thanks,
Prodego ^talk 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi RazorEye. I'm Theopolisme, the bot's operator. To stop it from delivering messages to you, just follow the instructions that were linked in the bots signature--in your case, add {{bots|deny=Theo's Little Bot-bsr}} anywhere on your talk page. Thanks, and sorry for any inconvenience,

Theopolisme (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(15 July 2013) Discussion: Brennisteinn and Ísjaki

Hello again,
Firstly, thank you for your edits (and extensive contributions) on these articles. However, I don't really believe that Kveikur's personnel list exactly and relevantly reflects the singles' personnel. It is also not clear which additional musician or other personnel actually contributed to the track, or the radio edits or the other tracks on Brennisteinn EP. Thus, I think that the sole inclusion of the band members is enough and more appropriate for both articles. Thank you.
Myxomatosis57 (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your concerns. As far as I can tell, there are no notes for any individual tracks and the credits apply to the entire album. Therefore, the tracks themselves are credited to these people. It is actually most likely that all of these people had contributed to the entire album, when you think about it. No orchestra is split up, so the line-up for the brass and string orchestras will always remain the same on each track, and both are used on each track except "Var", where there is no orchestra. Mixing and mastering is an entire album process also, not just individual tracks, as it might seem.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 00:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

These people might have contributed to the whole tracks, as you said. However, I still think that it is still ambigious and we don't really know about tracks on Brennenstein EP. By the way, I also think that we should add İsjaki more written content, as the gap between the track listing and the personnel somewhat looks odd. Thank you.

Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Brennenstein EP is actually not relevant, since the article is about the song.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is, actually. The article also covers the single (or the EP, according to article). Otherwise, there would be no point in including a tracklist and b-sides.

Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Consult the first sentence of the article: "Brennisteinn" (Icelandic for "Brimstone", pronounced /ˈprɛnːɪˌsteitn/) is a song written and recorded by Icelandic post-rock band Sigur Rós for their seventh studio album Kveikur. Articles about songs also cover any single and EP releases if there is any, since they are part of the documentation of the song. If the EP is notable enough, it also can inherit it's own article, just as if a song in an album is notable enough, it can inherit it's own article, as "Brennisteinn", "Hrafntinna" and "Ísjaki" have. A good example of this is "Hear Me (song)" and Hear Me (EP).

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 22:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(8 August 2013) Discussion: Trans-Europe Express (album)

Just as a note, adding uncited information is not good. I'd rather remove things that ruin a good article than add stuff that isn't valid. Jimbo agrees.
Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion it isn't a reliable source, but to most people it is. Discogs IS a reliable source since it is an online library for record collectors and music historians alike to search and view pressings, releases and recordings of a wide variety of albums, singles and other releases. Furthermore, albums can be democratically confirmed by other collectors who have the same product. I fail to see how this is an unreliable source. Besides, I have recently inherited most of my father's record collection, which does include German and UK pressings of the original Trans Europa Express and Trans-Europe Express albums, and I can confirm these are the correct catalogue numbers as well! Also, everyone is definitely sure that the album didn't originally release on October 2, 2009, so I suggest at least adding back the original March 1977 releases if you want to keep your reputation as a perfectionist.

The statement by Wales you cited has nothing to do with this conversation. He was referring to editors who add uncited information to articles, which was the major problem with Wikipedia 6 or 7 years ago when he made this statement. I cited my material at your request and you removed it because you believe it isn't a reliable source.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 03:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That still does not make it a reliable source and it doesn't live up to wiki standards. It's user-submitted information confirmed by other users. I don't necisarily think it's untrue, but it's not the proper source to use. For example, where are the release date information taken from? Often I see credits on an album that have someone listed as "uncredited", so where does that information come from? If you want to cite those albums you inherited, you can use the cite album template. In terms of the quote, I was referring to this edit. I have the original March 1977 release date in the article, and it's cited from Billboard. But that doesn't tell us when it was released in Germany, UK or elsewhere. I wouldn't suggest I'm too lazy to find the information, I'm just against uncited material and want information from a stronger source than a site where users submit things. It's basically the same as citing a wiki.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(31 August 2013) Discussion: Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams articles

Hi, I just wanted to say that I really see no point in adding such a list. I don't see it used anywhere else on Wikipedia, only in the Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams-related articles. I think it clutters the articles and I voted for deleting the {{Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams track listing}} template. But if you really insist it should be kept, I'm gonna let it go ;)
— Mayast (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it strange that you've never seen this sort of thing before! There's actually an entire category-full of these templates, if you want to check it out! Also, I still don't see how this clutters the info box, since it usually only takes up 50px of the info box when in it's default collapsed state.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Haha, now that you showed me, I see it ;) I guess I do more edits in albums' articles or artists' articles than articles about singles and other songs, and somehow I haven't noticed it. For me, an ideal song infobox has a cover, the main infobox section (filled with as many details about recording, producers, etc. as possible, but not too many – for example, only the first release date, not a date for every country) and singles' chronology. That's it. Actually, before starting the "Do or Die" article I didn't even know that those tracklist and music video templates existed ;) I only added them because I noticed they were used in the "Up In the Air" article. I find them unnecessary, and they may take little space, but the colourful title bar is definitely visible :D However, as I said earlier, I'm gonna let it go :) Have a nice day!

— Mayast (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, since you are clearly more experienced than me in the music-related articles :), could I ask you for your opinion on this one? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies#Singles from EPs. I would appreciate your input.

— Mayast (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a big fan of The 1975, but I'll give my opinion!

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 09:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(7 September 2013) Comment: Atlas (Coldplay song)

Quite an article we're creating together, huh? :P It's interesting to compare how it looked three hours ago and how it looks now ;)
— Mayast (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is starting to come out as a very good piece of work! I usually don't work with other Wikipedians, but when I do, god it feels great! Thanks for your major contributions so far! I hope we'll both still be making substantial edits to the article together in the coming days!

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 09:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, too :) Before you uploaded that sample, I actually haven't noticed those similarities to Mylo Xyloto and considered the song a return to "old" Coldplay. I guess "Atlas" somehow connects their old piano ballads with the new, more electronic sound. I usually get frustrated when someone edits an article while I'm doing some edits (that's what happened when I was adding the "Background" section here), but in this case some kind of cooperation has definitely paid off ;)

Mayast (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

(9 September 2013) General recognition for Oh Love and Kill the DJ

Thanks for your contributions to the new creations of Green Day, "Oh Love" and "Kill the DJ". Have some beer and enjoy! – TheSpecialUser TSU 21:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(13 September 2013) Comment: The 1975 (album)

Hi, where did you find those singles' release dates? The "Promotion" section needs to be re-written to match that information and references would be useful. As far as "Sex" goes, I'm a little confused – the date for it's release that I've found was 26 August, and it's included in the song's article, along with the source. — Mayast (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(19 September 2013) Comment: A Light That Never Comes

A Light That Never Comes is a single not a promotional single. Please do not add or change content, as you did to A Light That Never Comes, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you User talk:Chopra.nitin96 —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And where is your source? The only known single release is on Xbox Music, where it can be streamed, so it is still a promotional single. Buying the song off the pre-order pages for Recharged doesn't count, because it's part of the Recharged album, not an actual single on its own.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

But it is said that after the album release there would be a CD version of the song! So it can be said as a Single after 29/10/2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chopra.nitin96 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? Where does it say this? I'm curious...

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 05:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(20 September 2013) Comment: The 20/20 Experience 2 of 2

Speaking of Wikipedia guidelines you might want to see WP:NPA, your edit summary was extremely uncivil and disruptive. Another important guideline you might want to see is WP:V, any content that is added that is unreferenced is subject to removal if it can be controversial, and many editors like to make up what is and is not a single it is definitely subject to removal if it is not sourced. At least I respected you enough not to drop a templated warning on your page like I wanted to, it is about time for you to start learning to better respect your fellow editors. Consider this a warning for your blatant personal attacks. STATic message me! 14:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to say sorry for that harsh edit summary I made earlier. I can be a chaotic editor, and I sincerely want to apologise for the unnecessary backlash at the time. I was in a moodswing at the time, so please forgive me.

However, I still disagree with your three, count them, three preventable reverts to the article. I mean, you could at least, I don't know, find sources on your own? It's not that hard! I literally just typed in "TKO Justin Timberlake" in Google, and guess what was the first result? The source that you see on the article right now! Hell, Status is actually writing an article on the song as we speak! So there's no denying that "TKO" was released, however, you stuck your head in the sand and denied it just because it wasn't sourced. Judging by the fact that you reverted edits from three different people, it's obvious that you didn't take at least a mere minute or two out of your day to look for probably the easiest source you could possibly find on a current Wikipedia article! I understand you're more of an administrative guy, and I understand that, but administrative editors get their hands dirty once in a while aswell!

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 15:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, but calling another editor "annoying" for holding up WP:V, and just trying to keep a highly viewed article accurate via reliable sources, is just inapt. If you take in the usual fact that songs are not usually released as digital singles this close to the album's release, and that the pre-order was already up. That made a official digital release as a single unlikely and I checked the radio release sites, and it was not there either. I assumed the song had just just leaked or been released as a promotional single, because from my quick google search all I saw was postings of the song's audio. Now that there is an article I saw that it did receive an official retail release. I did not revert three different people, just two different IPs, which you know are not that known for adding factually correct information. Keep in mind I have 2000+ articles in my watchlist that I patrol for vandalism, considering the large majority are hip hop, I am used to incorrect content being added to articles on the daily. STATic message me! 15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I understand your point of view now. Maybe next time you might want to tell me everything in the first post, though. Saves having a discussion about it. I never knew you actually did some research. I just assumed that you were like the other administrative editors like my sworn enemy Lil-unique1! Reverting edits without actually researching to make sure first! But obviously I've been proven wrong. ;)

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 16:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just assume good faith brother, it goes a long way in the end of it all. My first post was just dedicated to how extreme your edit summary was, when I was just attempting to keep the article accurate, I could understand your side of it too now though. Glad we reached an understanding! STATic message me! 19:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(23 September 2013) Comment: Template:Australian Senators

Hi. Just letting you know I reverted your edits to the Australian senators template, since the new senators will not take their seats until 1 July 2014 (and anyway the outcome in two states, WA and Tas, remains completely unclear). The "current" Senate retains all the old senators except for Crossin and Humphries, since the territory terms align with the House. Feel free to reinstate a form of splitting them into their two "classes"; I thought that was a good idea, although I'd suggest using "term expires xxxx" instead of "first or second term". :)
Frickeg (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the very delayed reply! I understand the revert, since it isn't the current senate, and that these Senators won't start their term until well into next year. Hopefully it will be reverted back, with a few amendments if necessary, on July 1, 2014.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 22:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(22 October 2013) Comment: Do What U Want

I'm sorry to revert your edit on Gaga's cover art. The original cover intentionally has the black border as part of the cover. Just like what they have done for Applause. :) SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 11:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(28 October 2013) Comment: Venus (Lady Gaga song)

I noticed you updated the "Venus" page, could you go ahead and comment at Talk: Artpop#Venus the third single so we can get consensus on the talk page to add it to the article as the album's third single. There has been this problematic edit warrior on the page that thinks just because a song is not released to radio that makes it a promotional single, which both of us have enough knowledge to know that is not true. STATic message me! 06:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(10 November 2013) Did you know... feature for Berzerk (song)

On 10 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berzerk (song), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "Berzerk", produced by Rick Rubin, and "Survival", which appears in Call of Duty: Ghosts, are both songs from Eminem's eighth studio album, The Marshall Mathers LP 2? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — Orlady (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

(7 January 2014) Question: Edge of the Earth

When you made this edit, did you verify the information directly in the source? Or did you copy the source from the discography article?
—Kww(talk) 00:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User Earthh had pointed out that there was a record on Allmusic, a reliable source for artist discographies, of a digital download single being released in March 2003. The ASIN Catalog code related to the release (#0724383896257) was also verifiable.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 02:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm specifically concerned about the claim to have charted at position 5 on the UK rock chart.

—Kww(talk) 02:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I just merely copied from Thirty Seconds to Mars discography, in which I notice it has been removed from there. I'm not a knowledgeable charts person, I'd just assumed written references were way more valuable than online references. The only concern I'd ever had with the article is the single/promotional single debarkle, not charts or anything like that, so I'm not the guy to ask about the chart thing.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂

(13 January 2014) Discussion: When the Night Falls Quiet

I see you keep reverting my edits on the Birds of Tokyo articles. From your talkpage, I've now been directed to your article about Promotional singles. I can understand the need for distinguishing between these types of singles in the past, but I must say you may need to review this in the digital age. There are going to be a lot of singles these days that may have been classed as promotional in the past but really are not now. I can't see how When the Night Falls Quiet should be excluded from being classed as a single these days when the band has made a music video for it and creates a cover art for the single. The song is made available to purchase as a "single" rather than part of an album and therefore makes the official ARIA chart for Single sales. Yet, you still define it as not a single. If you keep defining them this way, you are going to be dismissing a lot of future singles in the official chart.
J Bar (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

For starters, you can make a music video for any song! Just look at Beyoncé and her latest album! She did a music video for literally every song on the album, and promotional singles can have artworks as well, you know! It is still a packaged item, after all! Unless you can show me where a "When the Night Falls Quiet" single is being sold, I can't see where such a single exists. The song is only available to purchase through March Fires. Last but not least, something important to know about charts such as Billboard and the ARIA charts is that they count digital download sales of individual tracks off albums, which is why you might find album tracks that are definitely not singles in singles charts, such as Random Access Memories, which had half its tracks appear in the UK singles chart in the week of its release in May 2013. The charts also count airplay, which is also important to know, since a "When the Night Falls Quiet" promo was released to radio for airplay, nonetheless, and had been spinning a lot in 2013.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it all comes down to your strict definition of a "single". As far as I can see, every website and story about this track describes it as a "single" and does not make the distinction of "promotional single". With digital purchases redefining music, it is going to be a battle to separate these promotional singles and individual downloadable tracks from the traditional definition of "single".

J Bar (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's always been the same definition though. Just the same as how the words mass and weight are universally misused but still hold the same definition, and how the word irony is misused universally but still retains its definition. There's always been a standard in the music industry: there are three standardized forms of a music release: an album (or originally a long play), an extended play and a single; on top of which there are two types of each one: commercial, where the music is released to retailers and promotional, where the music is released to promoters, such as a radio station, to play. No matter what magazine, retailer, band, artist, label or news source says, it will always be the same until someone comes along and invents a new structure to the music industry. The last major change in how music was sold was making album tracks available to purchase individually through digital download, which was first implemented over a decade ago, and nobody has reshuffled it since.

Getting back to the main point though, you still haven't given a source to where a "When the Night Falls Quiet" single is being sold. That's really the only thing I care about at the moment.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 02:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(15 January 2014) Discussion: Acoustic (single)

You might have had the decency to discuss before reverting and why did you remove wpsongs? Cheers.
--Richhoncho (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thought it would've been obvious, actually. I didn't mean to upset you, it's just that there's no such Embrace song called "Acoustic", no discussion there! Also, The Wikiproject was removed from the page because of the same exact reason; it's not a song, it's a single.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Run that past me again. It's not a song??????????? Please explain what it is then. Cheers.

--Richhoncho (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I told you: it's a single. Look at the track list of the single and tell me otherwise. If you don't agree, come up with another name other than song, because this article does not talk about a song.

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A "single" is a marketing device. It used to be plastic. Something would be contained on the single, can you explain what is contained on this particular "single" or are the general public only supposed to buy... It's a bit like a pound of butter. You ask for a pound of butter and the supermarket gives you a pound, are you happy? No! You wanted butter. So in this case, when you purchase your "single" what do you actually get? a sound recording of some description or something else? So please tell me what is contained on this particular "single" Cheers.

--Richhoncho (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, "Follow You Home" (Acoustic version) and "Refugees" (Acoustic version) are contained in this single. Not sure what you're trying to prove...

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(29 January 2014) Discussion: Embrace (English album)

Hey, when I linked to the Refugees EP in the tracklisting for the new album, I was just trying to be consistent in the way Embrace's album pages are formatted. For example, The Good Will Out links to EPs in its tracklisting, and I don't think that's necessarily incorrect - I know that these are technically pages for the EPs, but they're also pages for the songs in terms of their identities as singles. Refugees is a single, and I think it would be redundant to have separate pages for it as a single and an EP. In my mind, links to singles or EPs in an album's tracklisting serve to make the reader's search for information easier. I do understand that it's an EP, but it's really not formatted any differently from many of Embrace's singles from the past ten years - one single released alongside three B-sides. They are all on one physical format at once, not split across multiple CDs, but I think an absent link due to a single's status as an EP would be weirder than simply linking to all songs that served as singles. (Jmlmoo18 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

Hey there! Sorry I didn't reply earlier! I didn't find the time! As you've probably noticed already, I've made articles for both Refugees the extended play and "Refugees" the song. The debate between what's an EP and what's a single is very common these days, and there's really no true definition between what defines an EP from a Single. In this case, however, since the band are promoting the Refugees release as an extended play rather than a single, I think it's safe to say that it's an EP, since the band's singles since the Out of Nothing cycle have always been recognizable singles. The first releases (CD1s) are usually two tracks, with second releases (CD2s) that can be called EPs, but it's the first release that usually matters. Refugees, however, not only resembles releases from the EP-laden The Good Will Out cycle, but has been described by Danny as not only an "EP", but an EP that follows the Good Will Out tradition. This is the exact reason why I've decided to label Refugees as an EP and give the song its own article. Hope this solves the issue!

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 09:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(27 Febraury 2014) Discussion: Midnight (Coldplay song)

Can you please explain why "Midnight" should not be listed as a single when all the sources I find call it so? This edit summary was not very helpful. Smtchahal (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that a music video is NOT a single in any way, shape or form. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 07:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not, but none of the sources call the music video a single, or do they? Smtchahal (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

sigh.. Not this again. Okay, tell me where it says "Midnight" will be released as a single. Give me a release date or something! Give me word from Coldplay or Parlophone or anybody suitable that this will be released on iTunes, Amazon or whatnot. All we know at the moment is that a music video for "Midnight" has been released. Anybody who says "Midnight" is the new single is either a) getting a bit too excited or b) misusing the word "single". You'll find the latter is very common in this day of age. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's MTV and Consequence of Sound you've got to blame, if anyone. I just noticed that they called it a single (at least in their page <title>) and that they were reliable sources and thought it must be so (though I admit I must've looked for a date). Smtchahal (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(23 March 2014) Discussion: New Crown

I think it was obvious this message was coming... I have seen you around and can see you've been around Wikipedia for a long time, so I'm gonna try not to be a dick about this, but you should know that putting information in an article which is entirely WP:OR and unsourced is not helpful. Reverting my edit and dubbing it "article massacre" is not cool either, when it is obviously for those reasons. Can we come to some kind of compromise here? The sources you've added in are not reliable and still count as original research. Andre666 (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is original research other than stating the obvious. Let's be honest, the band can barely sell out pavilion stages nowadays. They are commonly regarded an underground band now. Problem is, since Wolfmother isn't a big topic as it was five years ago, nobody in the professional business has wrote anything about Wolfmother. This is why articles such as New Crown should at the very least be treated with some leniency and common sense. Oh, by the way, the lack of sources pretty much proves the point that Wolfmother are essentially an underground band, doesn't it? To understand Wolfmother's current position is essential to understand the background of the album, after all. It is such an interesting thing about Wolfmother: a band that had become one of the world's biggest reduced to a garage band from NSW. Apart from that, however, I don't see what else can be loosely defined as "Original research".

Recording is self-explanatory. It describes where and when the album was recorded an produced, cited by the album liner notes themselves, and Packaging is essentially an in-depth description of the album's artwork. Don't see anything wrong with that!

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 12:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(13 April 2014) Comment: Guilty All the Same

You better leave the edits I put on Guilty All the Same alone right now, and I mean it! You don't listen, do you? No! If you keep saying members of Linkin Park, then that just means the writing credits goes to "Linkin Park", and that's final! Skylar3214 April 12, 2014 / 12:30 PM — Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Leave my edits alone now, and I mean it this time! You don't understand what I had just put on the Guilty All the Same page, did you? No, then again! Let it say "Linkin Park, William Griffin" right now! It's better for the best, and especially "written and performed by American rock band Linkin Park". Don't be so ignorant to me! I'm trying to help you understand it better! Skylar3214 12:54, 12 April 2014

Not sure why you're unwilling to recognized the band as six different people. Songwriting credits are given to individual people not acts. Simple. You don't have to wave your fist in the air and say things like "leave the edits I put on Guilty All the Same alone right now, and I mean it!", because, to be fairly honest, you sound like a child. Nobody's edits are special; you don't have to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to protest a change to your contribution. It's not like we think your contribution isn't needed, it's not that at all. It's just that it's preferred that songwriting credits are written as they usually are; individually. Look up the BMI or ASCAP database. Songs are always credited to individuals. I'll even bring up the BMI listing for "Guilty all the Same" if you don't believe me!

RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by what you said, but I don't believe you, and you're lying about my contribution not being needed cause it is that! You're not listening to me! I'm not interested with this BMI stuff you told me about. It's still making no sense to me. Don't talk to me anymore. We're done here. And by the way, the word "child" is not in my vocabulary list cause it's not appropriate to me.

Skylar3214 2:57, 14 April 2014

(4 June 2014) Comment: Template:Linkin Park songs

Please don't change the template Linkin Park singles! I know what you are talking about but please don't try to do this! It is better if it is sorted in the current way!

Explain why. It is definitely more plausible, given that there's enough stand-alone articles for tracks to justify a songs template, rather than a singles template. There are 12 articles for tracks. I'm pretty sure that is more than enough. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok keep the title as songs! But please keep the last sort! This previous sort was better than the present! Naam toh suna hi hoga (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No use sorting certain songs with an album when it's the only article associated with the album. It takes up unnecessary space. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(4 June 2014) Comment: Wastelands (song)

Hello friend! This is NTSHH! I want some references to see that wastelands is a single and not a promo single! Please provide a different link than the google play music because it is not available in my country! This is a humble request! Naam toh suna hi hoga (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(9 June 2014) Comment: Final Masquerade

Mind if I make the page "Final Masquerade" better than the last time people did to it? I have a few resources for it. It's not much, but I'm sure it'll work out better. User:Skylar3214 5:06, 9 June 2014

(10 June 2014) Comment: Talk:The Hunting Party

Unless you've got a good faith reason to think that the 3 people in the discussions are actually female, do not address editors as "Yo girls". That's not constructive discussion, as you probably know. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 10:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing nobody on Wikipedia has a sense of humor. Guess that explains all the heated arguments on this site. :P RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(14 June 2014) Heated Discussion: The Hunting Party articles

You cannot personally deem a consensus as "not making sense" as a rationale, nor can you just ignore requests for sources. Please follow WP:V, WP:BURDEN, and WP:BRD. (Last time, that other guy found a source pretty easily. Your time would be better spent source hunting than arguing about the definition of singles.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

But they're just singles! How many times do I have to tell you guys? The consensus didn't make sense. I'm not going to accept a consensus that's based on a misunderstanding. The whole thing was essentially based upon the delusion that a single is a name you slap on a track and glorify it with and not an actual music release. It's a music release, not a status. Once again, it's a music release, not a status. I'll say it once more: it's a music release, not a status. You need it to be told to you once again? It's a music release. You shouldn't ever need a secondary source which literally has no part in any of the commercial process to tell you so. Ill tell you once again: it doesn't work the way you guys think it works, where a track is released and people like MTV decide whether or not it should be called a single. Singles are just released like Albums and EPs. What difference is there between Albums, EPs and singles? You're all misunderstanding the basic concept of Albums, EPs and Singles as music releases. An actual CD single of "Rebellion" could come out and you guys would still be under the illusion that people like MTV need to tell you whether or not something is a single or not. They're there on Google Play. Available to download. As I've said before, I bought the "Final Masquerade" single off Google Play myself, so it's a pretty reliable source. It's not like it iTunes where it's released as part of the track. It's. A. Single. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 17:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thats a fine stance. Now read WP:V again, and apply that to your personal views. Viola! A workable Wikipedia resolution! Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't become a totalitarian dictator. Actually read what I have to say instead of shoving WPs down my throat. I've written it at the top of my talk page, for pete's sake! WP:V has no relevance to me whatsoever. I've given you my reliable source that proves that the singles exist, but it seems you're still not listening. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 17:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've read it. But it's nothing more than a personal philosophy, which is obviously being countered by other personal opinions. When this happens, we resort to what sources say. I'm not being a "dictator", I'm an admin enforcing the rules. And any time someone goes "the rules are irrelevant", I need to deal with that - surely you understand that much? You're entitled to your own opinions, sure, but not to bulldoze through the process with them. If things like V - the foundation of the project, are "irrelevant" to you, there's going to be a problem here. (And I'm not even just referring to myself, but anyone who knows policy.)Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the main misunderstanding here is the fact that your passing my comment as merely my opinion, which is the point of me saying you're not reading what I have to say. Even our own page on "Single" states that a single is a music release. Singles have been music releases for a very long time now. Remember those 7" vinyls? Those were singles. One-track or two-track Compact discs? CD singles. Today's one-track or two-track digital downloads? Why shouldn't they be classified the same? Again, WP:V is not relevant to me or this discussion at all. You don't need a secondary source to point out what should be obvious. Especially when the sources in question have nothing to do with the article in the first place. They're calling it / not calling it a single? Good for them. They still have no part in the commercial process though; they're just reporting on it. P.S. I never said that the rules in general are irrelevant. I'm simply saying that WP:V has no use at all in this discussion whatsoever, and is irrelevant to this discussion. Please. Read. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As I keep saying, if something is so brutally obvious as you say, finding a reliable source as requested should be no problem. It's pretty obvious we're at a stand still here, so in going to stop talking circles with you. Regardless of your views, you aren't to re-add the info unless you provide a reliable source or change the consensus. Like it or not, you must abide by it on this website. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine then. I'll get my hands dirty. Having the single itself should've been enough. But no, you had to deny common sense didn't you. Have a whole Google page. Oh what's this? People are talking about singles as a music release? People are discussing what defines a single from an EP? Is that your beloved MTV discussing whether or not singles and EPs are becoming more prevalent than Albums? An indie musician talking about the commercial viability of releasing a single or EP? Another indie musician's guide to a release cycle which includes single releases? Wait, there's more! iTunes are specifically describing their singles as, guess what? Singles! Linkin Park's "Waiting For the End"? Lana Del Rey's "Video Games"? Coldplay's "Speed of Sound"? It's True! The single is actually a thing, and not just a label. I cannot believe I just did that. I had just sourced something so unbelievably obvious. What's next? Do I need to source the fact that albums are albums and not just a bunch of tracks that people like MTV then decide are albums? Good grief. No editor should be forced to waste their time like this. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why you continue to want to discuss music philosophy with me. I don't care what these random blogs or tumblr's thoughts on singles in general. All I want is a source to settle this dispute. If there's a source that defines those LP songs as a single, great, problem solved, present it to the articles talk page. If not, you just wasted a lot of your time. Sergecross73 msg me 23:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Just Wow. "If there's a source that defines those LP songs as a single". You seriously have not been reading anything I've been writing in this entire discussion have you? You have no idea why i'm discussing music philosophy? Because you still don't understand what singles are, that's why. Singles are NOT statuses for a track on an album. They're music releases. How many times do I have to say it? Yet, you still insist that they're decided by people like MTV and other secondary sources. You can't keep running away from the fact that Singles are just like EPs and Albums, you know. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 04:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "I don't have any source that back up my claim on a specific song". Thanks, that's all I needed to know. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you said "specific song" completely discredits you at this point. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 23:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My purpose of talking with you at all was to determine if "Final Masquarade" (a specific song) is a single, promotional single, just a random song. No one asked for any of your rantings or personal musings on singles. This isn't an effort to apply a final definition to "Singles", its to figure out how to label this particular song, so any comments on "discrediting" that, is pure nonsense. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And you think I haven't been trying to convince you that all three of them should be singles? You don't understand what singles are. They're NOT determined by people like MTV. They're just released. "Wastelands" and "Rebellion" should be included as singles, because, well, that's what they are. They had the same exact release as "Final Masquerade", yet not included with the rest. Why? What difference is a person on some website on the internet make? I'm just saying you people take things like WP:V way too far. "Wastelands" and "Rebellion" aren't "promotional" singles. I put it in speech marks because that's not even the correct definition for the two either. Promotional singles are singles released to radio, after all. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(15 June 2014) Comment: Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire

The "upright=whatever" setting changes how big it is on people's browsers based on their internal settings. On my end, setting it as upright=1.15 is 250px regardless. For other settings it may appear bigger or smaller but all video game articles have 1.15 as that setting. It turns out that the infobox enforces a size if you just have the raw file name. Also, there was no reason for you to edit the artwork in any fashion. None of the other Pokemon games have had their cover art modified in any fashion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well isn't this stuff complicated? I just didn't understand any of it, that is all. Sorry if I caused any inconveniences. I uploaded a clear version of the packaging so that it would be region-neutral and the artwork would be displayed without additional labels. Examples of this practice include Mario Kart 8, Call of Duty: Ghosts and The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds.

(3 July 2014) Question: How to upload an OGG file?

Hello! I noticed that you uploaded the 30-second sample for "Final Masquerade". I just want to know:

1. How do you download the sample?
2. How do you turn it to OGG?

I'm just curious. I want to upload one for "Boom Clap". You know, so. I hope you will answer! Remember to ping me or leave me a talkback template or mention me when you've replied. Cheers! Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a rather convoluted process, but I'll try my best to explain how I make OGG samples for Wikipedia. Firstly, I take an mp3 of a song I want to use, such as "Final Masquerade" and then I import it into an audio editing program. For me, I use Audacity. From there, I choose which part of the song I want to use for the sample. It has to be a sample less than 30 seconds long for copyright reasons, so I trim out a 30-second long part of the song, give it 3-second fade-ins and fade-outs and save the project as an audio file. Then, I upload the file onto online-convert.com, where I can convert the file to OGG and then download it onto my computer. Once I've downloaded my converted OGG file, I then upload it to Wikipedia, filling in the necessary details and whatnot. I'm not one to go into details, since I am really crap at explaining things to people, as evidented by my perevious conversations with people on this site, so i won't bother you with it. If you're not familiar with audio editing programs such as Audacity, be sure to hit up tutorials on YouTube. It's how I learned to use Audacity! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 21:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@RazorEyeEdits: However, I used Audacity, they told me that it is an error as they could not read the source file code. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(8 July 2014) Comments: The Endless River

Overlinking

Regarding your recent edit to The Endless River, please note that wiki articles don't have to be linked multiple times, especially not in the same paragraph. See WP:OVERLINK for further information. jhsounds (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for any inconveniences. You kind of don't notice these things, if you know what I mean. I usually don't notice when I've linked the same thing twice! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Labels

Now that I look at it, the Parlaphone/Warner Bros bit isn't directly sourced and appears to have been O.R. synthesized. This wouldn't be too bad, except sites outside Wikipedia are starting to point to this label information since the actual sources don't mention it. jhsounds (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the band are currently under Warner Bros. in the US, and under Parlophone in the rest of the world. Pretty logical deduction there. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. WP:CRYSTAL may also be relevant for some parts of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can throw down WPs as well: WP:COMMONSENSE. Unless the band announces that they're going to switch labels, or release material under a different label, you can't exactly argue that the album won't be released under the label they are currently under. Simple. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? Don't you really have something constructive to say or discuss, rather than thumping the rule book and threatening me with warnings such as this one? Can't we have a discussion without the wrecking ball-esque removal of content from the article and constant rule referencing without any sort of, well, human interaction to say at the very least? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"something constructive to say"? Yes; I said it in the section above, and on the article talk page, and in my edit summaries, but you have chosen to ignore all these and to edit war instead. You'll likely be blocked if you persist; and your policy-breaching material will be removed until there is a citation from a reliable source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be fairly honest, you're the one who started the edit war, not me. You went and removed a whole chunk of material before we could reach some sort of conclusion, and I was just trying to preserve the article in it's original state. I haven't been agressive in any sort of form for this entire discussion, so there is really no reason for any of us, especially you, to start being aggressive. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(23 August 2014) Discussion: Royal Blood articles

I thank you for creating all the pages for the songs by Royal Blood. It was something I was originally gonna do so thanks. But why won't you let people put the singles released from the album and on the singles pages, whuch album it's from. Those sections are in the info box for a reason. Plus it would make the page look better, make it easier to navigate, and it would just make more sense. So if you get the chance, please correct it. Jacob Sudduth

I simply cannot skew the definition of a music release just for the sake of convenience. I've been on Wikipedia for a long time and I honestly believe that the way infoboxes portray singles as a status of an album track, rather than a music release, is just simply wrong, and should be reamended. Singles are music releases which can contain one track, or more depending on who you talk to. The word "single" is simply not a status of an album track depending on whether or not it gets played on the radio or not, which, unfortunately, seems to be the accepted definition here on Wikipedia, enforced by the excuse that it's consensus. Singles are not from albums because singles are, to simply put it, not album tracks. They're music releases. If we are to continue slapping "from the album x" on every single infobox, shouldn't we do it for EPs aswell? Like, say, for example, "Out of the Black is from the album Royal Blood". It's silly isn't it? Why should singles be treated like that as well, then? I'm sorry if my words come off as a bit agressive, but that's simply how I feel about it. Albums and singles should be kept onto their own, and that maybe one day Infobox single and Infobox album can finally be merged and all this nonsense can stop. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 04:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not skewing the definition of a music release. Stating which album it's from and tge tracks released off of that album is just adding more correct info. Plus, if it can't be added to the infobox, why add it at all. All that it is is the same info in different places. And putting released singles off of the album is just stating that those singles were released. Just more correct information, that doesn't negatively affect the status of the released album or single at all. Jacob Sudduth Jacob Sudduth

"Stating which album it's from and [the] tracks released off of that album is just adding more correct info" - Too bad you're not correct. Singles are singles. They're not from an album. They're promoting an album. You are skewing the definition; the fact that you're saying things like "released singles off of the album", says that you've been misguided as well. Unfortunately, of course, you went ahead and did it anyway, so don't be surprised at the fact that I'm slightly angry at you now. Why couldn't we at least reach a conclusion before you went ahead and edited the article? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 00:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Because we both know that all that would've happened is an argument between us stating the other person is wrong. I didn't do it to piss you off. I did it because I know that I'm right. Even the band's webpage states that they are released off the album. I think the creators and maintainers of those webpages have a bit more authority than Wikipedia editors. I ain't here to make enemies dude. And I ain't misguided about the things I edit. Jacob Sudduth Jacob Sudduth

Well that's just extremely disappointing. We have discussions so that we can reach a conclusion. That's what a debate is. By backing out and just saying "I know I'm right", which, by the way, is an extremely arrogant and ignorant thing to say, especially for a person who says he doesn't want to make enemies, you are either saying to me that you either a) you don't want to be convinced that you're wrong and can't accept it or b) you are too lazy yourself to convince me that I'm wrong, and I personally believe with good faith the latter is most likely. So, please, either discuss or don't discuss. You can't just stop halfway and say "I'm right, you're wrong, and this conversation is going nowhere in my opinion". PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 01:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we just call in a third party to decide? I don't like to be insulted, especially when I haven't nor will I talk bad bout you. Call in STATICVAPOR (srry, can't name the capital and lower-case letters in his name off the top of my head). He's an unbiased veteran editor. Neither of us can really gain ground on each other. Ao I think a third party would be a good idea. You agree? Jacob Sudduth|Jacob Sudduth

What do you mean? I never insulted you. You just don't go out and say that you're right and just believe that. It is arrogant and ignorant. You're basically saying that I'm wrong and my opinion doesn't matter to you. I'm not saying you're a terrible person overall for saying such things. We all make mistakes sometimes and I don't hold any grudges against anyone. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I think it would be best if we called Static in, if that's whay you want to do. He's someone I have a high respect for as an editor myself. We've had discussions before, so it's not a particularly bad idea. Although if he mentions consensus at least once, I'm out. Because that's something we definitely will never agree on! :P PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 01:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

......can u call him in? He would more than like just ignore me. And I agree. Nothing on the Royal Blood talk page. Juat his opinion. Also because it would only be us two talking on the consensus page. I dont think anyone else really messes with the Royal Blood pages. Thank ya. Jacob Sudduth

(27 March 2015) Comment: Sydney Light Rail articles

Hi. I've reverted your changes to Dulwich Hill Line and redirected the articles you created because they go against the consensus established at Talk:Light rail in Sydney#Reorganising MLR articles. We used to have articles about all the individual stops, but I convinced other editors that a combined article about the line as a whole was a better format. My post on that talk page explains the thinking behind this format. While it's true that the volume of text associated with a few stops has expanded since then, I still think a single article is a better format (and the entries for most stops are still just a few sentences long). I'm sorry for reverting your work (and for taking a while to do so), but I really think any change to the structure of light rail coverage on Wikipedia should be discussed first and consensus should be established before making changes. Thanks. Gareth (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Such a shame that something like this be reduced to a single article with minimal detail and information. I honestly think that the Sydney Light Rail system should be given the same treatment as the Sydney Trains and Sydney Ferries system; each stop should have it's own article, with information of services, interchanges with other transport systems, and details on the platform itself and it's history. I hate it when articles like this are prevented from existing just because of "convenience". We, as Wikipedia editors, should put more effort into these things rather than choosing the lazy option each time. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 05:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue with having separate articles for each stop is that most stops are very simple and the oldest ones date back to 1997, so there haven't been many changes to the stops. Additionally, operation of the line is very simple. This contrasts with Sydney's railway stations, which mostly date back to the 19th century. The article for each station can cover changes to the station over time. Many stations serve multiple lines or have three or more platforms. The possibilities for developing these articles are much greater than they are for the modern, simple light rail stops. The ferry wharves generally have some history attached to them, providing possibilities for expansion of their articles and some wharves are served by multiple routes. That being said, most of the articles are very short and if someone were to propose merging the wharf articles into the route articles, I would probably support the proposal - I guess we disagree on that.

I proposed and performed the merger of the individual stop articles into a combined article because I believe this is a better way of covering the topic. It is more coverage than the bus system receives (most routes don't have articles) and equal to or better than other Australian tramway/light rail systems. The convenient option would have been to leave the articles alone, but it would lead to what I think is an inferior outcome - particularly after the second light rail line opens with even simpler on-street stops. You are not being prevented from recreating articles for the individual stops, I just think you should obtain the consensus to do so from other interested editors before making major structural changes to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Gareth (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I too, also foresee a similar situation for the Ferry articles, which is why I've been working hard to update them too, alongside Light Rail articles. I even recently created an article for the Barangaroo ferry wharf, which technically doesn't even exist yet. It's a prime example of how well articles turn out when editors put some kind of effort into it. I was hoping to do more work on the Light rail stations, though, my progress had been halted and completely reverted. You didn't even replace the descriptions on the Dulwich Hill Line page with some of my rewrites. The point I'm trying to make is, articles on the light rail stations won't ever be worked upon and live up to Wikipedia transport article standards if efforts to do so are being reverted; regardless of what five people say about it. A number, we can at least agree upon, is an insignificant number of people. I also hate it too when editors use "consensus" to enforce their opinions. I'd probably listen and abide by some rules if there were, say, 20 or so people involved, but five people shouldn't really dictate the entirety of coverage on the Sydney Light Rail system. I obviously wouldn't do something like this if I didn't believe I'd get any support through any proposed consensus. Thus, I did what I did, hoping that no consensusist would notice. Unfortunately, you did. DX Despite all this, though, I hope you won't oppose that I, at the very least, update the Dulwich Hill Line article with new material. It's the best I can do within the "consensus" rules to help aid an underwhelming effort to cover the Sydney Light Rail system. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 09:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the key issue is that the stops are fairly basic structures, have little history (in 18 years the only changes have been a ouple of licks of paint, change of signage and upgrade to the passenger info display) and aren't notable enough to justify stand-alone articles.

While five may be not considered a significant number of people, the consensus was unanimous. Not as if it was a 'closed shop' discussion, the opportunity was available for all to express an opinion and no-one spoke against.

There have been similar discussions at G:link and Edinburgh Trams where similar consensus were reached, so not as if a one-off decision. Where stops have some history, eg on Manchester Metrolink where many are converted railway stations, there is a stronger case for stand alone articles. DCB1927 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(7 April 2015) Comment: Circular Quay ferry wharf

I have been most impressed with the way you started to reorganise this article. However it now seems to have stopped with Manly, Parramatta and Darling Harbour services shown in the Infobox which looks very good. However these routes are duplicated in the Neighbouring wharves section which I had only updated for the Eastern Suburbs route in the past couple of weeks, but does not look anywhere near as good as what is the infobox. I had hoped that you would continue to add the other routes including the Manly Fast Ferries, to the services section in the infobox so that we could do away with the Neighbouring Wharves section as we have done for train stations and does not look very professional with the dulication. However I have noticed today that you have started to reorganise train lines which I have no objection to in itself. Do you plan to finish moving the other routes to the infobox? Fleet Lists (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I do intend to complete the infobox, along with doing further work on articles relating to Sydney Ferries. While further updating the Circular Quay article, my focus in the past couple of days has been to see whether or not I can make a reasonable articles, with enough content, for the F5 Neutral Bay and F6 Mosman Bay services, much like what I did for F4 Darling Harbour. But, yeah, I will definitely get back to updating the Circular Quay article as soon as possible! :) PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(10 April 2015) Comment: Circular Quay ferry wharf

I noticed that in the Circular Quay wharf article a number of locations have repeated wikilinks. I and another editor recently got picked up on that by an admin because it does not comply with WP:REPEATLINK - You may like to have a look at that before someone picks you up on it.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(14 April 2015) Discussion: RDT templates

Is there any particular reason you decided to rename them en masse from Xxx railway line (the standard practice throughout Wikipedia) to Railroute Xxx railway line to Railmap Xxx line? Useddenim (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I started giving the templates a unifying name because it would make things a lot easier to sort and work out. For the record, I had decided that Railmap was an inappropriate name, since a map would be something like this, and not like the templates themselves, which are technically routes. Hence I'm using the Railroute name instead. I thought it would've been nice to give the templates a naming convention, since this practice that you speak of (Xxx railway line), is actually not the case. Editors have given them all sorts of names; examples of which include Template:CityRail Line/Western Line (grouped under a network), Template:Inner west line map (non-capitalised and post-fixed with "map"), Template:Lake Cargelligo (simply the name of the line with no post-fix), Template:Hay branch (post-fixed with "branch"), Template:Zig Zag Railway Route (capitalised and post-fixed with "railway route").

I believed it would've been very convenient if these types of templates had both a name and a proper naming convention. The one I'm working with is Railroute [name of associated article]. It is not Railroute Xxx railway line, as you suggested. I honestly thought it wouldn't be controversial at all, and so I moved ahead with not only the naming convention, but also the revision of infoboxes for Sydney railway lines (coinciding with the impending deletion of Template:Infobox Sydney public transport), the revision of existing Railroute maps and the creation of new ones for articles that do not have a Railroute. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 05:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

London Transport settled on Diagram (or “Diagramme”, if you want to be pedantic about it) in the early 1930s; hence the RDT suffix (for Route Diagram Template). My personal preference is the simple [[Template:{name of associated article}]], which is quite the most common, and seems to be the de facto standard^{Useddenim (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)}. Useddenim (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen the phrase "Diagram" being used on any of these templates, since I've been focusing on Sydney and New South Wales railways, but I'd be willing to use RDT instead of Railroute, as in RDT [name of associated article], if that's what you're suggesting. Either way, there should be a collective name for these templates. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 13:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The collective name is Route Diagram Templates (as in WP:RDT and associated pages). And, until you started renaming the NSW RDTs, there were only returns 2 hits for Special:PrefixIndex/Template:RDT ( RDT {name of associated article} ), of which only 1 was a route diagram (and orphaned and misnamed, at that), one is a helper template for the main RDT page, and one is redirect. On the other hand, Search RDT in namespace Template ( [[Template:{name of associated article} RDT]] ) returns 446 hits. So, I would strongly recommend the latter naming.
Also, I see that you’ve grouped them all into the new Category:New South Wales Route Diagram Templates, which should actually be called Category:Templates for railway lines of New South Wales.
Finally, what’s with rearranging all the diagrams with the mainline across the top? There’s a near-universal standard that has North at the top. Useddenim (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Although, on the second point, I'm not sure Category:Templates for railway lines of New South Wales is an appropriate name for a category exclusively for RDTs. Considering the category's name is so broad, you can put any type of template, not just RDTs, into there and the rationale for doing so should be correct. Category:Templates for railway lines of Australia is a category that already exists instead, and Category:New South Wales Route Diagram Templates is under it. The message at the top of the category states "The pages listed in this category are meant to be navigation templates", so, while no template types other than RDTs currently exist in that category, I'd imagine templates like navboxes would still be welcome. Also, I don't understand what you mean by your last point. Can you clarify a bit more in detail what I've apparently done wrong? I just don't know what you mean by "rearranging all the diagrams with the mainline across the top? There’s a near-universal standard that has North at the top." PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

(9 July 2015) Comment: Exploration of Neptune

If you want to do an article on the Voyager 2 flybys of Uranus and Neptune. Go here and here and DO IT!!!!!!! While the Jupiter and Saturn articles might be a bit unweildly, Uranus and Neptune would be perfect. We need and love you! Ericl (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(21 January 2016) Comment: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

As I mentioned at the Village pump (technical) regarding pinging and your signature:

With the current link in your signature, your attempts to ping other users will fail due to your signature not linking directly to a page with your current username; see mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details, and also the guideline at Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links.

So you should change the signature in your preferences so it links to your current user page (or talk page or contributions page).

Also, I'm pretty sure that pinging through a redirected page doesn't work. So trying to ping you using the link from your current signature (which more than one user have tried) will fail, which is another strong reason for updating your signature. --Pipetricker (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(12 March 2016) Discussion: City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)

Hi PhilipTerryGraham! The subject of the article City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song) is a single, and this differs from a promotional single. The artwork you have just restored is about the promotional single so it does not represent the subject of the article itself. It does not matter that the other artwork is for the "piano version" of the song, since it is the artwork for the song's digital release. What do you think about this? --Earthh (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Earthh: I beg to differ; I still stand by my original statement that the article is about the song and/or track. Not any single or promotional single. The article talks about the composition of the song and production of the original track as appearing on Love, Lust Faith and Dreams, and its commercial and critical reception and legacy. Philip Terry Graham 18:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)