My talk page. Leave me messages here. Post new threads at the bottom of the page. I can also be contacted through email.

Hi there,

The content regarding the 96th Academy Awards continues, but just as I feared, now User:46.44.158.42 is accusing me of Wikipedia:OWN. I've had a similar dispute almost a decade ago with a User:Atomic Meltdown regarding the 84th Academy Awards (you can see the dispute back in 2015 on the edit history here). I understand about ownership, but I'm trying to get this ceremony list eventually up to Wikipedia:Featured lists standards. I'm just following what has been advised to me from fellow editors who have worked on featured articles and/or featured lists. I'm afraid he might try to undo what I did without having a compromise or resolution and it will spiral into another edit war. And as far as I'm aware, one of the criteria for featured list promotion is that the article be stable. That's why I'm asking clarification from folks who have worked on featured content what they think given that I plan to nominate it for featured list come July.

Furthermore based on this message, User:Bbb23 determined that I was not in violation of WP:3RR.

Also, I have concerns that the user my attempt to put back the indiscriminate list of names that were "supposedly" added to a slide at the end of the In Memoriam segment, but as User:RunningTiger123, the way it would be presented would case MOS:SEAOFBLUE problems. In a previous FLC, RunningTiger123 said I'm conflicted as to whether the names listed all at once at the end of the "In Memoriam" section should be included. It's really hard to parse the sea of links and if they weren't notable enough to get their own moment, they may not be notable enough to be listed here. Would be curious to know what other reviewers think.. But more importantly, the two references used to back up the claim that all those names appeared on the actual telecast do not support the claim. There is no indication on either website to indicate the names appeared during the broadcast. So either this statements should be find a WP:Reliable sources backing up the claim, or it should be removed because this would be considered Original research or source synthesis.

--Birdienest81talk 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relief that Bbb123 debunked the claims against you, and none of your edits that I can think of came across as attempts to own articles. Just try not to edit war too much when maintaining article quality. Atomic Meltdown is notorious for sockpuppetry that continued long after getting indefinitely blocked. The Oscars in general and Seth MacFarlane-related matters were common areas that user focused on both after and before the block began. I haven't seen that name come up in quite some time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he/she did calm down about, but he still insists that it was disruptive editing to make the changes to the 96th Academy Awards thinking that it started with the red links. I'm trying to prepare the list for FLC like I have always done so for the past 11 years. I was going by the consensus of how featured content is presented based on past feedback I have gotten via the nominations. Otherwise, wouldn't the other featured lists just be written without any some sort of standards or oversight? I believe in quality over quantity. And yes, I'm trying to not engaging in an edit war, hence the talk page discussion. Birdienest81talk 18:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

User talk:46.44.158.42 asked why the Oscar ceremony pages on Wikipedia are considered lists and not articles on this talk page. I'm not very sure how to answer that questions aside from the fact that's how the folks at Wikipedia deem it. Though from how I view it, even though particularly the featured list ones have details of the ceremony, the majority of the "article" is mostly presented in a list format such as the winners and nominees, winners/nominees tally, presenters and performers, and In Memoriam honorees. They still dwarf the prose section of the page.

If you had time, could you respond to his question on the talk page.

--Birdienest81talk 18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have no clue why they're counted as lists when there's lots of non-listy prose outside of the lead (e.g. ratings and reviews). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, The Herald, and it's hard to believe 11 years have now passed! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SNUGGUMS: Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. Regards. 2001:D08:2921:B6C4:17DE:443A:A377:4A85 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This notice feels rather out-of-left-field, but sure I'll leave comments there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SNUGGUMS, I hope you're doing well. Thank you for continuing to maintain high quality pop culture pages on this encyclopedia.

I have free time now due to the summer and I'm very interested in taking the daunting task of finally bringing Madonna to FA. I am willing to spend however many hours it takes. Doing a quick read-through of the article, it seems that most of everything pre-2012 is high quality, but post MDNA can be improved / supplemented with more high quality sources.

Since you have experience bringing three very important pop culture articles to FA, what would your advice be, given that Madonna has had such a long and very illustrious career? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am, PHShanghai, and the wishes are appreciated! Hopefully the same applies for you. Believe it or not, I've also been planning for a while to do this with Ms. Ciccone's bio, just never had enough time to get that done. Aside from touching up any issues with prose (especially spelling and grammar), my first recommendation is to ensure it uses the best possible sources for claims AND that they actually back up the text attributed to them. You might be surprised how often people overlook how text doesn't always align with what given citations say regardless of article classification. Once that's resolved, we should ensure it covers all the major facts without excessive detail. Have a look at WP:Featured article criteria for more. I haven't yet had the chance to assess the article for any glaring issues, but will ping Bluesatellite for input on what needs to be improved when that user has done lots of work on it and other Madonna-related pages. Someday perhaps the three of us could nominate it together once everything is up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Would love to do so, and I have a lot of free time on my hands so I'm very excited to put a lot into this project.

My primary concern right now is that a lot of the things that are cited in her article are from biography books from the late 90s and the early 2000s; while I do not have an issue with citing books, many digital copies of these are behind paywalls and usually the references do not have any quotes, just a page number. At the very least I feel like adding proper quotes would help the poor sourcing a lot.

I also feel that the word count of the article can be lowered down a little, especially in the latter half of her career. I will look more into FAC to see how it can be improved. I don't think there are any glaring issues (besides the whole biography books thing) but instead more of a general need to update the quality of the text. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going through all those books would take some digging, that's for certain. Not sure how much would be appropriate to include as quotes for such in-text citations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SNUGGUMS! Since you are listed as an active member of the United States Presidents WikiProject, would you mind leaving a comment at a project talk page discussion about a series of templates that I created for the presidencies of Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush? Another editor and myself disagree about whether there should be a separate navigation template for each Presidency apart from the biographical navigation template. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a comment on the thread. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Please review what you are going to remove before saving the page. As you can see at the bottom there's info related to the Themes section that you removed. ภץאคгöร 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There already were "Philosophy", "Feminism", and "Masculinity" sections discussing themes, Nyxaros, so it's not like I removed much on the matter that wasn't previously alluded to. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not whether you removed much on the matter or not. Their content is different from the removed text and your edit summary only mentions the other text. Better to be more careful. ภץאคгöร 23:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If you have time, I was wondering if you are able to take a look at the current FAC for Forever (Mariah Carey song). Your comments are always appreciated. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not able to do so right away, Heartfox, but I should have something up within the next 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I just left some comments there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 October 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 26, 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 2024. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. – SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could've sworn this would be for the 25th instead of 26th, SchroCat, but regardless appreciate the notice. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snuggums, ordinarily it would be, but there’s already an article with a good claim on the 25th. As that one hasn’t been on the main page before, and as KP has, I bumped her over a day. Not ideal, but not everything can fit onto the exact days sometimes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for the 2014 article, introduced simply: "Here is Katheryn Elizabeth "Katy" Hudson aka Katy Perry. She's the California Gurl who kissed another girl and very much liked it." - I hope you enjoyed that she also appeared on the Main page on her birthday, in the OTD section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, Gerda Arendt, and yes I appreciated that inclusion upon noticing it. :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:58, 26 October 2024 (

• Many congrats on the appearance! She's a mother.--NØ 15:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful for the wishes, MaranoFan. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same wishes, and that would be Halloween for me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. - Nicely matched timing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated for sure! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cleaned up a couple of my edits in the past few weeks - thanks. Special-T (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GogoLion (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

≤== October 2024 ==

Hello. Regarding this edit, doesn't Template:Music ratings state that the template "provides a brief summary and overview of the critical consensus of song and album reviews"? Since the song has four reviews with ratings, why wouldn't we include the template? Just wondering if I am missing something, please let me know. Regards. Medxvo (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure when that change to the template was added, Medxvo, but I removed because I very rarely have seen it used within song pages and that didn't seem like an established practice. They're far more common for album articles either way. One could argue the prose of the reviews section already discusses ratings sufficiently. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template has the same sentence since its creation in November 2009. There used to be three templates, Template:Single ratings, Template:Song ratings, and Template:Album ratings, but in November 2022 there was a consensus to merge the song and single templates to the album template and rename to "music ratings". I know using the template for songs is very rare (and that's what was discussed at the TFD two years ago), but it is not particularly wrong. Since there are four ratings, which I think is a sufficient amount, can't we include the template? My main issue with including the ratings in prose along with each review is that they would seem redundant, due to repeating it four times. Let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update–I tried to include the ratings in prose and changed a few things, this is how it would be;

"Disease" received positive reviews from music critics, who considered it a return to Gaga's pop roots. Journalists from Consequence named it the "Song of the Week" upon its release, describing it as "a four minute reminder that pop music is where so many elements of performance have the opportunity to coalesce". In a five-star review, Evening Standard's India Block called "Disease" a "high gothic blast that's perfect for spooky season" and praised Gaga's vocals, the production, and the religious themes. Murray gave the song a nine out of ten rating, dubbing it a "wild blast of outsider pop music". He described it as "lustful" and "salacious" and compared its "heavy-duty electronics" to works by American band Nine Inch Nails.

Alexa Camp from Slant Magazine and O'Connor described the lyrics as "cliché" but praised the production, with O'Connor stating that "Disease" is Gaga's "best in a long while" in her four-star review. Petridis gave the song four stars out of five and praised the song's production and ability to "evoke memories of late 00s Gaga and still fit with the messy, post-Brat pop climate" through its excessive mood and sound. Petridis felt "Disease" is stylistically reminiscent of the music in Gaga's debut studio album The Fame (2008), while Camp felt it is more reminiscent of Gaga's subsequent releases The Fame Monster (2009) and Born This Way (2011). In a positive review, Bianca Betancourt from Harper's Bazaar described "Disease" as "classic Gaga in the best way possible" and considered it as an "edgier" and "more mature" version of "Bad Romance". In a ranking of Gaga's entire catalog, Vulture's Kristen Hé placed "Disease" at number 15, stating that Gaga is "no longer consumed by darkness but in control of it".

I think it looks good now, I would like to know your thoughts. Medxvo (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this works, and based on your linked diff, it looks like I was thinking of the albums rating template that for years had been implemented much more frequently than the one for songs prior to the merge discussion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SNUGGUMS, I currently have an FAC open for Mariah Carey's "Your Girl". I would appreciate your perspective if you are interested. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to decline this one when other things are going on in my life, Heartfox, but will wish you luck with the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Is Margot Robbie's baby birth source reliable? Can you check it out? M.lebedev (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this, M.lebedev, then it's definitely an improvement over what was used before. However, that just makes assumptions on what happened instead of getting confirmation on a birth. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just necessary to get information from the relatives of the actress or a representative. For example, the birth of Jennifer Lawrence's second child. It's obvious, SNUGGUMS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.lebedev (talk • contribs)

That would be ideal for birth details when you can't get parental verification. Another choice when none of these are available would be friends, but that's probably a last resort. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the verdict? Does the source remain in the article or are we waiting for the most reliable one again? M.lebedev (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least for now, wait for something better that isn't just speculating on the couple and their choices made. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to interfere with the article? Otherwise, I cancel the edit a hundred times and I don't want to get punished for WP:EW. Or should we leave it as it is? M.lebedev (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "interfere" is the right word here, but reverting BLP violations (which we both did) won't count as edit warring issues per WP:3RRNO. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here Snuggums that the editor you are responding to appearst to have a very poor understanding of vandalism as that is what they have accused me of here, and also to ask if you would agree that there is no requirement as they have stated that it is necessary to get information from the relatives of the actress or a representative. Personally, I'm not sure why the Sydney Morning Herald is not considered a WP:RS for something that seems relatively uncontroversial, but I'm not going to edit war about it. Melcous (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By no means is your edit a case of vandalism, Melcous, since you clearly didn't have malicious intentions. As for The Sydney Morning Herald, while that normally is a trustworthy source on its own, the biggest problem with the particular link used from there is this is basing a claim off something from Mail on Sunday. The latter is not nearly as strong and unfortunately is an affiliate with the unreliable Daily Mail (which has been repeatedly removed from other articles as a result). There appears to be little to no difference of overall quality between those sister papers. If The Sydney Morning Herald didn't go off what either of them said, then the used article would have more credibility. Another thing that makes me hesitant is "Robbie's representatives did not respond when contacted by this masthead" bit (VERY important when there was no sign of parental confirmation), and same with a flimsy attribution of mentioning how People "reported a source has confirmed the birth" without any indication of who that "source" was. The lack of transparency there is suspicious and never a good sign (I sometimes see people use vague mentions of unspecified "sources" as a cover up for pulling claims out of nowhere), so it's best to take things with a grain of salt unless parents, reps, family, friends, or any combination of these affirm the matter.

I guess my read of WP:RS is that if a secondary source is considered reliable we can use it here, and it is not our role to judge the primary sources on which that reporting is based - otherwise we would find ourselves in all kinds of untenable situations and arguments based on editors' opinions about journalistic standards rather than holding to our role as a tertiary source that is based on what secondary sources have said. Thanks Melcous (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely would be an oversimplification to say that any generally good secondary source can be used no matter what, which is why we have the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS section on that page. Personal claims that involve living people are things we have to be especially cautious with per the WP:BLP policy. I wouldn't be as worried with matters on how many kids a long dead person had. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlock :3 leave a message 02:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the wishes, HemlockVR! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have my gratitude, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]