Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

May be best to re-think things my friend. I'm posting this message on your talk page Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars!

I'm posting this message on your talk page Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars as you have done something that wasn't necessary. I'm talking about the Buddy Miles album. I do come in peace. However, I feel compelled to give you a reminder. I see you have felt the need to scratch another page. Please desist! Folks around here may start to think that you've got a thing for me. There's a standard of respectful and professional behavior that all of us good folk need to adhere to. Take care and I leave you with my best wishes. Regards Karl Twist (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

LOL. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Some folks may have a different reaction than "LOL" my friend. Some may think there's a bit of a beef thing there that you have. Not talking about the one that sizzles on the grill. Anyway, whatever it is, I think there's always a better, nicer way to do things. Peace.
Karl Twist (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Write better articles and not just regurgitations of everything you read. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I put in a lot of content, most useful and one thing, my articles are not sparse. They are always more than adequately referenced. Well, while some of my articles have been rushed to get them out there, some of what you have commented is unwarranted and sometimes misleading. I know that it's a bit more than about "the articles" *wink*. I see that I am not the only one here who has had an issue with you. There's a way, a code of conduct that we should all have to adhere to. I'm sure you can do better there and there are ways to comment without looking like it's an attack. I have faith in you and hope for better ways.
Karl Twist (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wisp (musician) albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Wisp (musician) albums, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• The category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories. (See section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Abesca (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

My Mind Wanders

Hi, Star, I'm wondering why you removed the Category:2023 albums from the categories? Jibblesnark86 (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jibblesnakrk86: I'm happy to clarify. Per WP:SUBCAT, if all members of a category fall under the same parent category, articles don't need to be categorized in both child and parent categories. So, in this case, since all 2023 debut albums are 2023 albums, categorizing an article in the 2023 debut albums category automatically places it in the 2023 albums category. Thanks.Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I'm sorry if this was out of the blue, but I was curious. Thank you very much for clarifying. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Article improvements versus reviews

Hi there, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I have a curiosity question for you. I've recently started to review new music-related articles as part of WP:NPP. I noticed you have often already added tags, done clean-up, and added WikiProjects (yay!), but not marked articles as reviewed. As a prolific editor, I ASSume you have that capability, so curious why you don't mark them reviewed, too? Cheers, WidgetKid ^{chat me} 19:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

👋 ...? WidgetKid ^converse 04:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just not something I'm interested in doing. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, cool beans. Thanks for the response. I very much appreciate your additions! WidgetKid ^converse 15:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Vices (Waysted album)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Vices (Waysted album), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Let’s discuss

On “Hydroelectric power plant in Włocławek,” why did you remove the Category:Assassination of Jerzy Popiełuszko? I want a good explanation besides how it is not defining? Thanks! Inajd0101 (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Plus, I know you have been on Wikipedia way longer before me, but if you don't have a good reason to explain besides if it's "not defining," just refrain doing so. Inajd0101 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Inajd0101: Well, the thing is the key concept for categories is that they are based on being a defining characteristic of the topic, so that's the best reason I can give for removing a category. Per WP:CATDEF, "a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Most reliable sources are not going to mention the assassination of Jerzy Popiełuszko when discussing the power plant unless such a discussion is about the assassination itself. That's why, as I said to you before, you should probably stay away from creating categories until you understand how they work. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question at least, and fair enough I should stay away creating categories until I understand how they work, but I understand the point when it comes to discussing the assassination itself as well. Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Part of what would make it defining in that category is if the power plant became notable because of the assassination, but it was notable as a power plant long before that. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nowclassicrockhits.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nowclassicrockhits.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JHD0919 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:Iranian words and phrases

I have proposed speedy renaming of Category:Iranian words and phrases, following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_30#Category:Iranian-language_surnames. – Fayenatic London 09:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Billboard Global 200

Hi--would you mind weighing in on the restoration of a huge amount of OR in this article? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of prose content related to ratings box content

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, infoboxes are supposed to summarize content found in the prose section of articles. They are not intended to replace that content. Please do not remove prose content, such as review information, from articles as you did in On the Flip Side for one example. Indeed infoboxes, such as the ratings box, should have zero original content not expressed elsewhere in the same article in prose. The review must be discussed in the prose portion of the article in order to even be in the ratings box which is supposed to be a summary of the article's prose content. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Note that this is the community backed guideline for infoboxes, and it is not optional. If you see reviews in a ratings box not discussed in the prose of the article then those reviews should be removed from the infobox/ratings box, or prose content should be added discussing the review. There should never be an instance where a review is in the ratings box but not discussed in the body of the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@4meter4: Thank you for your concern, but I couldn't disagree with you more. First, the {{Music ratings}} template is not an infobox like {{Infobox musical artist}} or {{Infobox album}} so does not follow the same criteria as those. It's not even categorized in Music infobox templates but Wikipedia formatting templates. Semantics aside, I did not remove any prose that discusses the critic's/author's actual review of the album. Not one review is the assigned rating explicitly mentioned. No one says "I give this album 4 out of 5 stars." It is a quick shorthand summary often not even given by the critic/author of the review. If AllMusic gives an album 3 stars, it only shows it as a rating with no prose confirming or validating the number given, which I believe is all that needs to be done in Wikipedia article critical reception sections. A synopsis of the actual review is stated in the prose based on the critic's own opinions and comments; a ratings box provides a quick summary of the reviews cited in the article. All I did was remove the redundancy in these articles when the prose only translates the rating given in symbols to words. Again, it's never explicitly stated in the reviews and doesn't always represent the critic's own assessment, only their actual words do that, and that's what should be summarized in the prose. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, this would benefit from community discussion. My main concern is that you removed all mention of certain critical reviews from the prose section and simply left the content solely in the ratings box. I get where you coming from, that it is stupid to say this review gave three stars and say nothing else in the prose section when the ratings box has the same content. I agree it is stupid and redundant, but the same could be said of any infobox for repeating content. On the other hand, we shouldn't have reviews in a rating box that aren't quoted or discussed in some fashion in a critical review section of the article because the ratings box is supposed to be a summary. It would have been better to have improved the prose with a quote or summary from the review rather than to chop it altogether. (In other words change the text to say something else from the review other than the star rating.)

My concern is once editors start trimming prose content for duplicating content in a box that violates the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. I really don't think the ratings boxes should be treated any differently than any other type of summary box in terms of how we interpret MOS. I suspect if were to raise this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes that the response would be to treat ratings boxes like any other infobox. As for the redundancy in saying the rating, that needs a community discussion. I'd be supportive of telling editors not to include how many stars a review got in the prose section if it is in a ratings box provided the review in the box is quoted or discussed in the prose section of the article. What I am not supportive of is having a review in a ratings box that is not mentioned in the prose section at all. The ratings box should not be used as a place for new content per MOS. Reviews should not be relegated solely to that box. If they are than the reviews in those ratings boxes should be removed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate this feedback. I will return to these articles I edited as I thought I was only removing redundant prose regarding a rating number not any summaries of actual written commentary by critics. The editor of many of these articles had added reviews by AllMusic and/or Record Mirror (with their ratings in the ratings box), then subsequently wrote out the ratings in the prose section in a final sentence yet apart from the respective reviews themselves. Now, if a site is offering only a rating without any commentary/review, I would agree that that probably shouldn't even be included/mentioned in the article at all. Good discussion. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Category creation question

Hey, I was wondering how I could create categories for the albums in Sony/Legacy (and previously Columbia)'s The Essential album series and the Icon series of albums listed at Icon (album series) without them getting deleted? And I was also think about changing the title of Category:Gold series albums, as that title isn't very specific for the series. And seeing as you nominated and got Category:The Essential albums deleted, I figured I'd ask you. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Since the individual albums in these “series” aren’t related to each other other than a parent record label, it’s really a case of WP:SHAREDNAME and shouldn’t be categorized together. I have been meaning to get around to nominating similar categories for deletion like Category:16 Biggest Hits and Category:20th Century Masters albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Why aren't you nominating them yet? Also, how would I list them all together? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

As in, list all of the albums in one series together if I can. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Is Icon (album series) a good example of how to list every album in a series together? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

That’s probably how it should be done, but it is more or less just a disambiguation page. These series as a whole don’t get coverage, which is why it is usually left to creating the specific editions for each artist as more reliable third-party sources can be found on them. You might want to consider the path of creating a set index article like Gold (compilation album). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: A Son of the Sun (album)

Hello Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of A Son of the Sun (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is co-produced by a notable artist Nujabes which is enough to pass A9. Thank you. BangJan1999 23:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)