User talk:SnapSnap/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

File:The Human League - Hysteria.png

Long time no see. Honestly, the whole artwork is just text and plain colors. Nonetheless, to play safe, I changed the status to "PD-ineligible-USonly". I wonder whether you'll enhance and enlarge the portion of the album. Meanwhile, I'll upload some more text-oriented images of Hysteria (The Human League album) still ineligible for US copyright. --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho:  Done. snapsnap ^(talk) 14:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A favour

Hi SnapSnap, not that you owe me anything but would you consider replicating this addition[1] at Organisation (album)? Organisation appears in the same 1980 year-end chart at no. 95. I tried to add it myself but can't seem to do so without bungling it. Thanks. Paulie302 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Paulie302:  Done. snapsnap ^(talk) 03:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Paulie302 (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Defaulting to a colon in article titles

Hey SnapSnap. I remember you saying several times in edit summaries that when punctuation is inconsistent in sources (as in, some use a hyphen/en dash in a title while others use a colon), we should default to using a colon to punctuate a title. What guideline/where was this from again? I've followed it myself but can't point to where it's at. Thanks. Ss112 07:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: Hello there. The guideline you're looking for is MOS:TITLEPUNCT. snapsnap ^(talk) 15:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada category

I see that the film was removed from “Category: Films about fashion,” with the reasoning being its considered redundant. However, I’ll argue the film’s absence from the Category is pronounced, as its one of the most well-known films about fashion (besides fashion magazine publishing). Spectrallights (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Spectrallights: The article already includes the subcategory Category:Films about fashion in the United States, which is why Category:Films about fashion is redundant. snapsnap ^(talk) 18:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@SnapSnap: I’m aware the article is already included in Category:Films about fashion in the United States, but I would argue it isn’t an unnecessary addition since the categories already listed on the page are not anywhere near the length of other pages like The Revenant or Black Swan. Also, since some film scenes take place at Paris Fashion Week, it’s not limited to fashion in the United States and also deserves the broader category of fashion. Spectrallights (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Spectrallights: Categorizing the article under "Films about fashion in the United States" does not signify the film is exclusively about fashion in the United States. Plus, the majority of the film is set in New York City. And the fact that the page does not contain as many categories as other film articles is a non-issue. snapsnap ^(talk) 20:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

UK year-end charts 1977-82

Hi SnapSnap - could I just point out that the charts published in Music Week or Record Mirror at the end of each of these years are not the complete year-end charts... in order to have them published in the last issue of December, the year-end charts cut the last three weeks of the year. You can see this most obviously in 1981, where the OCC now has "Don't You Want Me" by the Human League as the year's best-seller with its sales for the final three weeks of the year added, whereas the charts published at the time didn't even have it in the top 20.

The full charts for all 52 weeks were published in various sources the following year, and I think we should keep to these sources rather than going back to the magazines on World Radio History, because they are what various outlets report now for the year-end charts, including the OCC. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said that I was referring to your edit on Vienna by Ultravox. Richard3120 (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Hi, thanks for letting me know. Do you happen to know where I could find the sources that contain the full year-end charts for those years? snapsnap ^(talk) 15:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Online, no, I don't think official sources exist on the internet. Hence the books I have cited in various "19xx in British music" articles from 1977 to 1982, which are mostly the BPI Yearbooks (the annual reports of the British Phonographic Industry). The updated year-end singles and albums for 1980 were printed in Record Mirror dated 21 March 1981 and 4 April 1981 respectively, but I think they're the only ones you will find at World Radio History. The Official Charts Company has the year-end top 50 for each year of the 1980s on their website... these were recalculated and updated last year, with the biggest changes happening for 1981, but they only did the singles, not the albums. Richard3120 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I see. The year-end album charts for 1980–1983 included in this forum post are taken from the BPI Yearbooks as well, right? At least they match the charts used in the "19xx in British music" articles. Since Record Mirror only published updated year-end charts for 1980, would you say the BPI books are a better source for year-end charts from 1981 to 1983 rather than Record Mirror? snapsnap ^(talk) 23:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's... complicated. Basically, yes, the year-end charts you find on the Haven, Buzzjack and UKMix forums use the most up-to-date full year-end charts, which were mostly taken from the BPI Yearbooks rather than the Music Week/Record Mirror publications in December each year which miss out the last three weeks of the year. And it's easy enough to prove that these later updated charts are now considered the official year-end charts – a look at pages 21 and 22 of Music Week dated 27 December 1980 shows Abba's Super Trouper album at no. 4 for the year, while the single of the same name is at no. 28. But in the updated charts in Record Mirror three months later, Super Trouper has overtaken Zenyatta Mondatta to become the top-selling album of the year, while the single has moved up to be the year's fourth-best-seller. These new positions are confirmed in current official articles by the Official Chart Company here and here.

But it's not that simple. For one thing, the first Yearbook in 1976 published lists of the best-selling albums for 1970 to 1976, but these have all been superseded by some work carried out in 2007, but this work only published a top ten – you can see these top tens in the articles for the various relevant years. The BPI didn't publish a Yearbook in 1983, so the full year-end 1982 chart doesn't come from there – the only place where it was published was in a paperback book called Chart File, written by the chart's compilers. They planned on releasing one of these books of chart data every year, but only two were ever released, for 1981 and 1982: I bought used copies of both books on the internet. And the 1981 singles chart has been changed dramatically: page 27 of Record Mirror dated 26 December 1981 shows "Don't You Want Me" by the Human League at no. 83 for the year... by the time this chart had been compiled, it had only been in the chart for one week. The 1982 BPI Yearbook and Chart File added two further weeks (when it was no. 1) and which now listed the song as no. 21 for the year. And then last year, the OCC added the data for the final week of the year, and the song is now officially the best-selling single of 1981. So from no. 83 to no. 1... quite how an official chart can change four decades after the fact is baffling. But all this shows you that those December lists are not the final story. Richard3120 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I see now, thank you for your explanation. I'm mostly interested in albums from 1980 onwards, so for years 1981–1983 I'll use the year-end album charts from the BPI Yearbooks and Chart File rather than those from Record Mirror or Music Week. The 1983 year-end album chart printed in Record Mirror on 7 January 1984 (page 37) is not the updated list, right? Since there's a note at the bottom that reads "Top LPs and cassettes up to Saturday December 19". snapsnap ^(talk) 15:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's right – that was the first year-end chart published by Gallup, and I don't know why it wasn't a full chart to the year end... maybe they had some teething troubles in their first year compiling the chart. Anyway, there was a Yearbook in 1984, which does have the full chart. And apologies for the rather anal and mansplaining post above! But I do feel UK charts are a subject I can actually talk vaguely knowledgeably about... Richard3120 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Don't worry, you didn't come across that way at all. I'm grateful for all the information you've provided me with. I wouldn't want to add incorrect/incomplete chart info across Wikipedia – I can be quite anal myself actually, hah. Thanks! snapsnap ^(talk) 04:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You See Colours

Hi SnapSnap, probably the least reliable looking source rather than pop: [https://www.scmp.com/article/548334/you-see-colours-delays "The latest album by British indie band Delays showcases the group's unique style. Their electro-pop sound, which has a rock edge, has been compared to the Cocteau Twins and the Stone Roses. You See Colours is the band's second release, following their 2004 debut Faded Seaside Glamour."] 58.71.162.43 (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Australian chart peaks

Hi, I just noticed that you (inadvertently) copied some false Australian chart positions from the Siouxsie and the Banshees discography page to the articles Juju (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) and Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) when creating a charts section for these articles. I would suggest you don't add chart peaks sourced from a book unless you have sighted the book yourself, or verified the information is accurate with another Wikipedia user who has access to the book in question. I'm happy to verify any peaks sourced from David Kent's 1970-1992 chart book should you encounter these in future.Nqr9 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nqr9: Hi. Knowing that you usually oversee Australian chart peaks in many discography pages, I assumed you had verified the peaks in the Siouxsie and the Banshees discography page as well (without bothering to check if you had actually verified those). My mistake. I'll be sure to contact you whenever I come across unverified Kent Music Report peak positions. While we're at it, would you mind verifying the KMR peaks for Berlin, Yazoo, Fleetwood Mac and Hall & Oates (as well as the page numbers for these artists)? snapsnap ^(talk) 21:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my belated reply. I am not as active currently as I used to be. I will take a look at those discography pages you mention 'soon'.Nqr9 (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nqr9: No problems. Thanks in advance. snapsnap ^(talk) 22:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

A Snow Capped Christmas

Thanks for uploading a new poster. I'm a little suspicious, though - it has two differences in the title (omitting the word "A" and having "snowcapped" as one word). Are you sure it's an official poster? StAnselm (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I, too, found it odd that the title was slightly misspelled, but that poster does seem official – there's another "Snowcapped Christmas" poster featuring the W Network logo ([2]). Also, IMDb (not the most reliable source, I know) lists the film's original title as "Snowcapped Christmas" ([3]). snapsnap ^(talk) 23:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And that's the *UK* title. Interesting. StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Moot infobox situation

Hi, SnapSnap! Thanks for your great work in film articles on here! Regarding this edit (by you) vis-à-vis the "Film date" template usage, I've been myself somewhat torn about what to do, because I think that it is not a black and white solution and there is a compromise to be met between three or four positions (most probably on a case-by-case basis). In any case, barring the clunky yet fully transparent and honest addition of the whole festival name, we always sacrifice a bit (going against EASTEREGG) demanding something from the reader to tie the knots about what is behind the piped link. While Toronto (Toronto IFF, so to speak) is the most popular international film festival out of the bunch (even more prominently so in the English-speaking film industry, and it is relatively associated to the four-word acronym TIFF, I think), both the Tokyo International Film Festival, the Transilvania International Film Festival, and the Thessaloniki International Film Festival share the "TIFF" acronym (for their official [sic] latinate abbreviations). Yeah sure, afaik they do not exactly overlap in time (usually...), but that requires the reader to jointly engage with the dab and the date and, insofar neither are fully transparent (although they are convenient for the sake of "compactness"), I supposed a similar (counter-)case about reader expectations can be made about links to "Toronto" in early September in that specific location of the article pertaining a film premiere. It is a bit messy, right? Just to give an even more "problematized" context, this film has screened in three out of those 4 "TIFF's" throughout late 2022, for instance, so I suppose the "Toronto" (non-)dab could be even more useful there than in the Venus article. Suffice to say, I generally counter myself that "sin" of going short in that infobox parametre (because I favour compactness after all, at least in some places) to the expense of certain "easter-eggness" by going fully transparent elsewhere in prose mentions to the festivals and also in awards tables.

To the point: are you aware of any specific discussion about this (rationales about reader expectations vis-à-vis the infobox and eastereggs)? Have a nice day. :).--Asqueladd (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Hi! Are you asking me if there have been any discussions about which term regarding the Toronto International Film Festival ("TIFF" or "Toronto") is the most appropriate to include in a film's infobox? If so, I'm not aware of any discussions on that matter – sorry. When a film had its premiere at the Toronto Festival, it appears that the common practice has always been to include "TIFF" rather than "Toronto" in the infobox. I'm not sure this has been contested by other editors, but you could always try starting a discussion at Template talk:Infobox film. snapsnap ^(talk) 02:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)