User talk:Medxvo/Archive 2

Hi there,

I read your comments for List of accolades received by Wicked (2024 film) for its featured list candidacy and have addressed those comments promptly. Thanks. I also lent a support to your featured list nomination of List of accolades received by Challengers (film).

--Birdienest81talk 01:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Medxvo; Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I'm thinking that it might be possible for me offer this again since I've just done the nomination for a promotion at WP:FAC. You have mentioned an interest in film and songs on Wikipedia and I've placed a new nomination to Kpop Demon Hunters for FAC which received 5 Grammy nominations. I'm wondering if it is worth my asking if you might add a review to the FAC review for this film, and then I'd offer to do the review for your GA nomination for Disease after you are done. Does it sound interesting? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It does sound interesting, but unfortunately I do not have much time to do FAC reviews at the moment... I'll keep an eye on the nomination page, and I'll try to do a review if I get a chance. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Disease (Lady Gaga song) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Camilasdandelions -- Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article The Life of a Showgirl is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of QuicoleJR -- QuicoleJR (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Given that you contributed the most to the article, are you planning to take it to GAN to "save" Wikipedia:Featured topics/Taylor Swift original studio albums soon? :) Ippantekina (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ippantekina! The article still needs more work, although some sections are fine and ready. I'll try to work on the article and nominate it soon; you can do so anytime and add me as a co-nominator if you'd like. To save the topic, TLOAS needs to be at GAN before the three-month grace period ends (January 3), and I think we can make it by then... Medxvo (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Greatttt I'll sporadically work on it here and there till then... Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Let me warn you both: by no means is that page stable enough to meet criterion#5 of WP:Good article criteria when the album just came out last month and (as expected) is going through tons of changes. This alone is guaranteed to make it fail a GAN right now with or without an ongoing content dispute that I noticed on the talk page. I doubt that's broad enough either to be considered GA quality per criterion#3a since we don't yet know how long TLOAS will continue to top charts or how many copies will be sold before the end of 2025. While a December nomination would unquestionably have a better chance of passing than anything in November, you'd be more likely to see it pass during January or later, even if that means not meeting the unreasonably-short-time-imposition for good topics which personally I think should be extended to four or five months for albums. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello SNUGGUMS, I'm fully aware that you failed Snow White (2025 film) and The Fate of Ophelia due to stability concerns, so there's no need to "warn" me. I must express my disagreement with some points: 1. The article going through tons of normal changes is not enough to make it fail criterion #5 per WP:RGA ("constructive article improvement and routine editing does not apply here") and WP:WGN ("An article is unstable if there is a significant edit war underway, if editors are directly telling you that you shouldn't review the article because they're in the middle of major changes, or if the article is changing so dramatically and so rapidly that you can't figure out what you're supposed to be reviewing"). 2. How long TLOAS will continue to top charts is irrelevant and not even mentioned in any other WP:SWIFT article prose, and the album topped every single chart except for Japan and Nigeria, so there is nothing more to add. 3. How many copies will be sold before the end 2025 is set to be announced by the IFPI next February, and it requires one sentence with less than 30 words; editors should not wait three additional months just to add a single sentence.

A nomination in late November would be completely reasonable. Not with the article's current state, of course, as it requires more improvements. Medxvo (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

To be more specific, I was talking about big changes when it came to instability, and wasn't worried about routine edits for things like spelling, grammar, or anything else that wouldn't constitute a major change. Chances are the page will continue to go through lots of non-minor alterations throughout November and that's why I recommend waiting minimally until December for a GAN. Whatever might follow for changes, the ongoing dispute over whether to include one publication's review certainly should be resolved before nominating the article for GA. Given my own involvement with editing the page so far, it would be inappropriate for me to review the page myself at FAC or GAN, though I could offer recommendations on what changes to make in preparation for those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Medxvo: I don't think I can join hands on this one, but I see that you've been doing a great job on the article thus far. I'll occasionally check up on the grammar/content etc but I think the credit of the GAN/FAC should go to you. I'm open to help out upon request of course :) Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ippantekina! Thanks a lot for the kind words, I think the article might be ready for GAN very soon. Perhaps an FAC in the next few years... we'll see. Your help is always appreciated. Medxvo (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Where does it state on Wikipedia that the "citation style used by the first major contributor" is what should be used? And why remove ISSN and OCLC numbers? There are no valid reasons to remove them. (Also, no need to ping in response, just as an FYI). livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR: "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor". Citations should be consistent within an article; articles at FAC typically exclude ISSN/OCLC if they are not present in every single citation as they create inconsistency, and ISSN/OCLC are unnecessary here since all citations have URLs and are available online. Medxvo (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, although, it is not a "must follow" wording. However, to cite ISSN/OCLC as unnecessary is more of a personal point of view. If they were necessary, most citation templates would exclude them from inclusion, and other stuff exists, etc. livelikemusic (TALK!) 23:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but we "should generally follow" content guidelines. Citation templates list ISSN/OCLC as "optional" and only mention OCLC in the context of "provid[ing] neutral search links for books". They are generally unnecessary for online sources that include URLs and have the publication wikilinked; this has been mentioned in many FAC source reviews. Medxvo (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I have some question about this: "This part is about the "promo copies" that record labels would give to radio stations and music publications for distribution in the past. This has nothing to do with the current digital distribution and a song impacting radio airplay with an official date". According to your edit summary above, contemporary musics aren't included in this case then? The rule says: "Do not add specialty- or limited-release singles, such as those supplied to radio stations and music publications, which are often marked as "Promo copy" or "Promotional"." As you see, there's no mention of "past" or "old" smth. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 05:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

See these examples 1, 2, 3. These are promotional singles, and this marketing strategy was employed in the past (a record label would give "promo copy" vinyls for radio stations and music publications to distribute the song). This note is added to the infobox template instructions because we have articles about older albums on Wikipedia, but this note has nothing to do with distribution in the digital era or songs officially impacting radio airplay. Also see WP:SINGLE?. Medxvo (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I've already seen WP:SINGLE?, no worries. Thanks for your explanation for this. BTW then the "radio station" in that rule doesn't match with "impacting radio station"? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 05:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

To my knowledge, promo copies were distributed to radio stations free of charge, so they are considered promotional singles unless they were later commercially released to the public for airplay; many old songs had promo copies that were ultimately discarded because they were not successful and received no airplay. "Singles" have always been what was distributed commercially and promoted to radio airplay with an impact date, whether in the past or in the digital era. Medxvo (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello mate. Been looking all over for you, but I couldn't remember your username. I'm in need of your help. I was so sure that "Trust Issues" would pass FAC, but guess what… you already know. I put it up to PR, but I could really use your help. Suggestions of any kind will be highly appreciated. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dxneo, I hope you're doing well! I'm happy to help, I'll take a look soon. Medxvo (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Medxvo :)! I hope you're doing well. Recently, I just nominated the article III to one of the Featured Article candidates. As your FA and GAs also helped me a lot at improving this article, it would be nice if I get some reviews or comments from you. Please take your time, thanks a lot! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for the kind words! I don't have much time to do FAC reviews at the moment but I'll keep an eye on the nomination page and try to do a review if I get a chance. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Looking forward to your comment :) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Party 4 U is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Leafy46 -- Leafy46 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Party 4 U has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Leafy46 -- Leafy46 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)