User talk:Camilasdandelions

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Hi

[edit]

Look, it is clear to me there is some kind of negative energy you have towards me, and I was wondering if we could simply talk about it at this point, as I feel it is overdue at this point. livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Livelikemusic Thank you for opening the discussion, but no, it's not the reason that I have "some kind of negative energy". You changed "Date" from "Initial release date" on Bite Me and I just can't understand this because the latter is much longer than the former. Plus, I've never seen other articles using "Initial release date" except The Life of a Showgirl. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but this kind of energy has been long-standing across multiple articles. I am not pin-pointing one in particular, and I am just trying to open a dialogue in the hopes of remedying this, to avoid further conlict(s). Also, I kindly ask to not be pinged in response(s). Thank you. livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you not to think that I deliberately returned your editing for no reasons; I have thought we had conflicts just because there are many articles that overlap in our fields. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the vibe I have gotten, Camilasdandelions, at all. If anything, it was felt very targeted of you (via your edits) towards me (via my edits), and it has felt very unfounded. Hence why I opened this dialogue (which I have wanted to open for quite some time to "hash things out" you could say). I would not have brought this up if I did not feel it needed to be discussed, honestly. livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I also agree that we had many conflicts in Wikipedia but I didn't "follow your contribs and revert everything". I would show my watchlist if I can, but most of them are edited by you, livelikemusic. As I can't remeber all occasions we had, but the case about "Initial release date" is clear at all. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not accuse you of following my contributions/edits on Wikipedia in any of my messages above, so please do not put that out into the universe, as that is not what this is actually about. Unfortunately, it seems as if you might not want to talk about this (and that is fine if you do not); I just thought we could have had a conversation at this juncture about it, is all. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not that I don't want to talk about this, I have also thought to talk about this with you; but then what would you do if the conflict occured again? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No clue, hence why it would be nice to discuss it now, which is why I approached. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understood. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Camilasdandelions. Thank you for your work on Arch (album). Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned in target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Songs in A Minor

[edit]

Hi. I don't want our editing dispute to escalate so I thought it would be for the best if we discussed it here.

I'm sorry for monopolizing Songs in A Minor, but to be completely honest I put an immense amount of time and effort into making that article what it is now (as I thoroughly restructured it, section by section). While different editing styles (e.g. headlines) are expected, I do find issue with complete removal of my contributions (in this case, footnotes containing references). Those footnotes are there for a major reason, and if you have an issue with them, I would appreciate if you brought it up on the article's talk page instead of removing them without explanation. What I also find perplexing is your continuous removal of "bonus disc" brackets from the track listing, which makes the multiple-disc formats appear confusing to readers (not chastising you, but genuinely wondering why).

I care a great deal about the article, and while I'm willing to compromise as any editor with common courtesy would, I will not let my efforts dissipate. Let me know if you're willing to discuss this further. :) Bronx Langford (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you opened discussion to talk with me. For footnotes, I thought it is unnecessary because the sentence where footnotes are placed is a summary (like lead section of articles), so I removed them. For disc, you can add it back, but I don't think we have to put "(bonus tracks)" back on headlines. For prep, there's also some users who think putting prep is more proper like you, but I can't understand this honestly; so I need your explanation about this, thank you. For sub-sections, I changed from 
'''Notes'''
to 
===Notes===
because we can add or fix some contents in "Notes" part easily and there's not much difference in appearance. Hope it's explained as well. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 11:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bonus disc brackets are necessary because of the reissues; collector's edition, for example, has three bonus discs, and it would appear confusing without the explanatory brackets. Without the "bonus disc" in the headline, it appears as if the whole track listing of the original album was revised for said reissue.
Regarding footnotes, the reason why I included them is e.g. "Keys' vocal performance was widely lauded; Slant Magazine wrote..."—but if we have only the Slant reference cited, how was it widely lauded? I hope you understand what I mean by this. I also think the paragraphs in critical reception appear too broken now, so I would like to change it back to three substantial paragraphs. The opening sentence (or two) should never constitute a whole paragraph on its own.
As for prepositions, majority of us find it more stylish and easily comprehensible if "for album title" is written on captions of all tables, and for consistency, if one table in the article uses the preposition+title, it would look better if all did. Besides, "ratings for Songs in A Minor" sounds more encyclopedic than the rather informal "Songs in A Minor ratings"; the latter sounds more blog or magazine-formulated, in my opinion at least.
Finally, I don't think there will be many changes needed to be made among notes and sample credits, as it's all pretty much set, and they aren't really that relevant to the article as a whole, which is why I find whole sub-sections for them redundant. However, if you think a sub-section would be better suited for notes than simply bolding, we can create a sub-section for notes, under which sample credits would be included as well.
Also, maybe it is for the best to delete the Remixed & Unplugged cover. I updated it not long ago because the original upload of the cover, which had been in the article for a long time, was too dated, but that reissue isn't notable on its own enough to have its cover displayed in the article (like the 10th anniversary cover, for example, which is often used on digital platforms instead of the original one). I don't think a public discussion on its deletion is necessary though; I can remove it from the article immediately.
Let me know what you think :) Bronx Langford (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For bonus disc & footnotes, I'll follow your way, because I totally understood your explanation well. Thank you for it. For sub-sections, I agree to integrate both "Notes" and "Sample credits". For the remixes version cover, I've learned to open deletion discussion when I try to remove the file from the article. (Once I removed the file from infobox immediately but another editor told me to open discussion before removing it.) Hope you understand this.
For preposition, as I'm not native of english based country, I don't think there's much difference in nuance. Some editor used "Album title ratings" in Template:Music ratings, so I've used this way in many articles. Also, I've seen some articles that are using this way, like Mayhem. If we add preps, then the phrases become longer, so it was bad to look for me. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 08:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it is changed in Mayhem. But we know, we use "Album title track listing", not "Track listing for Album name". What's your think? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 08:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can go without preps, as I've seen some featured articles utilize that approach, but then it'd be better if we match the captions for contemporary and retrospective rating tables. Thank you for pointing out the template, as I forgot to check it for recommended style.
I understand on opening the discussion – it is the proper thing to do – but I'm just letting you know I've already removed the file :) Bronx Langford (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if we match the captions for contemporary and retrospective rating tables. Yeah! I totally agree with this. As I remember, I changed it to "Songs in A Minor contemporary ratings" and "Songs in A Minor restrospective ratings", didn't I? (Or perhaps I was confused during moving the article from enwiki to kowiki) Camilasdandelions (talk!) 10:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've uploaded Songs in A Minor hat.jpeg onto Wikimedia Commons. Out of curiosity, is that for usage on kowiki?
Since the image is available for free use as per Smithsonian, I thought it would be a valuable addition to the legacy section, which is why I uploaded it. Bronx Langford (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it will not be deleted in Commons. (But in Wikipedia maybe it will be removed so we just have to change from jpeg to jpg) It seems free file for me and a file uploader of kowiki, so I uploaded it to Commons which can make us use that file in different wikis. (yes in kowiki) Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good!
On another note, I've been doing some paragraph rearrangements across the article and found myself in a dilemma over whether the anniversary projects sub-section (which I've just created) should be situated within the legacy section (where it's now) or the marketing and touring section. Considering you're going through the entire article while translating it into Korean, what do you think would be better?
Speaking of which, great job on the Korean article! I'm also contemplating creating a version for Croatian Wikipedia. Bronx Langford (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would put that sub-section in "Marketing and touring" section. (which simillary means "Promotion") I will reflect that in kowiki after you arranged it, thank you for developing articles for Alicia Keys :)! Also of course it would be nice if you going to create Keys' album articles in hrwiki. (If you need some help in there, not much but I can help you!) Camilasdandelions (talk!) 15:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) Bronx Langford (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]