Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:12, 15 May 2018

Is "pączki" an English word?

Hi, thank you for your participation in the recent requested move discussion at Talk:Pączki. I've posted a follow-up question to better understand what the result of that discussion means not only for the article's title, but also for its content. I'd be very greatful, if you could reply at Talk:Pączki#Follow-up: is "pączki" an_English_word? — Kpalion 18:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Vikings despair.

It's crazy isn't it? It seems no-one !voting at Talk:Vikings (TV documentary series)#Requested move 14 January 2018 or at the parallel Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 13 January 2018 wants to pay any attention to the guidelines. Even the previous close was undertaken by an involved editor!!! WP:IAR is one thing, but this is taking it a step too far... Do we need to take this whole situation to WP:VP or something? --woodensuperman 16:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: - I dunno. I just don't get why these two pages are such a fight. -- Netoholic @ 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's frustrating. Especially when it shouldn't even be controversial. --woodensuperman 16:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Planet Earth

Well that was a weird close! --woodensuperman 10:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: Obviously isn't reading the discussion... we can just do the moves we agreed on. --22:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Telenovela and NCTV

I've made the change to the guideline, using elements of my wording and yours in its entirety. It may still need a tweak - feel free to improve if you have any thoughts... --woodensuperman 11:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: Nice. I made one slight wording change in the part that was my suggestion (should > can) so people don't try to use it as a hammer to get their favorite genre forced in. Speaking of which (anime) is likely the next candidate for a similar RFC. -- Netoholic @ 13:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Best to make it watertight! I think you have some allies regarding "(anime)". I think I've said before, but I'm not convinced we should make an exception for "(miniseries)" either. --woodensuperman 13:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

PrimaryDIS

HI. I saw that you created the shortcut WP:PRIMARYDIS. I think that's useful to have, but it occurred to me that a better name might be PRIMARYDAB, since most of the shortcuts on that page use the abbreviation DAB, and DAB seems to be part of Wiki lingo. Just a thought. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I as just mirroring other shortcuts like WP:NATURALDIS. There's also WP:NATURALDAB that goes to that section, so probably both could be created for this usage. -- Netoholic @ 05:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. Sure, why not create both? Probably only one needs to be shown on the page though. (That shortcut box for WP:NATURALDIS has way too many shortcuts. Most of them should be moved to down to the relevant paragraph. Per WP:2SHORTCUTS. If it's OK I'll take care of that later.) – Margin1522 (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Do not make edits like this, where you unilaterally make changes to long standing WikiProject consensus. If you wish to change the Wikiproject's stance, then you need to hold a new discussion to create a new consensus. It's even worse that you attempted to alter the guidelines to align with your stance in a related article title discussion. I can understand not knowing how to go about doing things on Misplaced Pages when you're new, but even without knowing Misplaced Pages protocol, you must have known that was a pretty shady move. Don't get caught doing stuff like that again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: - WP:BEBOLD. I left a full and complete justification in my edit summary - the antithesis of being "shady". Any user was free to revert. Also: User:Netoholic#Netoholic's Law. -- Netoholic @ 13:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for being bold too, but I'm more concerned about the context and timing of it all. You entered a discussion. Gave a stance. Then went to a related guideline in place for years. And changed it to match your stance in the active discussion. That's the shady part. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I saw the discussion, became aware of the problem, and moved to correct the mistake. Tell me, do you really think TV shows, films, and books should all be able to use (series) instead of their longer forms (TV series), etc. ? Wouldn't that, over time, lead to inevitable confusion as all those various media use the same disambiguation? I'm no longer going to discuss the timing or boldness of my edit, but feel free to convince me that (series) is sufficient disambiguation for every thing in the encyclopedia that is released in a series. -- Netoholic @ 14:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Corvette

Hi there. Just wondering if you were planning to notify automotive wikiprojects in addition to your notification of the ship wikiprojects? They'd probably have an interest in the discussion as well. Dohn joe (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: That'd be confusing as no car pages are being proposed to rename. --Netoholic @ 16:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

But the question is the proper spot for "Corvette", and since the car is known by that name, those wikiprojects would have a stake in whether the basename is the ship or the dab page. Dohn joe (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for many helpful improvements to articles and titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:D

Hi Netoholic. My edit to WP:D (adding "PT1" and "PT2") wasn't designed to denote any sort of prioritization, nor have I been keeping up with the discussion on the talk page to which you referred. (I am not interested in explicitly prioritizing one over the other, but personally believe the second one is probably more important.) It was designed to reduce the confusion that I see among editors when people say "PT1" or "PT2" in naming discussions, when there is nothing on any page that tells them what those things mean in practice. Can you tell me what can be done to clear up this confusion that might be in line with what you say is the consensus of the talk page? Best, Dekimasuよ! 23:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

For starters, don't number them. --Netoholic @ 00:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's not very helpful, since I'm not trying to name or number them; they are already being called those things. I just want there to be some indication of what it means when people use those terms, since they are already in use. Can't we both say it's deprecated, or something, and also explain it? Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu:This is something to take to the talk page of that guideline. People almost never refer to them as P1/P2... they are "usage" and "long-term significance" currently. numbering them, however "deprecated" or with whatever caveats, will imply a priority ranking which is not supported per the talk page discussions. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't receive your ping, for some reason; the second edit you reverted explicitly denied priority was involved, so it surely did not imply a priority ranking. At any rate I won't pursue it further at the moment. If you have suggestions for how to avoid something like the exchange on "PT2" at Talk:Doug Jones (actor)#Requested move 6 March 2018, where the response was being informed by a reaction to "PT1," please let me know. I have been seeing quite a few instances of this recently. If you think editors should avoid using the abbreviations themselves, please consider telling them so when you come across it. Dekimasuよ! 06:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: - those "few instances" are likely the same person, but there is no consensus on the proper order of those, and so no consensus on any numbering scheme. -- Netoholic @ 06:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article whose talk page you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Chinface article

I need help on the Chinface article; can you try to fix the text "A rare esemplare of a chinface." to go on underneath the image like most image texts do, please? I tried to but it didn't work. 66.215.249.231 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

One for your "Disambiguation can be a funny thing" series?

This may amuse you: --woodensuperman 15:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Dostoevsky

Just wondering: if a translator or biographer uses the 'Dostoyevsky' spelling, shouldn't it be left that way when referring to that book? Harold the Sheep (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Harold the Sheep: - Depends. Within the citation or a bibliography listing, it should keep whatever spelling they use (assuming the source is in English). In running text where we speak in the Misplaced Pages voice, it should be consistent with the rest of the article text.-- Netoholic @ 02:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Harold the Sheep: For an example, see the short bibliography listing at The House of the Dead (novel)#Editions where the source's spelling is preserved. -- Netoholic @ 02:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"Proper threading"?

Please explain this. It's all one "thread", just response banter. As I stated, the multi-colon replies push the replies into the right margin, extend the page, and push the !votes further down. I'm not going to cherry-pick the discussions you had with Woodensuperman, if no one else can properly place their say-so on the matter. That's not the purpose of {{Outdent}}. — Wyliepedia @ 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:CAWylie - It means that you should keep the replies indented with respect to the comments they are replying to. What you did was remove all hierarchy from the section. -- Netoholic @ 04:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The comments run down the right margin like a car with a flat tire rides a guard rail. I'm not going to decipher what seems to repeated redundant misunderstood arguments in order outdent what belongs with what. Again, not what the template is for. — Wyliepedia @ 04:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, but unless it can be done in a way which doesn't put replies under comments that the reply wasn't in response to, then its worse than leaving it as it is. -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Move review

I have responded to the 3xcercise move review. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Subpages

Just curious as to why you didn't move the subpages when you recently renamed UP to HUP? This meant that the talk page archives didn't follow your page move. It's always good to check because there are rare times when subpages shouldn't be moved, for example, I recently moved Civic Center (disambiguation) to "Civic Center", a set index page, and was asked if I wanted to move subpages. Rather than them being talk page archives, they were actual articles (or redirects to articles) with a solidus in the title, such as Civic Center/UN Plaza station. Had I moved them during the round-robin, I would have had a real mess. Usually though, they are just talk page archives that need to be moved with the talk page title. Again, just curious.  Paine Ellsworth    15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: - Was waiting to see if my IAR move would hold up. -- Netoholic @ 15:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, good for you, it was worth a shot!  Paine Ellsworth    15:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clamshell design, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clamshell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Hello, can you please add your sources to The Return of the Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Uncontroversial moves

Since you worked on the Frozen characters moves, could you consider putting up the The Little Mermaid pages as uncontroversial moves (I've never figured out how to put multiple listings on RM, and even have coding trouble with regular listings, my uncoded-clouded mind)? I think there's three of them, Ariel (Disney), Ursula (Disney), and Sebastian (Disney). There are probably more Disney production character pages than these, but the precedent has been created at the Frozen and The Lion King character pages. The rest, including these The Little Mermaid pages, could probably be moved without an RM, but each are already at redirects. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

p.s. In fact it looks like the Ariel character was originally moved to Disney in a bold undiscussed move in July, 2015. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

To editor Randy Kryn: I started Talk:Ariel (Disney)#Requested move 7 April 2018. No rush and potentially smooths future moves. -- Netoholic @ 17:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A better idea, thanks. Will check out the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Re:Infomercials (TV series)

The Infomercials are also in short format but, here's an article that I found on Web who confirm that they're all TV specials http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/adult-swim/241381/before-too-many-cooks-looking-at-adult-swim-s-other-infomercials -- Luigi1090 (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• A TV special (made for and aired on Adult Swim, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, etc.), doesn't have to be that precise running time because they're anti-limit. Then I've found other links on Web who confirm that they're all TV specials, and this time for some titles (some also confirmed by their "creators/staff"):

- For-Profit Online University http://splitsider.com/2013/12/heres-an-infomercial-for-a-fake-college-written-by-ex-onion-writers-that-adult-swim-is-airing-at-4am/
- In Search of Miracle Man http://www.mattbesser.com/?p=1679
- Live at the Necropolis: The Lords of Synth https://pitchfork.com/news/65229-adult-swim-parodies-giorgio-moroder-vangelis-wendy-carlos-watch/
- Wet Shapes http://www.joosjeduk.com/wet-shapes-1/

Luigi1090 (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Television show, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TV listings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

AWB replacement edit summary

Looks like you might be missing the closing brackets on your recent AWB edits, either that or you have reached the limit in which case I suggest changing your edit summary to something like "clean up, replaced: Tony Stark → ] using ]". --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Warning

You have stumbled on a group that moves from article to article supporting each other to give the appearance of consensus. Notice they're all very involved in politics but on individual articles despite significant overlap between MrX and Scjessey, and MrX and SPECIFICO, there's almost no overlap between Scjessey and SPECIFICO... suspect. 68.65.122.206 (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. That's an interesting web tool. -- Netoholic @ 02:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Here's a link to the main tool page and here's a more complete analysis (the one above just looked at article talk pages.) Look through the archives at Arbitration Enforcement. Specifico and MrX are very active there and very good at getting anyone who challenges them topic banned. 68.65.122.206 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Now you get how this works? Happy editing I guess? Haha. 68.65.122.206 (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Not surprised. -- Netoholic @ 19:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

This was the funniest comment I've read on WP in quite awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: I like your idea of moving the Main page to portal space.    — The Transhumanist   16:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Jim Carrey Template

I'm not 100% certain that there is enough justification for the creation of Template:Jim Carrey. It popped up on a couple of pages in my watchlist today. Hoping to have an administrator look at it. BoogerD (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest

Hi @Netoholic:,

I'm bringing this to your attention because you are an active editor in articles regarding television-related topics. I have noticed that one user User:FerenComm might have a conflict of interest in regards to the edits they have made on the Sony Crackle page. The edits they have made to the page have seen it rewritten in a manner that appears to be more promotional rather than encyclopedic, as it was before. A Google search of that username has turned up Feren Communications, a television publicity company (see their website: ). I'm not sure how to go about notifying the proper people to report such a possible violation of Misplaced Pages policy (at least as far as I understand it after reading Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on what ought to be done. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

To editor BoogerD: - I dropped standard message on their talk page asking them to confirm if they are a paid contributor. The things they are adding seem a bit promotional, and are unsourced, so if you're familiar with the article, maybe you could take a look. You can edit to remove the promotional tone, tag the unsourced parts with {{citation needed}}, or remove them altogether if you think they might not be appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 06:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (comics) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cambalachero (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Journey into Night

Okay, this is turning into a mess. The article need to go Journey into Night there not Journey into Night (Westworld). Valoem 17:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Valoem: This draft has been reviewed and accepted to the main space. Do not move it back. Page name will be fixed later. -- Netoholic @ 17:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My bad, I just tagged the page. I asked another admin to mainspace it. Its done. Valoem 17:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, I would support a topic ban of AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) when it comes to Westworld if you choose to open it at ANI. He has been extremely disruptive here and here. He knowingly acted against consensus and made bad faith attacks agaisnt multiple editors. Valoem 19:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Valoem: Pretty close to that. He's caused a ton of work, stress, and lost editing time for this silly crap. I've left warnings on his talk page specifically about this and advised him not to mess with Draft space nonsense. I suppose we'll see how things go after the next episode and see if he still pushes this.-- Netoholic @ 19:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, guys. Great work all 'round! -- Alex 01:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

About harvest moon

the reason why it was named (2007 video game series) is because the odd history it has with "Story of Seasons". It was initially proposed that both of them would keep the name "Harvest Moon" but one would be named 2007 series and the other would be named 1996 series. the "video game" was a mistake I believe. that wasn't in the original proposal.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Came here to say this. Netoholic, you commented on the move proposal, you saw the result. Sorry you didn't get your way but this is disruptive. TarkusAB 00:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the new name is odd in my opinion too, but the consensus called for it. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"Motivation"

Hey. Enough of that In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not want to have your comments. If you're going to make personal attacks, insinuation or just generally be nasty, do it in public space. Not on my user page. Thanks. I understand you and I differ about the importance of entertainment topics. But agree to disagree please. Have a nice day. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor In ictu oculi: - I have no qualms about downplaying an entertainment topic over something else - I'm a firm believer that general knowledge topics trump niche, transient commercial products. It just doesn't seem in this case that there was any legitimate conflict for the title. Prior to your creations, there were only two (non-album) uses of "transatlanticism" in the entirety of the encyclopedia, and neither matches your stub. Heck, you couldn't even find any Special:WhatLinksHere/Transatlanticism_(culture) so far. Doesn't seem to be much in demand, and may not even be a real thing beyond the basic dictdef. -- Netoholic @ 11:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Event television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pageant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool Kids (song)

Please stop edit warring. If you want to change the target of a redirect it needs to go through WP:RFD. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Amakuru: - it doesn't need to go there if you'd just apply the WP:INCDAB guideline. perhaps only you see it as an edit war? -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You made a change, it was reverted, and you made the change again. That's edit warring, and runs counter to WP:BRD. There are no other songs of that name with articles on Misplaced Pages, and the redirect has always pointed to the Echosmith song, so there's really no need for it to change today to point to the dab page. Please revert your undiscussed change, and list it at WP:RFD for full discussion  — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Amakuru: - there is no history of that redirect pointing anywhere before today when I moved the article, so you didn't revert to a stable version, you just changed it to your preference, and did so against the guideline WP:INCDAB. It seems YOU are the one that wants some kind of exception, and so I invite you to take it to RFD. -- Netoholic @ 21:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, there was a redirect there since the article was first moved in 2014, but that redirect was deleted following the move request at WP:RMTR earlier, which you took it upon yourself to revert. The redirect pointed to the Echosmith song. In fact, the move earlier was the correct one, because WP:SONGDAB makes it clear that if there's only one article for a given song title XXX on Misplaced Pages, then we call that article XXX (song). There is no need for further disambiguation.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Amakuru: - WP:INCDAB is part of the core Disambiguation guideline, which trumps any project-specific guideline. WP:SONGDAB only covers article titles, and says nothing about where incompletely-disambiguated redirects should point. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The rule was decided by an RFC, and SONGDAB is part of a guideline page in itself, so I think it's fairly clear that there is consensus for that rule. WP:INCDAB concerns situations where there are multiple articles competing for a title, but that isn't the case here.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Amakuru: - Article don't "compete" for a title, and neither should we. Cool Kids (Kix song) is covered on Misplaced Pages along with 2 other songs with that name, and we owe it to readers and future editors to not artificially limit ourselves by using a disambiguation which itself is ambiguous when we know this other content is out there. Sending someone looking for that song title should put them on the disambiguation page so they can then locate the right artist. It also encourages future editors to create articles for those other songs, if appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 22:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine, that's your opinion, but the guideline disagrees with you. That's why I'm asking you to please revert your change and seek consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Amakuru: I'm siding with the more broadly-applied guideline, WP:INCDAB, over a narrow one relating just to songs. -- Netoholic @ 22:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)