Orphaned non-free image File:Pawns and Kings album cover.jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Pawns and Kings album cover.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
Please do not introduce
links in actual articles to
draft articles, as you did to
Walk the Sky 2.0. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the
Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. -
Arjayay (
talk)
12:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I understand your concern, but it seems like the difference in track listing style is not a significant issue here. As per the guidelines you mentioned, multiple acceptable styles are allowed, and if there's an existing style in the article, it should generally be retained. In this case, maintaining the current style shouldn't be a problem. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to discuss them. Thank you!
Oldsource (
talk)
17:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your feedback. While I understand your concern about the track listing style, I would like to mention that in addition to making the style adjustment, I also added missing information to the article. However, it's worth noting that the difference in track listing style is not a major issue, and it can be accommodated without causing any significant disruption. If you have any specific suggestions or further concerns, please let me know, and we can discuss how to address them. Thank you for your understanding.
Oldsource (
talk)
19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your perspective, and I understand your preference for retaining the existing style. I made those edits to clean up the article and address missing information. However, I won't be reverting the changes at this point, as I believe they improve the overall quality of the article. If you have any further concerns or specific suggestions, please feel free to discuss them, and we can work together to ensure the article meets the desired standards. Thank you for your understanding.
Oldsource (
talk)
23:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not just a matter of my personal preference to retain existing styles. So to be clear, you agree that
MOS:VAR and
MOS:RETAIN say explicitly to not change existing styles, correct? And furthermore, you also agree that per
WP:ALBUMSTYLE, it is perfectly legitimate to have plain lists or use {{track listing}} (or a table), correct? Do you agree with both of those statements? ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯00:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your clarification, and I agree that both MOS:VAR and MOS:RETAIN recommend not changing existing styles when it comes to track listings. Additionally, I acknowledge that using plain lists or {{track listing}} (or a table) are legitimate approaches as per WP:ALBUMSTYLE.
I want to emphasize that my intention was not only to address the track listing style but also to add missing information, aiming to improve the overall quality of the article. While I understand your concern regarding style consistency, I believe the changes made were in the best interest of enhancing the article's completeness and clarity. If there are any specific issues or suggestions related to the content or style that you'd like to discuss further, please feel free to let me know. Thank you for your understanding.
Oldsource (
talk)
09:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
You did not add missing information, but you actually removed existing information. There is literally no new information in
this revision and you took out songwriting information present in
this revision. This does not in any way make the article more clear and actually makes it less so. Please revert yourself since you acknowledge that the MoS says that you should not have done this. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯09:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I apologize for any confusion. It appears there might have been a misunderstanding. I did add songwriting information during the revision, and it was not my intention to remove any existing information. However, I understand your concern about the track listing style.
That being said, I won't be reverting the changes at this point, as I believed they improved the article's completeness. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to review the edits in detail. I won't be continuing this discussion, but if you have any other matters you'd like to discuss in the future, please don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you for your feedback.
Oldsource (
talk)
09:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there any way that you think we can collaborate to improve that article? On the talk page, there are several references in the {{refideas}} template that I have yet to add. If you think we can work together, please let me know. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯10:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I definitely plan on editing
Draft:Time Stopped again. I've just been busy lately, so it's been hard to put time into a full article. Also, I'm open to hearing any feedback you might have n the process of editing it!
Oldsource (
talk)
10:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Orphaned non-free image File:Pawns and Kings album cover.jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Pawns and Kings album cover.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
Please do not introduce
links in actual articles to
draft articles, as you did to
Walk the Sky 2.0. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the
Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. -
Arjayay (
talk)
12:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I understand your concern, but it seems like the difference in track listing style is not a significant issue here. As per the guidelines you mentioned, multiple acceptable styles are allowed, and if there's an existing style in the article, it should generally be retained. In this case, maintaining the current style shouldn't be a problem. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to discuss them. Thank you!
Oldsource (
talk)
17:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your feedback. While I understand your concern about the track listing style, I would like to mention that in addition to making the style adjustment, I also added missing information to the article. However, it's worth noting that the difference in track listing style is not a major issue, and it can be accommodated without causing any significant disruption. If you have any specific suggestions or further concerns, please let me know, and we can discuss how to address them. Thank you for your understanding.
Oldsource (
talk)
19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your perspective, and I understand your preference for retaining the existing style. I made those edits to clean up the article and address missing information. However, I won't be reverting the changes at this point, as I believe they improve the overall quality of the article. If you have any further concerns or specific suggestions, please feel free to discuss them, and we can work together to ensure the article meets the desired standards. Thank you for your understanding.
Oldsource (
talk)
23:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not just a matter of my personal preference to retain existing styles. So to be clear, you agree that
MOS:VAR and
MOS:RETAIN say explicitly to not change existing styles, correct? And furthermore, you also agree that per
WP:ALBUMSTYLE, it is perfectly legitimate to have plain lists or use {{track listing}} (or a table), correct? Do you agree with both of those statements? ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯00:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your clarification, and I agree that both MOS:VAR and MOS:RETAIN recommend not changing existing styles when it comes to track listings. Additionally, I acknowledge that using plain lists or {{track listing}} (or a table) are legitimate approaches as per WP:ALBUMSTYLE.
I want to emphasize that my intention was not only to address the track listing style but also to add missing information, aiming to improve the overall quality of the article. While I understand your concern regarding style consistency, I believe the changes made were in the best interest of enhancing the article's completeness and clarity. If there are any specific issues or suggestions related to the content or style that you'd like to discuss further, please feel free to let me know. Thank you for your understanding.
Oldsource (
talk)
09:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
You did not add missing information, but you actually removed existing information. There is literally no new information in
this revision and you took out songwriting information present in
this revision. This does not in any way make the article more clear and actually makes it less so. Please revert yourself since you acknowledge that the MoS says that you should not have done this. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯09:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I apologize for any confusion. It appears there might have been a misunderstanding. I did add songwriting information during the revision, and it was not my intention to remove any existing information. However, I understand your concern about the track listing style.
That being said, I won't be reverting the changes at this point, as I believed they improved the article's completeness. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to review the edits in detail. I won't be continuing this discussion, but if you have any other matters you'd like to discuss in the future, please don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you for your feedback.
Oldsource (
talk)
09:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there any way that you think we can collaborate to improve that article? On the talk page, there are several references in the {{refideas}} template that I have yet to add. If you think we can work together, please let me know. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯10:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I definitely plan on editing
Draft:Time Stopped again. I've just been busy lately, so it's been hard to put time into a full article. Also, I'm open to hearing any feedback you might have n the process of editing it!
Oldsource (
talk)
10:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply