Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:54, 13 February 2015

Welcome!

Hello, Crovata, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Croats article

First let me say I do agree with you that the article needs to be reduced, especially concerning history sections which are way too broad and overwhelming. However you are reverting the article to an earlier version with outdated sources for the population census' tags which I already corrected and large numbers of references I provided. Now I am going to support this version of the article but I will revert the sources and the census data along with the version of the infobox (regarding census') and I will ask you in return that you do not delete those sources again and that you be more careful to what you are reverting in the future and pay more attention to references you are deleting. Shokatz (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that we will reach an agreement, and creatively collaborate. I am aware of the census situation, it was not intentional, because the work on the article started a long time ago. The census data should first correct and update (simultaneously correct it in communities section). In the future, everyone should help to work on language, religion, culture (add science and sport) sections. This is all for now, until the next talk (for about week or two).--Crovata (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to reach an agreement. I agree with your edits to the article. I was thinking about trimming it myself as the history section was ridiculously huge. The only issue was the fact you were reverting the infobox refs and data with it, along with a rather large number of other citations and grammar/spelling and link corrections I've spent a lot of time on. So I had to do the same thing twice now...lol. Oh and btw. I would like to welcome you to Misplaced Pages. Cheers. Shokatz (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ban article rewrite

Your edit summary did not describe the rationale for the rewrite of this article, but the changes make it apparent that you've based your rewrite on an earlier revision of the article. Thereby, you've effectively reverted to an earlier revision, but failed to account for that in the edit summary. As a consequence, a lot of referenced material from the article was removed without any explanation, unintentionally or not. You also added exceptional claims without any references such as how the term is exclusively connected with the Croats. All this in combination makes it hard to assume good faith.

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.

--Joy (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost a year passed from your comment, somehow there was no time to answer. Unfortunately, my edit was not based on any kind of earlier revisions, any historical or political ideology. It was written in the best intent to explain the origin and history of the title.--Crovata (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yoshiki images

I noticed that you removed some images from Yoshiki (musician). There are now only two images of him, and two images of pianos. I think the article should have some more photos of Yoshiki, at least one showing the drums. (File:Yoshiki with drum kit 2011.jpg, File:Yoshiki playing drums.jpg) One with Toshi would be good, too, because the relationship is important: File:X Japan 20100704 Japan Expo 32.jpg.

What do you think? Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The images were removed to make the article more concentrated around his solo career, and there is no enough text to support too many images. The monitor, ie., screen resolution will increase, and while am working on an article, with the opportunity to see it in from smaller (800x600) to bigger (1920x1200) resolution size, am always trying to keep balance between the information, text, images and music samples. For an encyclopedia is important to keep an article in good aesthetic shape. Also, is important to "keep on eye" what kind of impression it leaves, in this case about an artist. Those two images are more than sufficent, one of him, which shows he is a modern composer, and other playing the piano, which shows he is a pianist and is conncected with the release of his latest album. I added three music samples, which is more important for composers than images. Think that there could be added one more photo of Yoshiki, in the Equipment (drums) section, but first it needs text, like in Japanese redaction (Yoshiki). I would recommend this image (File:Yoshiki with drum kit 2011.jpg). Would not prefer the other one, which is more personal, while with the piano (File:Yoshiki playing the piano.jpg) is an excellent image, but there is no space for it. Would note that both images need to have the watermark erased. There is no need for an image with Toshi on article about Yoshiki, there is an excellent live image from the concert on the article about X Japan. Do you have any ideas about the article?--Crovata (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the image of Yoshiki standing on his drum stool. I disagree about the number of images the article can support, but let's not worry about that. I will add the drums image. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Dalmatian Croat (people)

Hello - I've alluded to a Croats edit of yours onTalk:Dalmatian_Croat#Provenance_of_this_redirect and thought you might like to review/refine/comment. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Morlachs

- See User talk:Zoupan#Morlachs and User talk:Zoupan#Serbs of Croatia

My intention is not to edit-war, but yours. I certainly do not take your evaluation of me as having lack of knowledge seriously. You do not understand Misplaced Pages basics. I have expanded it, added sourced material, and done plenty of copyediting, and will continue to do so. You also neglect that the term Morlachs was principally used in Europe as the community in the Dalmatian hinterlands of the 17th century (thus the intro). You have been deliberately removing references suggesting greater connection to Serbs. I have tagged the refs that need better sources, including Dakić. The Croatian Encyclopedia is not a reliable source (see Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources). Do not revert my additions, that is uncalled for, instead, from now on, we go through article problems on the talk page, and if not, we have to take it elsewhere.--Zoupan 01:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for false accusations, there is no wrong intentions from my side, and it's up to you to see why are you not accepting my warnings for using unreliable sources for controversal or unexplained claims, and writing prone to nationalism. The actual majority of your contribution was copyediting from beforehand edited articles, and the use of sources was sparse, what doesn't matter because you had such sources. The "yours" last revision was on May 7, 607545683, with 9,741 bytes, while rewritten by me, 611797848, with new material on June 6 around 21,202 bytes, yet several times like on June 8, 612031978, you reverted it to your previous revision, removing 11,460 bytes of information, and not with sources which only partially mention Morlachs and the text highlight the connection with Serbs, but from scientific sources specifically studying Morlachs and Vlachs, with citatations found in those books and papers, explaining the etymology, its chronology, and more. To further avoid edit claims which identify the term Morlach, or elsewhere, with specific national identity, religion and vice versa, without understanding, or explaining in the article, the historical circumstances until late 19th century, I highly recommend you to read the work of Zef Mirdita and Ivan Mužić on Vlachs. Further reply reading here.

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Vlachs of Croatia

added links pointing to Obrovac, Pag, Unca and Križevci

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vlachs of Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katun. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kožljak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Šumber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sveta Nedelja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

J-pop

Hi, Crovata. You seem to have a different point of view from me. I'd like to talk with you in Japanese because the key word is 「特典商法」「複数枚買い問題」 and I'm not sure how to explain it with my poor English. If you can't understand Japanese, I will try to ask other editors to come here. --Anosola (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to write it simple. I'm not very interested in the J-pop article itself, or those groups, but for the objective and relevant information. The thing is, the only relevant and objective representation of popularity are record sales, not surveys. Some surveys, in the case of Momoiro Clover Z and which you point out, was done only by one source, the Nikkei Entertainment! magazine, and it actually shows the popularity in the first-half of the 2013 and 2014. Neverthless, they are not the most best-selling music act in Japan in those years, that's AKB48, and there's no reason why the group Momoiro Clover Z should be featured and more highlighted because of some surveys, more than AKB48 or Arashi.

Since the section talks about 2010s, and you reverted those edits, in 2010 the yearly record album ranking featured Arashi at number 1, while in the single ranking Top 10 were featured only Arashi and AKB48 singles. In 2011, the yearly album ranking featured AKB48 and Arashi in Top 2, while in the single ranking Top 7 were featured only AKB48 and Arashi singles. In 2012, the yearly album ranking featued Mr. Children in Top 2, while AKB48 and Arashi at 3rd and 4th place, while in the single ranking Top 7 were featured only AKB48 and Arashi, and as well in Top 10 three SKE48 singles. In 2013, the yearly album ranking featured Arashi at number 1, while in the single ranking Top 4 were featured only AKB48, and in Top 10 also Exile, SKE48, NMB48 and Arashi singles. In 2014, the yearly album ranking featured AKB48 at number 1 and Arashi at number 3, while in the single ranking Top 6 were featured only AKB48 singles, and Top 8 also two Arashi singles.

As you can see, in neither album or single yearly ranking from 2010 to 2014 Momoiro Clover Z didn't reach the Top 10, and that points to the fact there are more notable and noteworthy music pop groups, bands and solo artists in Japan. Like in the case of Kyary Pamyu Pamyu, she did not gain any internationl popularity with her single "Pon Pon Pon" (didn't even reach Top 5 on Japan Hot 100 or chart on Oricon), her singles barely sell 20,000 copies, and only because Katy Perry and Ariana Grande tweeted about the "Pon Pon Pon" single, that does not make it noteworthy. There countless artists in Japan with such success, and countless more notable.

According the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, the article information needs to be represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, because of that, will revert the article to my revision.--Crovata (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Jin talk pages and stuff

Good work on all the Jin pages! It's nice to see more people creating large articles on Japanese music topics.

Here are a couple of pointers to help the pages along:

• Each article's talk page should have these templates on them:

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{album|class= | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = | b3 <!--Structure --> = | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = }} {{WikiProject Japan|class= |importance= |music=yes | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = | b3 <!--Structure --> = | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = }} }}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{WikiProject Song|class= | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = | b3 <!--Structure --> = | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = }} {{WikiProject Japan|class= |importance=low |music=yes | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = | b3 <!--Structure --> = | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = }} }}

• According to the WP:CHART guidelines, Billboard charts that make up the main chart shouldn't feature. So with the Japan Hot 100, articles shouldn't list the airplay or physical sales chart (unless the song didn't make it onto the Hot 100), but the adult airplay, anime and independent charts are all good.
• For pages like Good Time (Jin Akanishi song) with parenthesis, the main article/discog should point there and not to the disambig page. Also on the disambig pages, it's good to list the new article, so they're easy to find!
• If an article already had a counterpart on the Japanese Misplaced Pages, you can link them on the bottom left at the languages' "add links" section (typing in JA, then for Good Time, Good Time (赤西仁の曲))

Happy editing! --Prosperosity (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)