User talk:SNUGGUMS/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

David A. Kennedy

Hi user: SNUGGUMS. I respect your knowledge of, and contributions to, various Kennedy-related topics. Re David A. Kennedy and the linking on the RFK Jr. page, I would note that fairly extensive pages for David exist in 7 other languages, which I believe warrants an English-language page. He is also the only member of RFK's children not to have a page, despite significant well-sourced biographical info on him out there. So, I reverted your deletion of the link I included in my edit. Thank you for your edits. RyeCityRoller (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, RyeCityRoller, other language wikis shouldn't have pages for him either when most or all coverage on the guy is based on family connections. Many of the pieces that mention him only do so in minor detail. If it was more focused on his own merits, then I'd say differently. Regardless, whether David's siblings have their own pages is irrelevant to whether he warrants one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe the merits or origins of an individual's notoriety factor into BLP considerations, merely that they meet the basic criteria. And, if nothing else, David Kennedy seems to meet them based on the abundance of well-sourced material about him in print and online, even if often in articles about his family members. By your logic, wouldn't the wiki page for Tad Lincoln also merit deletion? I'm open to further dialogue with you and/or take this to the appropriate forum for weigh-in by other editors. But, IMHO, the deletion on the grounds of failing BLP metrics seems excessive.

Again, thank you for your input and prompt response RyeCityRoller (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Having famous relatives doesn't in itself entitle David to a page per WP:NOTINHERITED. Another thing to keep in mind is WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which says "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Outside of his fatal drug overdose, how many things have this guy a primary focus or even go beyond a cumulative paragraph? I'm not sure much else exists that centers on him as an individual without going to family quotes (which are not considered independent of the subject). As for Tad, I'm not convinced he warrants a page either, but that's a separate discussion per WP:WAX. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

96th Academy Awards FLC

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could give feedback regarding 96th Academy Awards regarding its featured list candidacy. I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 09:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I might be able to later, Birdienest81, but not right away. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Join discussion?

Hello, I was hoping you could join or respond to the discussion I started at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography#Because I Liked a Boy discussing the single status of Sabrina Carpenter's "Because I Liked a Boy". Thank You. Leafs33 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Just left some comments there, Leafs33, and it seemed pretty straightforward to me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

Hello! With regard to this edit, please mind MOS:NICK and MOS:LEADPRON when editing lead sections of biographical articles, as well as minor formatting issues such as text size and punctuation. See my edits on this specific case. Regards :) ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind about MOS:NICK, just noticed this was removed later by someone else. Check MOS:QUOTEMARKS though. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I already knew that straight quotation marks are preferred to curly ones when more consistent with coding Wikipedia uses for typing out text, but am not sure what benefit there is of giving a separate bold set to anything contained within a quote. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I probably should have linked to the more specific MOS:BOLDQUOTE subsection. Quotation marks go in bold only if they are part of the title/name. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It would've been more consistent to allow boldface for both cases or even deny for both. Beats me how anybody came up with specific scenarios like that or what the rationale was (shrugs shoulders). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

man y0u stole away my talk on the john f Kennedy talk page

all I wanna say is never do that again because its very mean and not cool I did really see bro get 200 pumped and I would prefer if you didn't delete true facts like a weirdo 216.73.71.81 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually I never "stole away" anything, IP; your post got deleted because it was at best a trivial detail and Wikipedia talk pages aren't supposed to be forums for general chatting. See WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought for more. Calling me "a weirdo" is not appropriate either per WP:No personal attacks. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting input

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Wood Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Your comments on that were very transparently trying to elicit a "delete" vote from me, which is inappropriate per WP:CANVASS and I'm not giving you the satisfaction of even participating in the thread. Stop trying to make WP:WAX arguments as those aren't helping your case (as someone else already pointed out). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Protection

I saw Wikipedia:Requests for page protection § John F. Kennedy and wanted to let you know that there is no such thing as Something higher than Extended confirmed protection but not full protection. The list of protection levels technically has template protection between extended-confirmed and full protection, but it's reserved for highly-transcluded templates and modules. Vandalism from extended-confirmed users is dealt with by blocking those users, as Hellocat99 just was. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

In that case, Jlwoodwa, I would say a level between ECP and full should be created. The former was created after it became clear that sometimes semi-protection isn't enough when auto-confirmed users end up disrupting pages (including instances where socks of blocked users figured out how to bypass it altogether). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Would this be a requested permission unlike the automatically-granted WP:AUTOC and WP:XC groups? I don't think that's been proposed before; you could post it at WP:VPI if you want more people to see/discuss the idea. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Cite tweet

Hello, could you please explain more about the requirement to quote an entire tweet? The template guidelines, under title, seem to suggest that the "Partial or entire content of the tweet" are acceptable in the Title parameter.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I admittedly had overlooked that part when examining the sample tweets listed, Sunshineisles2, but regardless quoting only a portion gives an incomplete idea of what somebody was tweeting. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

You literally making 2 mistakes! First of all, Love for Sale is not studio album, it's a collaboration album. Second, did you even read the news??? They are literally saying "LG7" means all the studio albums plus The Fame Monster. No news media saying eighth! If Love for Sale is included, then it's ninth, including Cheek to Cheek. Educate yourself. -GogoLion (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

By no means are "studio album" and "collaboration album" mutually exclusive, GogoLion, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. The Fame Monster actually is a reissue of The Fame that contains all of the lattermost's tracks along with newer songs. Regarding the informal "LG7" label, that's not a firm indicator of album count nor should it be treated as such. It's also not exactly the best substitute term for an upcoming album whose real name hasn't yet been announced. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)