User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2017-12

Wanted to Thank You

• Hi Walter, I wanted to post a Thank You for a number of your good edits to other contributors and corrections to some of my small errors. And it is fine for you to discuss about whether there is motivation and lack of relevance & sources for a section that may be perceived by some people as criticism of the subject.

And I also wanted to say Sorry because you messaged me that I may have removed a table or chart. I still have to look into that to see if I made a mistake.

I haven't posted thanks & sorry yet because I am too busy addressing your fast smack edits. Please respect when new content is added with several neutral & referenced details that are much better than the rough draft of the first proposal. For example the massive news coverage & CEO participation about the opening day issue addresses your initial questions about the pertinance. Canuckle (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox & Georgia Overlink

Minor suggestion here Walter. You do good most often with your frequent removal of OverLinks. However recently the removal of wikilinks to Georgia country makes me suggest that you keep more of that and similar wikilinks in the infobox and maybe article to assist readers. I say Georgia country because in the English-language population, readers may assume that Georgia is a US state or somewhere else, not the Asian country. So clicking on the wikilink will quickly show them the correct location. And also value wikilinks in Infoboxes more so than duplicate ones in the article body. Because Infoboxes are highly valuable to readers and are likely the first and possibly only area of reference for them. Much more so than the full body of the article.

Hope this makes sense for you.

Canuckle (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It's just a county and does not need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The Georgian luge team could be linked and there could be several others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Or link to Georgia at the Olympics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume 'county' written above is a typo. Because it is a countRy : Georgia (country) . And while "major geographic features" such as USA or London, England are said to not be Overlinked. Less familiar locations for English-language readers could be linked. Also, WP:OVERLINK] states "if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes," So keep doing your improvements on a small details ... But please occassionally consider how leaving links might help users. Canuckle (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It should have been country. And United States, U.S. or US, never USA (WP:NOTUSA). We are not dealing with infoboxes either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

User Alternative IP Box

I just created the new Template:User Alternative IP box. It's exactly like Template:User alternative account you're currently using, except it links to contributions rather than the user page, since it is specifically designed for IP accounts. I haven't created a template like this before, so I would appreciate any reviews or suggestions. I thought it might be useful to you. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Can they adjust Access Date dmy?

Hi Walter - Do you know how to ask them to adjust the Access Date button on the citenews/citeweb reference template? Because when I and others click on the button, it results in 2 January 2017 format which you spend a lot of effort on corrections to make consistent with the mdy January 2 2017 date format standard. Amazing it's been that way for so long. Just a minor suggestion. Canuckle (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Canuckle: If you use either reFill or Webreflinks those tools automatically check if one of the date formatting templates is present and uses the date format. If it doesn't find one the former uses dmy while the latter uses ISO-8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

BlogTO

Hi Walter, I noticed you reverted my edit a few days ago on Toronto sign because the source was BlogTO. It's not a personal blogging site but rather a locally-oriented news website that tends to focus on arts and culture in Toronto that's been cited quite a few times across Wiki. That being said, since the story about the maple leaf has filtered out to the "old media" (my personal opinions of the Toronto Sun notwithstanding) I won't be putting it back. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@RA0808: Thanks for the info. I know what you mean about the Toronto Sun, but they have what it takes to meet WP:RS, while I couldn't find the necessary info on the BlogTO site to satisfy RS. I was looking for a staff page and an editorial policy. Glad we got a source anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Cast Table (Murdoch Mysteries)

I don't understand why this specific cast table doesn't have capitalized letters, while pretty much all other cast tables for other tv shows are all capitalized?

Forsaken11 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Forsaken11: Let me break this down into two separate questions. Are you suggesting that I am misinterpreting MOS:CAPS? The words are not complete sentences or proper names, so I think I am treating them correctly. I could be wrong. {{CMain}}, {{CRecurring}} seems to argue that I am wrong, yet these are not templates that you used. I would be interested in knowing how I have misunderstood that MoS.

Could the other articles be applying MOS:CAPS incorrectly? I suspect that they could be, and the templates I linked above may need to be updated as well based on the current understanding of the MoS. Perhaps we should take this to the talk at MOS:CAPS. I would certainly like to know if I am or am not correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you misinterpreted MOS:CAPS, I'm just curious as to why this is the first time I have seen a cast table with lowercase letters . It does surprise me, because if you are right then a lot of experienced users have made this mistake. Take a look at the Grey's Anatomy cast table. That is a pretty busy article, and nobody has pointed out that the table should be lowercase. Yes, I do think that we should bring this up on the template itself. Forsaken11 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The link to software maintenance

Software maintenance was removed because it appears in the navbox Software distribution. According to our policy on see also sections we do not normally repeat items in see also lists which appear elsewhere on the page. - Shiftchange (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Natasha Owens

Hello Walter. Could you perhaps have a glance at this one? Thanks. Karst (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Quickflight

Just fixed some references on this one. I noticed the CCM link went to a 404. Tried to retrieve it, but no luck. Also reviewed the AfD from 2011 and was wondering what your opinion is on it now, considering you edited the page before. Karst (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. They were a notable band. First pure new wave/synthpop band in CCM. ATF was doing similar in the UK, but they were more guitar-driven. Notable for their advancement of the genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Canada

I am not sure if you noticed but I am in a small edit war over at the Canada article. I am simply not a fan of the new changes naming people in the lead nor am I a fan of sources (wedsites) being added. I not sure what to do here....never had a problem like this at our parent Canada article...that is someone not willing to seek consensus after there changes have been reverted from a version stable for a decade. You watch the article what do you think is better? the old version with no names and no sources...or the one I keep reverting?-this version or this version. I am having a problem in a few articles with this same person...mainly about the usage of New France vs Canada (New France). He seems to think history follows the place named Canada and its evolution instead of the history of all the areas that now encompass Canada as a whole. I have linked some scholarly books for him in hopes he abandons websites in his search for information. -- Moxy (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed and because an editor—not the one you're having problems with—is being belligerent, I'm avoiding the page. I'll request page protection until consensus is reached. For the record, I do like the new infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I dont really care about the infobox and is why I haven't really commented. They are arguing about adding links that are already in the article so makes no differences to me. My main concern here is we have an editor that seems to have very odd view of how history is told.-- Moxy (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am getting even more concerned when i read the sources being used. I dont think hes reading the sources as a whole...just searching for the text he likes. For example for claiming 1534 as the founding of Canada hes using this source (that I like} but clearly say "Nevertheless New France was officially founded around 1604 to 1608 by Intendant Samuel de Champlain and Pierre Dugua de Mons. W. I dont dispute the date 1534 ...but I do have a problem with the wording used when even the sources he links use the right terms for the right time and he does not. -- Moxy (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Charles Billingsley (musician)

I prodded this perhaps a little hastily, but it was then pointed out to me that his latest album had entered the Billboard charts. I tagged the article for an update. Perhaps you can add a few references from the Christian Music arsenal (you are more familiar with it then I am) to ensure the article has notability established. At the moment it just reads as if he is a local minister who sings and writes music on the side. Karst (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Karst: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music might be a better place to make the request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. Karst (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay Kokinoma (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha Gazelle

Hi, what should we do? Aha Gazelle does not have a Wikipedia page. He just joined Reach Records and the 1•1•Six clique. Should we make a page? I can work on it, but don't know how to start a page. RoyalsLife 16:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@RoyalsLife: Having a contract does not make a musician notable. If the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO (with sufficient references to support) then create the article! Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake

Walter, I apologize for editing in a bad source in Reno 1868 FC. Would this be acceptable? http://www.kolotv.com/content/sports/Reno-1868-FC-fans-start-Battle-Born-Brigade-club-388205802.html

Thanks for keeping people like me from messing things up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaffOutLoud (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@RaffOutLoud: It looks good to me. Hopefully it passes muster with the other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Unwed Sailor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is misplaced and There is nothing for me to do here and Chubbles has clearly made a point that I both understand and reject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Are you proposing that track lists for albums fail WP:V? Albums are published works; you can take the track list right off the back cover, and even if you don't, there are trivially easy verifying sources for most albums, like Allmusic. This is not in the slightest controversial information, and hidebound demand for sources for it seems only to serve WP:POINT and WP:LAWYER purposes. It's like demanding a reliable source other than the book itself for the contents of a collection of short stories. If what irks you is the presence of a stand-alone article, the relevant content can be moved to a discography page. Chubbles (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chubbles: The reason is present in the PROD: the albums fail WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. That's why they were redirected as well, yet you claim that the content should be saved somewhere rather than deleted. Yet, WP:V states that it doesn't need to be kept at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to content; if the albums don't meet the notability standard, that is not a condemnation of the content in toto. Chubbles (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Move it before it's deleted and restore the redirect yourself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Why am I being bullied into this action? Why don't you do something constructive and create a discography page, instead of demanding that I take care of what you call a mess? I don't understand the urgency or stridency of your demands at all. Who died and made you admin? Chubbles (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you suggesting that I am bullying you into the action? I did do something constructive: I changed the articles to redirects as they were not notable. There is no urgency either: PRODs take seven days to complete. Alternately, you could remove the PROD and I would be forced to take the articles to AfD which take at least a week to close. I don't believe the content is worth saving so there's no motivation for me to save the track listings. And discographies don't usually contain track listings, so I wouldn't definitely not create such an article for that purpose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Barnstar.

Dear Walter , I’m sending you this message, as I have noticed that you made a contribution to the article Worcester Hydra, and I decided, that for you it can be interesting to have a look at a new Worcestershire Barnstar, which I designed just couple of days ago for the very good, but not very active at the moment Worcestershire Project (WP:WORCS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Worcestershire I think, that the Project of beautiful Worcestershire (as soon, as British weather will become a bit nicer, I’m planning to visit the Archaeological sites of Worcestershire, make good photos and then to start an article about Archaeological findings of Worcestershire — the place, where everything sounds as an ancient melody) deserves to have its own symbol, what will also work as momentum of positive energy, helping to make it more lively; so, as a participant of the Wikipedia Awards Project, I decided to create WORCS Barnstar, using as the central motive an emblem, used even in ancient times — by Worcestershire units at the Battle of Agincour; now this symbol - county's famed black pear - also decorates the Flag of Worcestershire. So, it will be very kind of you, if you will look at the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards and give your support to the Worcestershire Barnstar, if you will like it. Your participation will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Atlanta FC opening game

Hi Walter, I noticed you recently edited the Atlanta FC article to replace my description of their opening weekend with a much terser version. I assume that due to the timing that this was accidental, but I just wanted to check if there was some more measured reason to your edits before simply reverting to the more detailed version. If I don't hear back I will assume it was unintentional and revert the changes. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@GiovanniSidwell: Less is more. If you can say it in fewer words, it's better. Not sure that having the third-highest attendance out of eleven matches is significant though, which is why I removed that. However, the original "reference" pointing to a Google search was terrible and your addition of sources was appreciated. Check other team articles to see how their first match is described and if you insist on verbosity, you can explain why in your edit.

This discussion should have probably taken place on the talk page of the article since other editors may be wondering where the addition went and why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I posted here because I did not think there would be a discussion about the content, in my mind removing content is not a "copy edit" and thus assumed your edit was erroneous somehow. I will consider your comments, and move any further discussion to the Atlanta FC talk page. Sorry for my misunderstanding. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Redlinks

I saw you mention in edit summaries that redlinks are no longer acceptable. Can you show me where this consensus arose? Because I was not aware that this was the case. I actually had, during my featured article review for Viking metal, someone recommend a redlink be added for a term mentioned in the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been reading {{uw-redlink}} wrong. I was reading it as "indiscriminate addition of redlinks" when it is actually "indiscriminate removal of redlinks". There is no consensus, but experienced editors are moving away from adding redlinks. As you likely know, Wikipedia:Red link is where the guideline is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. I'm not sure I like that trend, but we'll see how things go.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

News to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Linking dispute

Hello Walter Görlitz, I am understanding of the fact that you are currently blocked. I do not look down on you for it and I am taking it into account when writing. I replied to your message on my talk page three days ago, but I have not received a response. I just want to ensure that you see it so that for any further actions you take, it is known that you are aware of my counterargument. I am willing to take into consideration any response you give once your block expires, whether here or on my talk page.

Here is my (slightly modified) response:
"I appreciate your desire to uphold WP:OVERLINK and WP:LINKING, but they aren't violated in this case. Take a look at the example at WP:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force – linking the typical instruments in music genre infoboxes is standard, as seen in the rock, jazz, disco, country, reggae, blues, soul, house, bluegrass, heavy metal, rhythm and blues, lounge, hardstyle, funk, K-pop, J-pop, Mandopop, dance-pop, electro, ska, Miami bass, grime, contemporary R&B, flamenco, polka, crunk, gospel, surf music, Afrobeat, drum and bass, baggy, schlager, Paisley Underground, new jack swing, grunge, trap, cakewalk, New Age music, glitch, punk rock, zydeco, jungle, skiffle, horrorcore, snap, dansband, world, intelligent dance music, bossa nova, boogie-woogie, wonky pop, contemporary Christian music, highlife, blackgaze, bouyon, chiptune, yé-yé, kayōkyoku, beat, hardcore, merengue, dubstep, rocksteady, boogie, old-time music, ryūkōka, doo-wop, moombahton, big band, downtempo, trance, Jesus music, samba, Britpop, mariachi, dub, emo, and vaporwave articles. I find it highly unlikely that all 70+ of these music genre articles are formatted incorrectly."

Regards, LifeofTau 08:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Ask yourself a question. Is a reader going to ask themselves, "what's that country where rock music started? You know, the big one south of Canada and North of Mexico?" If you think they are and will then go to the Wikipedia article to click through to it, then it's not an overlink. Similarly if you think they'll want a link to a guitar or electric guitar there, then it should definitely be there. That's essentially what WP:OVERLINK says. Now I appreciate you bringing this here, but it should probably be discussed on a project page, either on the linking project or Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Would you mind if I moved it there? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There may have been a misunderstanding, as I am actually in agreement regarding whether countries should be linked (I would argue that subnational entities should still be linked, however). This may be confusing since this change of opinion came only shortly after the initial dispute began on the urban contemporary gospel page. However, both my revision on that page and my response here concern only the linking of instruments, which is where I believe there is disagreement. While I appreciate your conciliatory approach, whether a policy such as WP:OVERLINK is violated cannot possibly be decided on a user-by-user basis; it is instead much more reasonable to consider the established precedent set by the majority of other articles. This is why I went to the trouble of linking over 70 music genre articles that link instruments in the infobox — if linking the typical instruments was a violation of WP:OVERLINK, it would not be done on all these music genre articles, especially on many of the most significant and highly trafficked ones. As for whether this discussion should be moved to another page, while I wouldn't mind, I don't see how it would be appropriate — I think it would make sense if this was a discussion of whether the existing policies or standards should be changed rather than of whether they are being upheld or followed in this specific instance.

Apologies for such a belated reply. LifeofTau 10:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Zebra striping

I want to reach out to you personally first regarding the zebra striping issue on Seattle Reign FC#Coaching staff before getting Wikipedia:FOOTY involved. Mostly, I am interested in hearing in greater detail why you thought zebra striping is an appropriate choice there, considering that usually one only uses the function to highlight a particular row for very specific reason (rather than purely for aesthetic reasons as you seemed to be doing). In your edit history summary, you wrote that "Yet the function is there" to justify zebra striping; this struck me as illogical since just because a function is available doesn't mean one has to use it or use it for no particular reason. Furthermore, none of the table templates listed in Wikipedia:FOOTY#Manual of style uses zebra striping by row, and the default shade of gray highlight is typically only used for the header row (e.g., United States women's national soccer team#Coaching staff). From my point of view, you seemed to be insisting on a stylistic choice that makes little sense, potentially creates confusion (e.g., "Why is this particular assistant coach highlighted? Did something happen with him/her?"), and is not currently used in other football pages. Mightytotems (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think FOOTY is the right place as they designed and "own" the template. They don't list staff on the articles at the MoS so I'm not sure why you are appealing there and plenty of articles don't use the correct formatting, so appealing to them doesn't help either. I could easily appeal to all the articles that correctly use the zebra striping so it's a zero-gain discussion. FOOTY is the right place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. I still don't fully understand why you think zebra striping is the "correct" formatting for tables, but I'll do what you suggested and take it up with Wikipedia:FOOTY. Mightytotems (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Lukas Podolski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is misplaced. It should be discussed on the article of the subject, not here. The guideline is clear.

---

With respect, no it wasn't explained in the revert, hence my initial message on your page asking for clarification. If it had been explained to my satisfaction or understanding, I wouldn't be here! As I said initially, your revert on the Lukas Podolski page claimed I had violated Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies, but as I explained here earlier, as far as I'm aware I have not done so, and need you to explain specifically what rule I have violated, given that I have already said that his nationality is relevant as his notability is for representing a country he is not from, and that at no point did I reference his ethnicity. So, again, could you please explain why you made the revert, given that the explanation there was decidedly not satisfactory. Thanks! The Raincloud Kid (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

With respect WP:OPENPARA is clear: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." He is notable as a professional footballer. He plays for a professional club and a national team. As such "German" is the only adjective that should be used and his current club may be listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lmao I'm so sad that he's leaving Germany he was my fav player😓 Miasanmia2002 (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

ISO Master

The subject article was PRODed by yourself - it has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD in the light of this result. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Headlines

So with a section like this where all the song titles are formatted with semicolons, how would I proceed? I would normally put bold markup. Now, apparently, subheaders would be appropriate? I'm so confused because it clearly doesn't work on every page. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Convert to prose or possibly a table? That's a good question to raise at accessibility. Great job on standardizing all of the album articles btw. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

child cats for USL team cats?

I don't understand what you're talking about. I added Category:United Soccer League players which contains players who have played in at least one USL league match, which PC has done. You're confusing me with United Soccer League players by club, but that category doesn't exist. – Michael (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mikemor92: If the you add Category:United Soccer League players to Category:Orlando City B players, and the latter is on the PC page, then he's in both automatically. If you remove the United Soccer League players category from the Orlando City B players category, you have to add United Soccer League players category to each player on the team. Why didn't you continue this discussion on your talk page? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not continuing the discussion on the talk page. And by the way, if they never played in a USL match at any point in their career, then no I don't have to add the United Soccer League players category. – Michael (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Just to clarify: should they have Category:Orlando City B players if they never played for them, or are you saying Orlando City B was in a different league in the past? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well no, it's not like a city was granted an expansion team and they decided to use the same name from a team playing in a different league. But OCB started last season. As for the question regarding having Category:Orlando City B players despite not playing for them. That's debatable since they're an affiliated club of Orlando City SC. For players that are on the Orlando City SC roster, if they're assigned to OCB, but they end up not playing a match for the USL team, then I don't even add the club to the infobox. For players that are just contracted by Orlando City B, but not Orlando City, then yes I would leave the category on their page. I know it sounds confusing, but I've been directing traffic with stuff like this, just to maintain a little consistency. – Michael (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Poison & Wine redirect

Thanks for the redirect on Poison & Wine. I am ambivalent on the EP's notability, but I wonder if you could help me understand what happens to this article now. If it's non-notable, shouldn't it be nominated for deletion? Otherwise, it just hangs there where nobody will ever see it. Or is that okay? I noticed the article's existence a couple of weeks ago, and linked to it from The Civil Wars discography; now the link just forwards to The Civil Wars. Should I just remove the wikilink from the discography page? The way it is now seems silly. Thanks for helping me better understand how these things work. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchell k dwyer: Since it may be a useful search term or used as a link for an article, it is likely to become a redirect anyhow. It's easy enough to redirect it to the band's discog article. If you want, it can go to an AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to have you working here

…and hope you can stand a curmudgeonly old editor, so that we might work together at some point. XP Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Castillo

In reply to your response on both Mark Castillo's page and on my talk page, there is indeed a source I did forget to put in the article but as well he did post on Facebook that he was born deaf. I'll gladly put the edit back on as well as adding the reference. NellyOriginPMOD (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the source you added? It's written as a letter by Castillo but immediately after the author of the article states "Okay, okay, so I obviously made that whole thing up". Removed again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Kind of my fault for not reading it 100% NellyOriginPMOD (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

L1O Coaches

I was going to update the list of L1O coaches from what the league website has - do I need a separate reference for each team page or can I just include a general note about where the info came from? -Gopherbashi (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gopherbashi: A general note should be fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks -Gopherbashi (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Question

I have a question for you, why you removed periods from the notes section in album articles, such as this and saying that they are not sentences. Is that even in the guidelines? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• @TheAmazingPeanuts: They're not all sentences. Some, especially the first ones, are sentence fragments. The credits for the sampling are sentences. See WP:BULLET and MOS:LISTBULLET. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay the sample credits are sentences, do they need to require periods if they are full sentences? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

They could probably use them, but they could easily be reformatted as not being sentences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I made this edit, what do you think of it? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

recent NASL edit & unrelated question

Hi Walter,

My thought process was simple on that North American Soccer League (1968–84) edit, if "soccer" inside [[ ]] already redirects the reader to "association football" anyway, then why would you go to the trouble of setting up the link as "association football | soccer" ? That just seemed to superfluous to me. If that's flawed logic b/c of MOS or something else, I get it. No worries on my end. Just trying to be tidy.

While I have you here, I have another question though. Another editor has begun putting flag icons beside the names off every NASL all-star team on the NASL season pages. So far 1978 season – 1982 season have been done. Is this considered an overuse of flag icons? I seem to remember something like this coming up between two editors a few years back on another footballing page and wanted to ask someone with more experience to take a look at what was going on. Thanks and, as always, kind regards –Creativewill (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In a Valley by the Sea

I just realized this article was deleted based on few information about the EP. I'm including a link from Hillsong showing the availability of this item. https://hillsongstore.com/in-the-valley-by-the-sea-next-gen-ep-digital-audio/ Abrahamvf (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Abrahamvf: Albums must meet certain criteria for inclusion. Availability is not one of them. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG explain the criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, it went through a deletion discussion also known as an AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, got it! Thanks. Abrahamvf (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hillsong United page

I changed the information of the pic but I saw you changed it back. However, information of the pic is wrong. That pic was taken on October 8th, 2005 during United We Stand album recording. Abrahamvf (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Abrahamvf: The image,File:Hillsong United.jpg, is yours and I checked on commons. I have fixed the caption. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Boy

Sorry about that double revert on the Boy article. By the time I changed it, I had not noticed that you fixed it. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've been on your end of edits like that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Harperism

• Talk:Harperism what do you think?--Moxy (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

lol just saw......guess i am 5mins behind the world,--Moxy (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Integration Testing

Hi Walter,

Thanks for taking the time to message me regarding the reverted external links I added to the 'Integration Testing' page yesterday.

You state that the links have been removed as they 'seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia'. Is possible can you please inform me which of the links seemed inappropriate and why? Apologizes, this has been my first Wikipedia edit.

The primary reason for my edit (and reason for my account creation), was to remove the misleading text that currently exists (on inspection another editor has also tried to remove it, but it to has been reverted). Some of the current description has been taken from a referenced document from 1986 and no longer applies! The industry has progressed somewhat over 31 years of computing. If I can achieve one thing this week, and one thing alone, it would be to at least remove the misleading text.

I had hoped to also add the additional information describing the differences between integration testing 'in the small' and 'in the large' (I wrote the additional text after some 17 years of integration testing). I had thought that rather than leaving the new paragraph unreferenced, that I would add references to back up these new claims. Would the new text be belter without any references or is the problem with the format of the references / the ownership of the sites reference?

Many Thanks for your help. Arood (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Arood: When I reverted I referenced the WP:REFSPAM portion of SPAM guidelines. The source you provided, www.testingexcellence.com/integration-testing-in-large is not a reliable source and it feels as though you're trying to promote Amir Ghahrai's work. If you would like to cite a reliable, recognized source that would be acceptable. I also see that you went afoul of cluebot as well. You might want to tag the sections with {{citation needed}} instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope we can be on friendly terms

I have seen some of your good work during my time on Wikipedia. I especially appreciate your help in keeping the cruft out of List of rock genres. If I did something to offend you it wasn't intentional, but I will apologize anyway. I hope our current disagreement will be a friendly one that sometimes happens with different points of view. I will respect any consensus on the issue. If you don't feel the same way, I certainly respect your feelings, and I will try to avoid any future conflicts and wish you the best. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Thanks. No. I realize it's just differing approaches to copy editing. It's all good and we will come to consensus. I don't like things happening piecemeal, which is why I prefer taking things up to a high level first: project, MoS or guideline first, then down to an article. The process on "self-titled" or "eponymous" will work its way out and be applied uniformly across the project now. It's all good. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

N. T. Wright

Hello, Walter -- I see you've edited N. T. Wright, so I just wondered what you thought of this edit to N. T. Wright. On the one hand, it is sourced, but on the other it isn't very specific, so doesn't really add much to the article.

In your opinion, is it clear enough to what, exactly, the added sentence – specifically, the word "this" in the phrase "On this" – refers? What precedes this are several different threads in Wrights' works. Does "on this" refer to all of them, or only to the last one?  – Corinne (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: No. It's rather vague and even the reference doesn't support it well. It was uploaded from somewhere in Perth and the university associated with the author is just south of Perth (Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia). What the reference should do is provide a quote on the criticism, and ideally link back to the original criticism and state "as quoted in" the current source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Walter. I'm impressed that you have found all that information. Will you be reverting, or leaving a note for the editor? You would be on a more knowledgeable footing than I would be.  – Corinne (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: I think you should since you raise the issue. If you don't know how, I'll apply all the tags. Please let me know either way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I can think of several approaches:

1) Revert the edit and include an edit summary saying: "Unnecessarily vague".

2) Add a "clarification needed" tag and hidden note saying: "This is unnecessarily vague. A referenced quote from the original source of the criticism is needed."

3) Add a "clarification needed" tag and leave a note on the editor's talk page (which would be the first comment there).

or some combination of the above, or something else. What do you recommend?  – Corinne (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: I am fine with whatever you decide, but if you do 2) I would modify it by using a {{Request quotation}} and add a reason parameter for what would be interesting and combine it with 3). But 1) is probably the best option and add "possibly promotional reference". Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I will certainly follow your recommendation to go with (1), but could you explain what you mean by "add a reason parameter"?  – Corinne (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

With most templates you can add a parameter to explain further than the template alone. For instance {{citation needed|date=May 2017|reason=we need to have statistical validation as to whether birds suddenly appear every time you are near, not that the lyric is being sung}}. It is in essence a hidden comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I hadn't known about that.  – Corinne (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

NS premiers

Mewulwe's getting on my nerves at John Buchanan, with his pointy reverts. Perhaps ANI is should be considered. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: If he ignores consensus, yes. Until then, he thinks that schoolyard tactics will work. They are clearly not working. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Definition lists

Hello. I saw that you replaced valid headers with a semicolon in this edit. This generates invalid HTML and causes some web browsers to choke, including screen readers for the blind. Semicolons shouldn't be used outside of definition lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Superchic[k] and your attitude

Hello, Walter Görlitz. You have new messages at LABcrabs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Good Time

Why shouldn't I use serial comma?Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Luke Kern Choi 5: Interesting question. Perhaps the question could be asked in reverse: why wasn't there a serial comma there already and why does it need one? See MOS:SERIAL.

My reasons for reverting are two-fold

1. You claimed in your edit summary on that article, and in others where you did so, that it was about grammar, when it's not—it's a preference,
2. the manual of style states that "each article [should be] internally consistent", which it wasn't as you were adding it in one place.

I hope that clarifies the matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 International Champions Cup

Why did you use that template for flag icons with the nation name afterwards, makes the page look worse, already have country names in the tables above, it's not necessary on the fixtures list. You don't use that flag icon setup on other comp, tourney pages. Govvy (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: WP:OVERLINK, WP:REPEATLINK and MOS:ACCESS. The teams are not representing those nations so they shouldn't be there at all, but it's not worth arguing about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

? Sounds like you just contradicted your own edits! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

How's that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Tobacco Road FC

I've asked Orange Mike to have a look at that. There is something seriously wrong when a amateur team in an amateur league is deemed notable enough to keep without presenting any verifiable sources. scope_creep (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, I've moved the AfD to a new discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobacco Road FC (2nd nomination). ansh666 05:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Instruction (song) genre

Hi User:Walter Görlitz, do you know the genre(s) "Instruction" by Jax Jones is being called here [1]? I've looked through Google Translate for translation [2] and I'm not sure. It has to be explicitly and directly called a genre though (not just "influenced" or "mixed"), thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's usually best to have a clear indication rather than a suggestion: "...samba school. Then comes a beating of reggaeton...", but if you can't find anything more clear (or not in translation) it would do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Walter Görlitz, are you saying samba and reggaeton are appropriate to be used in infobox? What about "electronic"? As it's not a specific genre I don't like adding "electronic" as a genre, and I can't say electronic dance music (EDM), even if it's what they meant because it would be a guess on my part.--Theo Mandela (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say it's marginal. Ideally there should be a style section and that section should have multiple sources for the style of the song. If more sources can't be found, this would be OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean a "Composition" section? Like the one on "Shape of You" article for example. Which genres exactly is the Portuguese Billboard calling this song that can be used in infobox? Cheers.--Theo Mandela (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. That's the idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Will do User:Walter Görlitz, in your opinion what genres should be in infobox?--Theo Mandela (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I have not read all of the sources. What do the majority state? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Well User:Walter Görlitz, the other sources only say "samba-influenced", "dancehall-influenced", they don't explicitly call it by any genre that's why I left the genre in the infobox blank. This Portuguese Billboard source mentions it "mixes" the genres "electronic", reggaeton and samba, "samba school", "then a beating of reggaeton". It was another user that added these genres and source to infobox, I'm not sure which genres this song actually calls it.--Theo Mandela (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Great. The problem is that the a Portuguese music journalist may be using idioms we're not familiar with, which is why I'm cautious. I would think that the best way would be to add a style or composition section and include those "influences", but leave the infobox for the genres that are clearly discussed. It's not quite as clear, but it's the most fair to the reader. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you show me here User:Walter Görlitz, how to phrase what this source is saying into a Composition section please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Redação, writing for Billboard Brazil, writes that the track begins with a "battery of [the] samba school" and is followed by "a beating of reggaeton - the rhythm of the moment".(add ref here) I assume that other writers comment on the song as well and it would be one entry in that section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Heads-up re revert notification

Hi

I don't know whether you received any sort of notification or heads-up concerning this edit by Pax:Vobiscum, but possibly it only went to me and it seems more in your court than in mine. Best to you both. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added some sources, let me know if you have additional concerns and I'll add more. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Slide (Calvin Harris song) genre(s)

Hi User:Walter Görlitz, can you tell me what these sources ([3], [4], [5],[6]) are calling "Slide" by Calvin Harris please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that piano was linked at the start of composition section. None of the reviews make a clear statement on the genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll unlink piano User:Walter Görlitz, nu-disco is the one genre in the infobox, FACT says "Biggest surprise of 2017 (so far) is that this song is much better than its incongruous collaborators would suggest. Harris reaches back to his Ready for the Weekend days for some breezy nu-disco". It's not crystal clear to me, but do you think most people would see this as calling the song in whole nu-disco. Pitchfork mentions "California funk" and might be calling it pop.--Theo Mandela (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Nu-disco was one of the terms I was looking for. I must have missed that. It seems pop is the best to describe it, but that's such a large basket that it's not sufficiently descriptive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well User:Walter Görlitz, FACT magazine called the songwrtiting of "Slide" "pop songwriting", and Pitchfork calls it "this more traditional pop showcase." Is this explicitly calling it pop? Forbes says the song's production "blends R&B, pop and elements of hip hop into something difficult to label". When Pitchfork says "Things start off breezy enough, Harris dials down his jackhammer house throb for sleek California funk", and then goes onto to talk about Ocean and Migos' contributions, it's not talking about the song in general, but parts of it instead. What I'm stuck on is what's definitive enough to be allowable as an infobox genre? Thanks--Theo Mandela (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say no as there are too many adjectives around the genre name. The songs project might have a different spin on this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

So the article's not correct at the moment User:Walter Görlitz, would you edit the article's Composition section and infobox genre, to describe accurately what the music journalists said the song and it's influences are please? And thanks for helping understand the genres.--Theo Mandela (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz, if you had to say what genre/genres "Slide" is based on the sources shown here, what would you say please? Or if you know any other reliable sources? Because I think it's misrepresented in it's "Composition" section. I think you can help and you know when a music writer's not specific enough for it to be certain that the genres named are specifically in reference to the song.--Theo Mandela (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The Needle Drop

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding The Needle Drop should be count as an reliable source or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Krystal Meyers edit war

Hello Walter. I would like to know what happened on the Krystal Meyers article and why there was an edit war there. Although I didn't contribute much, I notice a series of reverts that remove information such as Krystal Meyers' alleged birth date. What was the idea behind that? I hope you can help me understand. Thank you. --LABcrabs (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@LABcrabs: I'm not sure of who the editor was but the claim was that the subject of the was manipulated by a manager (the subject's father) and that at some point the subject disappeared. I never fully understood the edit warring over the birth date. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The most recent edit-warring on that article was because editors were or a single editor was insisting on repeatedly adding a stated birthdate based on very unreliable sources (which would be against WP policy, especially considering it's a WP:BLP). At other times there has also been spurious content being repeatedly added both to the article and to the talkpage by an editor who has been blocked because of legal threats. Shearonink (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You can see on the talk page some of what happened. @StAnselm: and @Shearonink: were also involved in the editing and discussion. I don't know all of the details, but I believe it was someone who was pushing a specific PoV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Saying there were legal threats just about covers that one particular situation for me. And I'd like to leave it at that. Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. The threats appear to be delusional, though. "Over billion dollar lawsuit" because someone believes that Krystal isn't married, doesn't have three kids and isn't willfully serving in church. --LABcrabs (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Need help

How do I add sourced content? Fanboy00 (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Replacing "lucky charms" symbols in tables

Hi Walter. I see that in your edit on ZOEgirl's WAOMH CD article, you replaced my "lucky charms" symbol (🏁) with a more common symbol (†). However, I have a few concerns. Is there a Wikipedia policy or MoS that states this? If so, is the dagger ever considered to be a religious symbol? There are a few articles, such as Dance Dance Revolution Solo, where I wish to know which symbols to use. On Note (typography), I'm told that I should replace my second symbol (🌟) with a double dagger (‡). I'd just like to know your take on it and if there is a limit of how many symbols I should use, and also when to use symbols as opposed to numbered footnotes. --LABcrabs (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No policy or MoS that I know of, but that symbol does not display in either of my browsers (Firefox or Chrome) in Linux, and it displays differently in them under Windows. It may be misconstrued as a religious symbol, even though it's not. It is a common symbol though, and the ‡ would be a fine option as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Underneath The Gun

Hey man, I've edited Underneath the Gun's page, adding multiple references, notable sources mind you, allowing it to pass Wikipedia:MUSICBIO. I believe it also passes Wikipedia:GNG. Just wanted to let you know. I'm sorry you feel as though I am a pain in your side. All I am trying to do is help out in any way I can. Hope to hear back from you! Metalworker14 (Yo) 01:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a pain, no. Your work has been getting better. Not sure if it meets GNG, but it does look better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Lots of refs. A few seem to be RSes (some do not). Most are just routine mentions of albums or reviews, but it's not clear if the reviews are from professional reviewers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Worldwired Tour

Hi Walter,

I just hope don't bother anyone. Look, the only reason because I modify the information, is because Pollstar is the most reliable source of concerts, Billboard has nothing to do with them and it's nothing against the magazine. Pollstar data are more accurate than Billboard, It's not a subjective reason, It's well known by all that that is their specialty. If you ask that to the people who work in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, they will tell you exactly the same thing. I respect the modifications made by other editors, but I was the first to upload that information to the page a few weeks ago. Metallica deserves Pollstar numbers

Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCRUZ0204 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Mistake

On your talk to me, I think you have made a small mistake as I was only trying to correct song times and how long they were. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiMikasa (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

picture

I was trying to upload a picture to this page i am currently trying to create (an album page for a band) and it is not allowing me to upload it and i have tried to find multiple approaches to it and i do ahve to say it is quite frustrating when you try to upload something and it is working fine until it is not there for some strange reason, so if you could help me, that would magnificent, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiMikasa (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShiMikasa: what format is the image? Where are you trying to upload it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Bluhaze777 and the History of soccer in American cities

I don't get the big deal of why a few editors think having existing soccer history in North America is irrelevant. I think It isn't​ up to editors that hasn't contributed in research and time in doing this. I myself haven't even planned on being here for this long as I have and I have began my journey in the military as well.

History is history. While Europe has clubs that had been existing for over Centuries, there have been various clubs in the US and Canada that had came and gone in that same time span. They are general information as well. I want to show that. To let the reader have an idea that the MLS clubs' are not the first ever clubs in the cities they play in but the latest

So why is it irrelevant then for there not to show the cities' soccer heritage then if there is one? Soccer isn't the same in North America as in Europe so it should be seen and reflected as such on here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhaze777 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense to discuss the history of teams that carry on NASL or other era team names and make it clear that they're not a continuation. Just discussing the history of the sport is a bit irrelevant. You don't see the discussion of the history of all team in European articles, only those that eventually evolved into the current team. If that's not the case, it too should be removed.

I'm not sure where you should discuss it. Probably on the league article or on the talk page at the Footy project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Micheal W. Smith

I notice you work Smithy page. Could you come and look at Luke Shen-Tien Chi. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike7682 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Phil Parkes

You removed my addition of Phil Parkes' mention on Monty Python's Previous Record. He is mentioned on it, but I don't know of this fact ever being written about in a newspaper, so how can I ever include a reference to "prove" this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnalexwood (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Johnalexwood: There are books that discuss the Flying Circus. Perhaps one of those makes mention. And MOS:TRIVIA, and more specifically, MOS:POPCULT make it clear that the content must be sourced and ideally merged into the article. So if the mention was in 1972, then mention it when the article is discussing the player's career around that time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But he IS mentioned on the Monty Python album! All you have to do is listen to it! It's ridiculous that you can't mention something on Wikipedia that really is there, just because some other third party, not its actual source - and we all know how notoriously inaccurate and biased the media can be - hasn't ever mentioned it!Johnalexwood (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the mention notable or is it a throw-away line?

It does seem ridiculous. It's almost as if Wikipedia is trying to be a repository of encyclopedic information rather than a compendium of everything. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bayern Munich squad

Hello Walter. Out of curiosity, why did you remove the small-texts from Bayern Munich's squad? I think there are pretty useful as so lower-level information is depicted accordingly and isn't as dominant as before. Kind regards, DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not common and I would sooner see the lower-level content be removed. I thought I explained all this in the edit summary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well who defines what is common and the best solution? I don't see a valid point in your edit. DrunkenGerman (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The community. MOS:ACCESS is a concern. "Reduced font sizes should be used sparingly. Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." I don't know the size in the player box, so that's something to investigate.

A discussion can be made at WP:FOOTY as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Walter Görlitz. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks.—usernamekiran(talk) 07:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Picture sizes

Well, I guess no enlarging of thumbs would be good idea if it wasn't locked on width, but lowest dimension. Now vertical thumb can be huge and horizontal tiny. Mithoron (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC) {{[ping|Mithoron}} Correct. That's why there are options for those as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Note that I didn't initiate the report, but I noticed you've been mentioned and not notified by Bluhaze777. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

recent NASL 1978 edits

Walter, I just noticed that someone has made a lot of incorrect edits to the pages 1978 North American Soccer League season and 1978 North American Soccer League playoffs. They seem to center on the Seattle Sounders (1974–83) and their playoff seeding. I suspect that the changes may have been motivated by the lead up to the Portland-Seattle derby match played this past weekend, as no reference accompanied the changes. They mostly comprise switching Detroit and Seattle playoff positions and conferences, but a few other collateral errors were also made. Is there an easy way to revert these multiple edits all at once? As always, thanks in advance, –Creativewill (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Creativewill: if they're unreferenced, or removed referenced content, revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Double spaces

Could you explain what you mean by this? "Spacing is a preference"? A preference of yours? That's no reason to revert someone. The double spaces make the article look untidy and should be removed. — Zawl 17:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no preference for one or two spaces. I commented on your talk page about that as well. See MOS:PUNCTSPACE and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (spaces after a full stop/period). Editing to simply remove (or add) multiple spaces after a period is considered disruptive. I was simply drawing your attention with the revert. As I wrote on your talk page, please stop. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation. Didn't know spaces become hidden automatically. — Zawl 18:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

map

Hi Walter,

Do you know if there is a map which includes the US and Canada just like the USL map? I need to include Calgary on a map I'm creating for the National Lacrosse League. I've seen one or the other but not both, otherwise I'll have to use the map I've created for List of college bowl games. Thanks...

Roberto221 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

How about these: commons:file:North America, File:Usa edcp relief location map.png. There are others listed in the commons commons:Category:Location maps of North America and commons:Category:Location maps of the United States.

You can use the maps with Template:Location map+ and its associated templates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried them but Saskatoon, Saskatchewan is off the page. If the National Lacrosse League ever moved back to Edmonton, Alberta, I would have the same problem. I'm losing the northern-most teams or the southern-most. Thanks for the help.

Roberto221 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Years in navigation template

Not being argumentative, but legitimately asking the question - can you link me to the discussion you're referring to here. I haven't been aware of any discussions that had a consensus in support of it - the only ones I recall seeing was of my sentiment - that its discography information, not navigation information - and most of the instances I see of its implementation has stemmed from an editor that has refused to stop (but also generally doesn't edit war about it.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I was hesitant because I couldn't remember whether it was WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Albums or another location. I remember that there were about five people who discussed it. Only one editor was opposed to having the years, and the rest thought that they did no harm. Your point that they don't aid in navigation was not made. I agree that it does aid in navigation, but it does in classification and other organization. I'll see if I can find it later. Alternately, I could re-raise it at WikiProject Musicians to see if we can gain consensus. Some nav boxes avoid them (such as Template:U2 and Template:The Beatles) while others do (such as Template:Bruce Springsteen) and it's mixed with others (such as Template:The Rolling Stones, Template:The Doors). The vast majority do not, but maybe I'm just looking at big-name bands and they have a lot of albums so it's awkward to have them (or you've recently cleaned them up ;) ). Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thought about doing a bigger discussion on it too, to get a better consensus on it, but it seems like it could end up being a big time-sink, and it's not really all that big of an issue, or something I'm thatconcerned about. I'm not crusading about the project, eliminating all instances of it, I just tend to remove it occasionally here and there if I stumble upon it for one reason or another. I'm in a similar situation - I recall a discussion, but it was from years ago, and I don't remember the venue. That's why I was intrigued when you said that you knew of a discussion, and it appeared to be different from the one I recalled. Don't worry about digging it up though if it's going to be a project, we'll have to just start a new discussion about it someday. Anyways, thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Bro, you are doing great job i like it very much, i have doubts how to remove dead links and replace good links in wikipedia, i want to contribute something to wiki, please guide me bro... Masteryarun (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Categorization fixes

Thanks. As you may have seen from my talk, I did a bad job applying WP:GHETTO. I've tried to fix it with more logical category structures, etc. but the assistance of a valued editor is really handy. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've had the privilege of working with AWB as well. I know that doing things with it can be awkward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Genres

Hi User:Walter Görlitz, this source [7] mentions R&B and "electro funk" when describing Miracles (Someone Special). Do you know if there explicitly calling the song as a whole these or just parts please? Thank you.--Theo Mandela (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: My reading of the source is that it claims the songs on the EP have elements of those genres, but it doesn't come right out and absorb those genres. I would suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums or possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Soccer players

Re: this edit, the expat soccer players scheme is non-diffusing. I added a lot of the tags just now but in practice it's been non-diffusing for several years and some categories were already explicitly marked as such (e.g. Category:Icelandic expatriate footballers, which was marked two years ago.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Not quite sure what non-diffusing is, but Category:Canadian expatriate soccer players is a child cat of Category:Canadian soccer players. Feel free to explain how they are different. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem. To say a category is "non-diffusing" is to say that if you have the following structure:

 Grandparent category

   /        |         \

Parent A   Parent B   Parent C

 |      /     |     \        |

 ...  Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 ...

Then something in "Child 2" way down in the hierarchy could be "non-diffusing" and so it must also be in either Parent B (its parent category) or another child of Parent B (e.g. "Child 3"). Does that make sense?

Or to put it another way, this is already the practice for tens of thousands of articles, so while you may object to it (and honestly, I would probably be on you side), it is something to be discussed at a higher level than just this one biographical article.

If you want documentation on this, you can see examples at WP:GHETTO. The goal is that articles such as biographies of women authors are not in the last rung of a category scheme. So someone in Category:20th-century British women writers is at least also in another subcategory of Category:20th-century British writers, such as Category:20th-century British journalists or Category:20th-century British poets. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is what WP:SOCCER recommends for categorizing biographies: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Category. Note that some women's players are not in the national category but several are (e.g. for Americans Beverly Yanez, Shannon Boxx, Libby Stout, Alyssa Naeher, etc.) My reading of this is that women should be in [foo]ian soccer players and [foo]ian women's soccer players (which is consistent with my reading of WP:GHETTO as well). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Sorry, I somehow reverted you. I have corrected myself. Red Jay (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for help with COI edit

Hello, Walter. You correctly flagged two dead links on the Ranorex page. There are two others that are dead and one from a low-quality source. I have found what I believe to be good sources to replace these dead links and submitted a COI edit request on the Talk:Ranorex talk page. This request also asks for removal of material that is no longer supported by the footnotes. I made sure that the remaining material is all properly supported.

However, the COI edit request backlog is extremely long with about 80 requests pending, some as far back as May and June. Would you have time to review my requested changes and make them, if you feel they are appropriate? I would be most grateful! Kind regards, Jaking01 (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Walter. Thanks for your reply on the previous request. I apologize for reaching out to you again, but you seem to be one of the most active editors in the Software Testing space. I am looking for help with three things: 1) creating a company page for Ranorex GmbH, 2) renaming the product page from Ranorex to Ranorex Studio (to eliminate confusion between the company and the product), and 3) doing some content update and especially standardizing the formatting of the rest of the sources.

I have created the following to try to make this easy for an editor: 1) a page for Ranorex GmbH in the draft space, 2) line-by-line changes requested on the Ranorex talk page, as well as a complete copy of the revised page in my sandbox User:Jking/sandbox2.

Would you be willing to look at these changes? Thank you in advance, either way. Best regards! Jaking01 (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Overlink?

How does my edit violate OVERLINK?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: Do you think a reader of English Wikipedia does not know what we mean by Australians? It's a sufficiently common term that we don't need to link back to that article. It's also a way to avoid linking to the nation, which is a clear violation of OVERLINK. How do you think it doesn't violate OVERLINK? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I've just seen that done on other pages. Never mind then.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 

And yes, it is possible for someone who knows English as a second or third language to read the English Wikipedia and be familiar with Australia but not know the English word for Australia.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And confuse it with The country south of Czechia. Of course. I suppose they could read "The brothers were born in Sydney" and get the link off Sydney. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as a resident of the little country south of Czechia, so many people do indeed confuse it with the Land Down Under that there's even a t-shirt Jaking01 (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Official Christian and Gospel Albums Chart article

Hi, I've seen your recent edit [8] on Official Christian & Gospel Albums Chart. I can see that your edit was probably correct, but there is now inconsistency in the article.

Going forward, I think we need to choose a method and stick to it:

• link everything - may violate WP:REPEATLINK
• delete all links relating to re-entries so that links are on the row referring to the first time at number one only
• delete links so that each artist and record label has one link only

I think I prefer the second option, as this is not an article that someone would read from start to finish so it would be good to include the relevant links to the album, artist and record label for the first occurrence of each song.

Let me know how you think we should proceed,

The boss 1998 (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@The boss 1998: Thanks for the comment, but it should have been made on the article itself. I immediately recognized the inconsistency. We should honour REPEATLINK so that artists and albums only have one entry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought that I should have posted on the article talk page but I've posted on talk pages before and got no response and I previously wasn't aware of the ping template so I decided to go to you directly. I will make the changes and remove the links next time I update the article, most likely at the weekend or early next week.

Thanks for your help,

The boss 1998 (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

AIV Report

Regarding the editor at Andy Mineo, I am going to decline to block. An edit warring warning was given by Fred, and I don't see evidence that it has continued yet. Your concerns noted, I just don't think I can block as obvious vandalism. If they continue warring though, feel free to let me know. -- ferret (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: My initial level four warning was probably a bit rash, but it was done because of the editor's selected name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'm right there with you, but the user's explanation seemed plausible. Let me know if there's any more trouble. -- ferret (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Correction

If you were intended to remove the languange=en to prevent that reference being marked as English languange you were completely wrong. Note what you have done here. Is not about the article perse, but your intention. That link do not work without that parameter. Thanks for the clean up anyway, I have restored the reference myself. --Osplace 00:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Have have a number of fixes when I use AWB that are automatic, and yes, removing languange=en from a {{cite web}} is correct on English Wikipedia. However, it should not have been done inside the URL itself. Thanks for correcting it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I could follow your intention, AWB is very powerful. You are welcome. --Osplace 01:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Red

Hello, my friend! My big apologies for the lack of edit summaries. You're right; I tend to get excited to make articles better and therefore skip that golden description text box. I'll do so going forward. Thank you for the monitoring! Peace, LowSelfEstidle (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Tom Waits genre

Hi, I am inviting past editors of the Tom Waits article to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Tom_Waits#Genres. I am in dispute with User:TheOldJacobite, who has reverted even my sourced changes and ignored my appeals to discuss the issue. Please express your opinion on the issue if it interests you.--MASHAUNIX 18:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Notaker

I noticed your edits to this article and would like to inquire: as you may have already noticed, I already removed several sources from this article ahead of your edits to the article, but even then, I still can't find anything in RS that would meet the requirements set by both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Maybe a few passing mentions, but no significant coverage (unless the first reference already covers that and I didn't see it.) Since I already withdrew an AfD before on this article, I was hoping someone else would be better inclined to take the article to AFD again considering the lack of coverage and recent discussion about the reliability of some of the sources used (namely Your EDM and EDM Sauce, as described here.) Do you think this article is another case similar to JOYRYDE? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: I had issues with the sources as well, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to take it to an AfD. EDM is one of those niche genres where good sources may be hard to come by. Let me know if you PROD or take to AfD. I'll join that discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Governor General appointments

Walter, you undid my edit, quoting a CBC report as being a definitive constitutional expert. Reporters seldom are, and in fact cause many people to misunderstand our constitution.

I'm not going to take the time to get into our constitution and orders-in-council, but I will offer this much better factual source and hope you will revert to my edit and allow it to stand: https://www.royal.uk/canada?ch=2 "The Governor General is appointed by The Queen upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada"Steveedee (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Steveedee: that's a primary source. The Queen herself does not select the GG, the PM does. The PM then makes a recommendation and the Queen grants ascent. I cannot recall in recent history when the recommendation was ever questioned or ignored, but that would likely not make the news for reasons of diplomacy. The facts are simple, and the constitution and decades of common law notwithstanding, the Queen is little more than a figurehead and carries no inherent power.

And for the record, you should have started this discussion on the talk page of the article where the edits were made. Carrying on this discussion in a corner like this is not productive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Intentional or a mistake

With this edit you placed my signature in the middle of my posting, when I had signed it at the end. Was the edit intentional or did you make a mistake? -- PBS (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I didn't see the signature. It was intentional. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Re: your edit summary here, this new editor (which I despise) adds language=en. You might consider figuring out why they added it to the editor. Hmlarson (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Kanye West

Hi User:Walter Görlitz, do you know what genres McCormick explicitly calls these Kanye songs [9] please? Thanks Theo (edits) 15:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

external links on Nabeel Qureshi

Hi Walter Görlitz, sorry for the bother, but since you have experience editing the "external link" sections of article I thought of asking you if you thought the Bismika Allahuma and Christianity Today links in the Nabeel Qureshi (author) article were appropriate (see here). In my opinion they seem to violate WP:ELBLP as they are both non-neutral and especially the former is mostly about disputing the subjects views and coming up with alternative conspiracy theories for his death. I've tried removing them but editors keep reverting them back. If these links are in fact appropriate please just let me know and I will leave them there thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner -- amendment

I noticed that you were not satisfied with my contribution.

That is fine, but if you want to remove it outright, you should establish your rationale for doing so.

The Editor who took exception, at the very least said "it did not come from Blade Runner".

The statement in itself gave me an opportunity to reflect upon my contribution, and shore up my basis for adding it in the first place.

Please note, I placed my contribution in the "Cultural Impact" section, from what I was able to gather, it meant how Blade Runner affected other media which drew inspiration from the film.

Again, if you believe that I was wrong, tell me why the contribution is not worthy for addition.

MrX2077 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Football bio stats table

Hello. I might be missing something obvious, but I'm afraid you've lost me. What editor, where, says what's compulsory? If you've got issue with a particular editor, I'd suggest you take it up with them rather than trying to change content at the suggested table layout that's been there for nearly four years.

Referencing should always be compulsory. A reference sat at the top of the table next to an as-of date isn't and never has been. It's better than nothing, and (in my personal opinion) is good enough where a single source really does cover the subject's entire career, but inline referencing per row is preferred for obvious reasons of clarity. AFAIK, there's no compulsion about anything in the layout of the table, including the match played thing, although standardisation and WP:MOS compliance (where applicable) are good things in general.

WP:BRD suggests that the editor wanting to make the change should start any discussion. The table was first added as a rough layout in May 2013, and made no mention of references. I'm guessing they were taken for granted. The match played wording was added in November 2013, at the same time as some of the bullet point notes, including the one about refs. I intend to restore the four-year status quo, and suggest that if there's something specific you want to change, you take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players.

Or alternatively, explain to me what it is I'm missing. Either way, best not make your changes again without a discussion or people might start thinking we're edit warring. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Struway2: Please check my edit history. An editor claimed that because the example showed it, that this is the way it should be presented in articles. The claim is that it is recommended at [the template]" and "has been standard practice for a good few years now". Not sure why it was added in the first place, but why add the unnecessary words? And definitely the reference should be supplied. I can start the discussion if you would like. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That wording was added because people were starting to use it, to avoid ambiguity: it helps both reader and any future updater by telling them explicitly the exact point at which the stats are up-to-date. Plenty of editors used to update stats on a Saturday morning when they had the time, so you'd get tables updated as of that Saturday's date, but excluding the match played that Saturday afternoon. Which was more than a little misleading...

I don't understand why a reference is needed next to the as-of date as well as the one that should be present on the current season row? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The reference is needed for the whole table if none exists. If the stats are updated Saturday morning and the player plays in a match Saturday afternoon, shouldn't the stats match a source? If so, "matches played" is superfluous and we're just relying on "last edit wins" when it comes to stats. The whole lot should be moved to wikidata anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course a reference is needed for the whole table if the rows aren't individually sourced: the third bullet point below the stats table layout says so. But there's no reason why it needs to appear next to the as-of date as if that's the recommended way to do it when it isn't.

The matches played wording is for clarity: so that the reader knows what they're looking at without having to consult sources. Maybe wikidata could be a solution, in the future. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Editors should always consult sources. WP:V and all that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Readers, not editors. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

But if the editor doesn't rely on the content of a source, the reader is forced to become an editor and revert. Agreed that the emphasis at WP:V is on the reader. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You're losing me again. Have I said something to suggest editors shouldn't consult a source? if I have, I never intended to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No. I'm in agreement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

scandroid afd

Although I know this is early (as it hasn't quite been the full 7 days), but I want to ask if the requirements have been met so that we can close the AfD on Scandroid. I'm still editing and adding to the article; however since you haven't been active on the AfD page since Michig posted Keep, I wanted to get your opinion (as you were the proposer of the PROD and deletion to begin with). I will finish by adding thank you for the minor editing on the article. cssc 00:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. There's nothing to comment on his !vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And the article itself? I see your edits but nothing else. If there is something that needs to be done, wouldn't it be better to discuss it? It just seems that you've gone dark after pushing for deletion is all. cssc 00:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The AfD is the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know; but you have yet to respond to anything past that in the AfD. As the one whom proposed deletion, I would hope you'd be more actively discussing issues on the page. If you still have issues regarding GNG or MUSICBIO, I'd like you to make them clear. Otherwise I can only assume you have no objections to keeping the page. cssc 00:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought I responded four times (at least). It's not my job to object or support any comments in an AfD. It's my job to alert the community of potential problems and open a discussion. It's up to another editor to decide whether I'm right or wrong, and an uninvolved editor to determine if the discussion should continue or not and determine a course of action when closing the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

NF (rapper)

Hi Walter. Ss112 left me a note expressing concern over some recent edits on NF (rapper) while noting that you two have not always seen eye to eye. I think he doesn't want to get bogged down in any disputes so he asked me to drop you a line. I'm not seeing anything in the recent editing history that strikes me as likely to endanger the continued survival of the human race and I have an abundance of confidence that two highly experienced editors can sort out a fairly minor disagreement over style. But if you think there is a need for my help please feel free to drop me a line anytime. All I ask is that we avoid edit warring. Thanks for all of your work on here. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. It was not even an edit war. I do not understand why people apply optional editing preferences when they edit. I was simply making a point that the unnecessary XHTML breaks and removal o of spacing was just that. If it's tool-based, complain to the tool creator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Software development template

Hi Walter, regarding my revert on Template:Software development process - stand-up meetings aren't specific or unique to software development and therefore didn't seem notable, appropriate, or on par with the other practices noted in that section of the template. Thanks Kharnagy (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

But they're instrumental in most software development team processes, which is why they're there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Resistance

Hey Walter,

I left another note on the Unleashed talk page about "The Resistance" being a single two weeks ago, but you have yet to respond to it. Can you check whether I can source it being a single with the link I provided? Daerl (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Stacie Orrico (album)

After I edited the article earlier, I noticed that in March of this year, you indirectly reverted part of my edit to Stacie Orrico (album), changing the inconsistent use of "U.S." on an article that already used "UK" and "US". You said "it seems a bit odd"; it may be odd to others, but I notice this quite often and we should be consistent within any given article. I cited the content guideline WP:ACRONYM in my edit summary, which states: "However, use a consistent style within the same article; use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations (e.g. UK)". I know we've had our differences and all, but I don't think this is something to revert over because it may be "odd". We should aim for consistency, don't you think? Thanks. Ss112 08:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: This discussion should really be on the article's talk page, but I'll respond here. ACRONYM should be updated to reflect MOS:US. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that the two really conflict. If an article doesn't use "UK" or other acronyms, U.S. is fine to use. Perhaps it could be clearer though. Ss112 15:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I copied the text but didn't paste. I tend to agree with the change you made, but the general rule is "use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established". Having them mixed is perfectly fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

USL Teams

Thanks for the help!! I was trying to reason with the user but since he's an admin, I had to go along with whatever policy Wikipedia has. I was going to contact you about this, because it didn't make any sense to me. I've created a lot of pages, but this was a new one. Here's a transcript of my conversation, talk

Roberto221 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stereoside

Do what you have to do. I don't have anything to improve the article. Only heard the band on radio ages ago (a radio that doesn't even do charts; they usually play stuff that's famous abroad but maybe this time the DJ dug up something more obscure) --Melarish (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I have deprodded this article because it has been to AFD before. I only did this for procedural reasons and have no comment one way or the other on the merits of deletion. If you still wish to pursue deletion please feel free to nominate it at AFD again. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI case name

Since you've been regularly filing reports in the SPI case regarding WildChild666, I figured I should let you that I've renamed it since WildChild666 seems involved. The case is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/93.44.188.218. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: Thanks. It's on my watch list and saw it. Thanks. I'll follow-up there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

IP warning

Hello Walter Görlitz. You issued this warning to an IP, but their only edit to the article appears to have been a good-faith, incomplete effort to remove vandalism. (You subsequently removed the rest of the vandalism, and the vandal is now blocked.) I wonder if you'd consider striking or just removing the warning. Thanks. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi. The article The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) is in UK English. Changing the spelling of "jewelry" is therefore entirely correct per WP:LANGVAR. Thanks --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: with "jewellery", "criminalized", "rumors" and "criticized" present in the prose, it's not clearly in international English. It is a mix, at best. If you would like to propose one over the other, feel free to, but currently it's mixed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted on the "rumor". The z spellings are more a matter of taste than a set regional variant. However, as a traditional carol originating in England, I feel UK spellings are most appropriate. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: Please raise this on the article's talk page and I will support. For the record, Oxford spelling uses the Zs over the Ss, but true "international" does not. More reading starts at MOS:ENGVAR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Slack channel on software testing

Hi, Walter. I want to let you know that there is a Slack team where a number of people from the software testing community are discussing how to make improvements to the Software testing page, as well as learning how best to interact with the Wikipedia community. While some of that discussion is moving to the appropriate talk page, you are welcome to join the broader discussion on Slack. Email me if you want an invitation. Faught (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Faught: This is great news. I'll think about it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if you didn't receive an invitation yet. Faught (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Tsunami Cup

Hello, Herr Görlitz

• There seems to be an edit war going on involving the 2017 Aceh World Solidarity Tsunami Cup. It is an under-23 tournament. I have provided two very reliable sources that explicitly state as much. However, one registered user (Yudhacahyo) keeps reverting my edits when I remove the information from the article for Indonesia's senior team. I have tried addressing the issue with them on their talk page but have received no response. The user is also updating stats for each player on their individual articles. He is creating a lot of scenarios in which content will need to be reverted. Perhaps you could protect the article or intervene in some other way. Thanks in advance. --Gri3720 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gri3720: Thanks for notice, but I'm not an admin. You might want to take your concerns to WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Walter Görlitz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Columbus Crew SC images

Technically that section is from 2013-present, so I don't know why that last one was reverted. I'm in agreement that the supporters' section was too many images in the first place and I was hesitant to put it in. But I'm not sure why this last one was reverted. Maybe it can be put in somewhere lower in the section? Jay eyem (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, after reading through WP:IUP I can understand why it was deleted. I'm still fairly new to all of the Wikipedia policies and don't know them in a ton of detail, so I was just being bold. Plus I don't really think an image gallery contributes much to the article. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: I didn't see the 2013–present part, but one image along the theme is sufficient. Granted, I like the images you added more than the one that was there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Since you seem to frequently work on soccer pages, I'd love to see your opinion at Talk:UAE Arabian Gulf League.--Bijanii (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Walter. I did not see an explicit support/oppose on the move. Do you have an opinion? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Only that if there's no consensus, don't move. If it is a sponsorship, it will likely end and that would be the best time to address this again. Between now and then, you could try another move discussion, or raise it at WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Lemon (N.E.R.D and Rihanna song)

Hi Walter Gorlitz, I'm not sure if Rap-Up are calling "Lemon" the music genre, bounce or just an energetic song when they say here [10], "The hypnotic track continues the bounce that was found on the trio’s Rihanna-assisted single “Lemon.”" What do you think please? Cheers, Theo (edits) 10:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you edited

Walter, what did you edit of mine? Simonpolk2112 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Simonpolk2112: I worked on Ternavka, Skole Raion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you Walter Simonpolk2112 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Carol of the Bells

So I assume you reverted by mistake, since you didn't revert me again. I know the sources don't meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable, but the version does get a lot of radio airplay.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It was part of a larger revert, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Meaning you did or did not intend to revert me?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity. Reverting you was unintentional. Sorry both for the revert and any confusion created in my earlier response. The current state is fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability criteria for article "Global Creativity Index"

Dear Walter Görlitz,

I would be pleased, if you check my recently created article for notability:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Creativity_Index

Feel free to comment on your or my talk page.

Regards, Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

More Life

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding the infobox should keep "playlist" instead of mixtape. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Walter, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, PiCo (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Walter Görlitz!

Happy New Year!

Walter Görlitz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iggy (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.