User talk:SNUGGUMS

Rio concert numbers

Hello, I would like to invite you (again) to the current discussion about the Rio de Janeiro audience numbers on Lady Gaga’s talk page. Only the same people discussing. Thanks! Arlandria Ff (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to decline when I personally have nothing else to add after already giving my thoughts there earlier, Arlandria Ff, and am not sure how long the thread will continue for. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

39 edits that removed links to the redirect Search Engine Land

Hi SNUGGUMS. Please revert your 39 edits that removed links to the redirect Search Engine Land. This internal link is useful for readers because Search Engine Land redirects to Danny Sullivan (technologist)#Search Engine Land, which gives information about the website. In response to "doesn't have or appear to warrant own article", the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Redirects says it is fine to link to redirects. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's beneficial to link to something unlikely to warrant a separate page. Who would be looking for Sullivan when instead searching for that Engine Land anyway? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Search Engine Land redirects to Danny Sullivan (technologist)#Search Engine Land, which says:

In 2006 Sullivan founded Search Engine Land with Chris Sherman. Search Engine Land is a news website that covers search engine marketing and search engine optimization. It which shares information about keyword research, trends in search marketing (SEM), paid search advertising (PPC) and search engine optimization (SEO) as well as analysis, advice, tips, tactics and how-to guides for search marketing.

Search Engine Land and other Third Door Media brands were acquired by Semrush in October, 2024.

This provides the reader useful information about Search Engine Land and is why a link is beneficial. Cunard (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Would you self-revert these link removals? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Unless that term gets discussed within another article's prose, that doesn't seem as helpful as you believe it would be. When possible, linking to terms actually containing separate articles is preferable to do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Unless that term gets discussed within another article's prose, that doesn't seem as helpful as you believe it would be. – I don't understand this statement as the term Search Engine Land is discussed within the prose of Danny Sullivan (technologist)#Search Engine Land. I've explained that linking to a redirect is helpful to readers in this case in providing background information about what Search Engine Land is. Linking to redirects supported by the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Redirects. I don't see a policy-based reason to remove these links. Would you please self-revert these link removals? Cunard (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

When it looks like the instances I unlinked were only contained within citations, it's not like a page said anything about Search Engine Land that would intrigue viewers to learn more about that. Unlinking within references is hardly something to worry about, especially compared to taking out text discussing the engine. With that in mind, adding such links is of little to no help. Going out of one's way to knowingly insert redirect links instead of actual page links doesn't exactly improve things much if at all. WP:Linking dos and don'ts discourages linking to unexpected targets, and I doubt anybody who did click the term would expect to end up seeing Sullivan's bio. On another note, restoring those would give a misleading impression that this engine has its own article or has a good chance of meriting one in the foreseeable future. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

As we have been unable to come to an agreement, I started an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should links to the redirect Search Engine Land be restored?. Cunard (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Evidently I underestimated your determination and persistence on this matter. To be honest, you didn't need to go out of your way to start that up. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Emily Neves § Basic info: Middle name, date of birth, etc

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emily Neves § Basic info: Middle name, date of birth, etc. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts can be found on the thread now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also opened a discussion at Talk:Emily Neves#B-class/GA-class efforts, if you are interested in helping out. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

While the invite is appreciated, I'm going to decline on that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Peanuts § GA/FA?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Peanuts § GA/FA?. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a few days late, but I did take a glance and left some quick thoughts on the talk page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing for track listings

I assume what Camilasdandelions (talk · contribs) was referring to here is MOS:ALBUM stating while one can cite the liner notes explicitly, it is "generally assumed and does not need explicit citation in most cases" that credits are taken from the liner notes. However, it also says "If an editor thinks that a reference is necessary, Template:Cite AV media notes can be used" and you've done that. Just explaining. Skyversay (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

MOS:ALBUM is only an essay, Skyversay, and therefore doesn't take precedence over policies or even guidelines. It most definitely shouldn't be treated as a free pass to ignore Verifiability requirements. I also don't recommend merely assuming things are taken from liner notes. That's lazy at best and a cheap cop-out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I just told you that's likely what Camilasdandelions is referring to. You're entitled to your opinion even if that's not the current case for most track listings on Wikipedia. I have no interest in arguing with you. Skyversay (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

True, and I was suggesting that the user's removal rationale was dubious. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Starring/Stars/Starred

Thanks for your follow up edit to Jennifer Lawrence. I've often wondered about this. If MOS:FILMNOW says we refer to the film as something that currently exists, do the starring actors still not star? Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear before, Escape Orbit, my change simply was indicating that J-Law has finished her work on films (including series like X-Men and The Hunger Games). This has no bearing on the existence of them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Katy's new single

Hi! Katy just posted the pre-save link of her new single with the title "bandaids". Should we start working on the article? The song credits are also accessible now, and fortunately, Dr. Luke is out. 143kittypurry (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Too soon for a main space article until the song gets released, 143kittypurry; I recommend starting a draft first. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It will be released tomorrow! 143kittypurry (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Definitely sooner than I expected! Even so, mere run-of-the-mill announcements wouldn't be enough to warrant a big page when there isn't yet much to say about the song itself aside from a release day. Same goes for any notice on a music video prior to the track coming out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

She's set to premiere her new song at her Paris show of the Lifetimes Tour today! The music video has already been filmed and has been playing on the tour screen in some show segments for the past couple of days. Let's wait for more information to come before starting the article, if needed! 143kittypurry (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Query

I noticed your recent revision to Zuckerberg's article where you replaced "sophomore" with "second". While I agree that "second" is easier for non-American readers to grasp, the word "sophomore" has been already used (and now linked) earlier in the article. Let me know your thoughts on this. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how I overlooked that, MSincccc, but personally I recommend swapping that instance out too for the same reasons even when linked. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I’ve kept “second year” but linked it to “sophomore” for clarity and ease of reading for those unfamiliar with the term. MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Your revert to my edit on the Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show article

I hope you realize my edit was in good faith, since the film has been praised as a strong conclusion to the show. You might as well revert the "critical acclaim" note on the mainline Ed, Edd n Eddy article as well as other Cartoon Network-related and even Nickelodeon-related articles to an extent since the "critical acclaim" note is overused in practically every article. Thenostalgiaman (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

When pages actually provide references to back up assertions of "acclaimed", Thenostalgiaman, those uses would be acceptable. I've seen other articles use it without adequate evidence and previously took them out upon detection. Sometimes people do throw it around rather loosely. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, ugh...fine...I just now reverted the "critical acclaim" note on both the Dexter's Laboratory and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends articles. But I still don't understand how in the reception sections of these two articles including the Ed, Edd n Eddy and Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show articles, respectively, talk about how much people have praised them for strong ratings and so on, yet somehow, now you're saying it violates Wikipedia guidelines as shown in your edit summary on the Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show article's history page. Just curious. I might revert the "critical acclaim" note on the Regular Show article, but I don't see a big deal in general, as I've been saying, when the Reception section has other sources talking about how people loved each show in general. Thenostalgiaman (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions about overall reception based solely on reviews already contained within a Wikipedia article is lazy and overly presumptuous, especially when that might not factor in other opinions not listed. Unless you have a ref talking about something got mostly positive or mixed or negative reviews, it at best comes off as an attempt make declarations with incomplete evidence. That's why I brought up WP:SYNTH before. You might be surprised how often such unsupported assessments get removed from other pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah...whatever. Like I said, I reverted the "critical acclaim" note on the articles I already mentioned and plan on doing the same to a couple more articles. Unsure if the "lazy" and "overly presumptuous" comments are directed at me or if they are just generalized statements, but okay. Thenostalgiaman (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

They were general statements not aimed at any specific user. On another note, the dismissive tone of your "whatever" gives the impression you don't care about WP:SYNTH and its importance. Don't just try to brush off that policy as no big deal. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)