User talk:SNUGGUMS

SNUGGUMS is busy with various other websites as well as work and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Britney Spears § Shall we remove the 2019-2021 personal life section?. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet sure how much I'll contribute to that thread. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update: As later events show, the main proponent of that discussion (BassiStone (talk · contribs)) has been indefinitely banned by the community for using AI/LLM on this article (especially the 2019-2021 section). So, it's already taken care of. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Shrugs shoulders) I suppose that renders the thread void. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Comic strips work group § Peanuts Good Topic/Featured Topic. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a nickname is no prominent as to justify its inclusion in the opening bold name, then the article title should reflect that. No need for you to reply, thanks. GiantSnowman 14:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder how you knew what each of the author's |first= and |last= name, in this edit. The reason that I continuously stated "indistinct" is the author's name is in three words, thus it's vauge to determine which one falls under |last= or |first=. Is there any standard of determining this? Thank you. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, Camilasdandelions; middle names belong within the first name parameter. On the other hand, a double last name (including hyphenated ones) would fully go into the last name field. I also made that edit to make the format of author displays more consistent. A good guide can be found here on formatting them as Wikipedia appears to use MLA Handbook style more than something like APA style. Whenever a section contains a list of print references that get used within the page (perhaps with specific citations to page numbers), you tend to see the authors listed alphabetically by last name, and that gets shown before first names or any middle names/initials. It seems best to instead the save "author" field for instances where it's an institution writing a piece or somebody who just goes by a singular name. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Then I'll put the author's middle name along with their first name in |first= parameter :). (Ps. I have been struggling at replying on the comments, I think the <div style="padding: 20px; width: 900px; background: :#f0f0ff; border: 5px solid #8888aa; text-align: justify; font-family: Times New Roman, sans-serif; font-size: 125%;"> causes an error in mobile Wikipedia) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and should have an easier time now that I removed the coding on this talk page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Breathe In. Breathe Out. § Chasing the Sun and All About You as the single. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some input on that thread. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies for the random message. I have a quick question about a song article, "Roommates" (Hilary Duff song). I noticed that "Roommates" (song) is currently a redirect to a Dixie D'Amelio song, and since the Hilary Duff song is the only "Roommates" song with an article, I was debating on requesting a move about this. However, I was uncertain if this would be considered an uncontroversial move and if a technical request would be preferable.

Apologies again for randomly asking you. Even though I have participated in requested moves before (and I have open a few as well), I just wanted to get some clarification about this, so that I can keep this in mind for the future. I hope that you are having a wonderful end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It probably wouldn't be controversial to list that at technical requests, Aoba47. There either way is no point in having the term redirect to a target unlikely to warrant a page in the foreseeable future when something with its own main space article already exists. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have a tendency to overthink things, so I wanted to get a second opinion about this. I appreciate your help, and I will make a technical request for this momentarily. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Someone has removed the double dagger indicating the winners in the tables for the Oscar ceremony lists. There was a discussion long time ago under Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/87th Academy Awards/archive1 that determined that the best way to indicate winners was through listing the winners first, bold, and--most importantly--having a double dagger. Screen readers can't detect bold text, and in some cases where the winners is the alphabetically first entry, it would look like just any other listing of nominees with no indication for the winners. I am trying to put it back, but I am afraid this might start an edit war if I go on furhter.

--Birdienest81talk 07:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried linking to that page yet, Birdienest81? If not, then I would recommend doing so before anything else. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m curious as to why you’re against rowspans for her filmography. Is there some new rule that I’m unaware of? Partyclams (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those have been frowned upon in filmography tables for years, Partyclams, and they needlessly mess up formatting issues for tables (particularly when trying to sort items). That's far from the first page to rightfully have rowspans removed from such tables and I doubt will be the last. To be frank, there is no good reason for adding them to anybody's filmography. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info! Partyclams (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie § Removal of Japan as production country. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to say on the matter, so at least for now I decline to participate. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this based off any guidelines or policies on Wikipedia or personal objection? There has been no issues in my personal experience with having years in tables formatted with a rowspan, it avoids repetition. Rusted AutoParts 17:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes have seen WP:ACCESS used as a rationale to avoid rowspans, Rusted AutoParts, and you might be surprised how often people have taken them out from other folks' filmography tables. Such misuses of rowspans tend to get frowned upon; there are times they make fields harder (or at least messier) to sort. Listing years more than once actually isn't repetitive in the least for these tables. Let's not keep perpetuating the subpar practice here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am examining ACCESS and not especially seeing any prohibitions against using rowspans at all, seems they specify a means of doing so that doesn't affect accessibility so I should begin using that going forward. You may personally not utilize them, but I don't see why my edits are being reverted over something that isn't violating any specific guideline. The vast majority of filmography tables I have seen and contributed to utilize them. I'm not going to edit war over this, but I don't believe these reverts were appropriate. Rusted AutoParts 17:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For as long as I can remember, their use has been discouraged even if at some point whatever bit from that specific page others had in mind got taken out. To say "vast majority" sounds like a stretch when countless tables I've come across don't use any rowspans and inserting them would have no discernible benefit. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Iron Giant § Edit War. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified to comment there when I haven't seen the movie in full before, only bits and pieces of it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SNUGGUMS! I recently nomianted an article to Featured Article candidate. My previous FAC of the other article was archived due to lack of comments, so I hope I can get enough comments in this article. I've seen you'd commented your review in other FACs, which was also helpful to me at copyediting / improving the articles. And I would truly appreciate if you share your comment in this candidate, thanks :)! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should have something posted there within 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Just left my comments on it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I replied to your comment :). Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you reverted my edit in List of fandom names, all though I did forget to cite I have been in the arianator community long enough to know that Ariana has shown a dislike to the fandom name both on Twitter (which I cant cite because ariana deactivated her Twitter account in 2021) and most recently in an interview when cynthia erivo asked "Your fans are called Arianators, did you come up with that name?" and Ariana responded with "no. they gave themselves that." she also said that it would be insane if she choose that name. Grande called her fans "tiny elephants" and "Ariana army" early in her career. even though she clearly dislike the name she did say she has accepted it. Jacobthe the arianator (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever adds listings or notes to the page is responsible for providing citations, Jacobthe the arianator, so please remember for the future to cite such changes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks <3 Jacobthe the arianator (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just removed italic title from Contactmusic.com, and I found that you added italic titles to it before. However, MOS:WEBITALIC states: "When a domain name is used as the name of a website or brand (e.g. Pets.com), capitalize it as a proper noun but do not italicize it: The largest retailer in this sub-market is Pets.com." But I also believe magazines' title should be italicized, so they're literally conflicting. What's your think for this? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 08:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I simply added them due to it being a magazine. If somehow it turns out not to be one, then those can be removed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SNUGGUMS, Jacobthe the arianator here. I was wondering if you can do me the favor of reviewing the god is a woman part in the notes of the track listing of the Sweetener (album) article as they claim that ""God Is a Woman", stylized in sentence case." but it is stylized as "God is a woman" on YouTube/YT music,Spotify and other music streaming services. I would have done it myself but I don't want to mess it up so if you could do it I would really appreciate that. thank you <3 Jacobthe the arianator (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears to be correct; a quick search on Apple Music found lower case letters used there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank u so in that case will you do the edit or me? Jacobthe the arianator (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

nvm but thank you! Jacobthe the arianator (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your contributions here but it seems that you only focus on American-related biographies and rarely focused on other countries-related biographies here. Thank you in advance. ~2026-15426-35 (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there are many edits I've made to pages on non-Americans, even if it's not as frequent as American citizens. While I haven't kept track of specific statistics for nationalities, the pages I do or don't makes changes to isn't a measure of quality or anything. Nobody is obligated to focus on particular scopes of people when modifying articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, tragedy is a literary genre, and Shakespearean tragedy is thoroughly studied in English literature. There is nothing POV about describing Hamlet and Ophelia's death as "tragic". Ippantekina (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Ippantekina, calling somebody's death "tragic" IS a POV description and I'm not going to pretend otherwise when that implies the death is a sad occurrence. We should keep our personal stances out of the prose even if we find something to be saddening. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point- though I still have reservations because Ophelia is a tragic heroine, but I see where you're coming from. Hamlet though remains objectively a tragedy. Ippantekina (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You misused "objectively" when that term suggests a factual basis, and calling something a tragedy gives the impression it is saddening. Please don't treat your opinions as facts. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SNUGGUMS. I really need your help here.

At the end of the day, major, reliable publications such as Billboard, Rolling Stone, CTV, Essence, Variety, The Hollywood reporter, and Vogue all mention Rihanna's songwriting or literally call her a songwriter.^1234567

There is no reason why Rihanna's Wikipedia's article cannot at least have ONE single mention of her songwriting anywhere just because of one's disbelief that she is a legit songwriter (WP:V, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE). Either I mention it in the infobox or the infobox and elsewhere in the article, but extensive documentation is not required considering that all those major publications agree that Rihanna is a credited songwriter.

Whether or not we personally regard Rihanna as a legit songwriter is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Have major publications, including music publications, referred to Rihanna as a songwriter? Yes! Repeatedly. That's all that matters for at least ONE mention in the article.

There is very limited documentation on Rihanna's precise songwriting involvement, but that doesn't mean that there cannot even be one single mention in the entire article. I provided a few concrete examples of her songwriting methods (from the Songwriter Universe article and the Alan Carr show).

Israell (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you turned to me of all people, but I've already left comments here on the article's talk page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 750h+ is repeatedly reverting everything despite my best efforts! Israell (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included even better sources. Israell (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a kid vandalizing the article to include the name of some friend of his. Not that it matters.... Special-T (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, Special-T, the matter of naming children becomes moot when he and Carolyn died before even conceiving any. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to work as co-nominators for the James Buchanan article. Thanks for volunteering to help! Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, Ktkvtsh! Given how he remains a controversial figure long after dying, it likely would help to take his page to peer review before nominating for GA. Other editors might catch things we somehow missed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good point! Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was on Facebook and theres a reel about Madonnas popular songs. So, although i already know alot about her, I was reading her Wikipedia and one thing is left out. Wiki doesnt have the edit feature, so Im wondering if you can add it? When her song True Blue came out, she was looking for her fans to come up with a video for the song. I forget how long the try outs were. The source? Me.She advertised this back in the 80s. ~2026-19303-21 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Such detail can already be found in a section of the song's article, ~2026-19303-21, and I'm inclined to think it's better for that instead of her main bio. Have a look at True Blue (Madonna song)#MTV's "Make my Video" contest for more. The 1984–1987 section of Madonna's bio article is meant to be more of a summary of her activities during that time period. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This concept intrigues me, Dr. Blofeld, even if I don't end up expanding nearly enough articles to win a prize. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to let you know that I listed above article in Peer review, to receive some feedbacks from the experienced editors like you. Since your comments in my last featured article candidate really helped me a lot, and you're one of the editors who made many contributions in Middle of Nowhere article, I would love to receive your feedbacks. Also, if this article passes FA status, it will be Musgraves's first article to be FA (and she does not own any good article in Wikipedia, as I know). Thank you! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It unfortunately would be a conflict of interest for me to fully review a PR for pages I have made lots of non-minor contributions to, Camilasdandelions, which means I'll have to decline this one. From a glance, what I can do is point out how the article is nowhere close to being stable or broad enough in coverage to pass any FA or even GA nomination when the album hasn't even been out for a week yet. Other people at PR will probably tell you the same. At bare minimum, I recommend waiting until three months have passed before taking to FAC or GAN. My advice for how to improve the page itself is to first expand with more details on critics' reviews and commercial performance as they become available. Once the article has grown with these things and the edit frequency decreases, you'll have a much better chance of passing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also felt it would be somewhat early to nominate an article to either GAN or FAC, so I opened its Peer review today, and since I believed the review will take little bit long like for some few weeks. But do you think even Peer review is too early for this? I will then close the review for now and will open it after two~three weeks. Please share your opinion for it, sorry to disrupt you. I highly appreciate your advice! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, there are no time restrictions on when to open peer reviews, so feel free to leave that one open. You therefore can still get input on the prose, sourcing, and images used within the first month of this album being released. I assure you that your request isn't disruptive at all, and that me not leaving detailed commentary is only because Wikipedians aren't supposed to give complete PR, FA, FL, or GA reviews for things they've become highly involved with editing. If I had made little to no edits before you opened it up for PR, then I gladly would leave extended comments on what to change. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thank you for the clarification. I also appreciate your edits in this article a lot. Hope you have a nice day today! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS I'm sorry if I interrupted you; yesterday I created a featured article candidate for the another article. If you don't mind, could you please take a look for it? Sorry for bothering you with this request. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine, and I should have comments up within 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I'm looking forward to your comments! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, SNUGGUMS! The article you nominated, Madonna, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A fantastic update, FrB.TG, and thanks for passing it! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see the article for Queen of Pop has been passed to FA status. Congratulations! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So am I, Camilasdandelions, and thank you very much! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to join this when I probably won't have enough time or energy to review multiple nominations throughout next month. Best of luck to whoever does participate! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In which guideline is this stated? I don't quote tweets verbatim SNUGGUMS, as I was previously informed via edit summaries that quoting a tweet verbatim can constitute a violation of a user's self-published copyright. I also don't see the point. Anybody can verify whether the tweet actually contains the information by clicking on it, and if they don't have an X account, I'm sure there are sufficient Internet services that allow users to view tweets without logging in. Skyversay (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a copyright violation at all, Skyversay, and cutting off part of it from the title comes off as an attempt to hide something. Giving the complete words helps with transparency. For as long as I can remember, I've gone off the examples Template:Cite tweet uses for formatting citations to them, which use verbatim quoting. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not an attempt to hide anything when a citation one can click on is provided. Until there is a guideline or a policy that states editors must copy and paste an entire tweet (which I don't think will ever be a requirement considering verified users on X can write entire essays, and having something of that length as a citation title would be much too long and unwieldy), I will continue doing as I have done. Skyversay (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The incomplete versions do still seem lazy compared to using full tweets, regardless of which method you prefer. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SNUGGUMS, just letting you know I created the template for Madonna's TFA (I haven't placed it on the official page yet). It might need a bit of polishing so you can change what you think needs to be changed. 750h+ 13:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to wait a bit before going for a formal request, but so far I only have made one change, and am debating whether to add a little more on movie roles there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SNUGGUMS! How are you? Hope you're having a productive week. I just wanted to clarify something regarding the Legendary Lovers article. I can see in the article that there is a tag saying it was nominated for deletion because it didn't meet the notability guidelines. However, Katy just released the remix featuring Chief Keef, and it’s currently gaining traction with more publications writing about it.

I wanted to check in and see if it still fails notability, as I’d love to contribute to the page. Tbh, I've been avoiding making edits because I wasn't sure if they would matter while the deletion tag was active. I just want to make sure the article is here to stay before I dive in. Thank you! 143kittypurry (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So far the refs I came across that do discuss this remix are surprisingly more focused on prior interactions with Chief Keef, 143kittypurry, with only minor mentions of the new track itself. The particular pieces inserted before this writing don't exactly count towards notability when not giving much depth on released material. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 10:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, SNUGGUMS. I hope we get enough publications discussing and reviewing the song to make its article qualify. 143kittypurry (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SNUGGUMS! As I believe you would be interested in this discussion, I invite you there. Please feel free to participate in, thank you! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 14:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just left my thoughts there, and I appreciate the notification. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spyro: A Realm Beyond is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyro: A Realm Beyond until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Just wanted to clarify my recent edit in The Ones That Got the Plays. The Billboard magazine mentions "Perry’s first greatest- hits release starts with nearly 13,000 units earned and marks her eighth entry on the chart..." Because the album was also available for digital purchase (for example, on iTunes), I assume the cited "units" are not solely album-equivalent units. My understanding is that album-equivalent units refer specifically to sales equivalents generated from streaming activity converted into album units. Just wanted to double-check and make sure we're on the same page! Thanks, SNUGGUMS. 143kittypurry (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Album-equivalent units tend to contain a mixture of copies sold and streaming equivalents, 143kittypurry, and many times post-2014 we can find breakdowns from Billboard specifying amounts of each when that magazine gives its weekly updates for the top 10 entries on the Billboard 200. As for numbers going beyond that range (especially for something that enters at a position below 50), they unfortunately often appear to just give a combined total without saying how many units were generated from streams. This admittedly is inconvenient for things with lower-end positions. In the case you've linked here, it's impossible to say what the percentages/numbers of those were for the combined total of ~13,000 units. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, SNUGGUMS. That makes perfect sense regarding the entries charted below the top 50, and I agree that simply using 'units' is the "convenient" on their part. 143kittypurry (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snuggums, hope you're doing well. I opened a discussion on Bitch (album) regarding how the record label Nice Life Recording Company should be worded (with or without "Recording Company") in the lead. If you could please leave a comment on there I would greatly appreciate it as you're very smart in this area. Talk:Bitch (album)#h-Nice Life Recording Company or Nice Life-20260611174500 Pillowdelight (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I left comments here with my stance. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Bitch (album).

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Zirthes (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can find comments from me there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've removed the R3 tag from Watch It Burn, since that criterion is specifically for typos, not all bad redirects. Feel free to take it to RfD. lp0 on fire () 17:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]