This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As per this discussion, as currently constituted, most of the tables at this article violate WP:ACCESSIBILITY due to improper use of 'rowspan' which disadvantages our readership who use text-to-speech readers. If no one else gets to this first, I intend to fix this in the new future by eliminating the improper use of 'rowspan' from the tables in this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's on my 'To Do' list, but real-world/work concerns are getting in the way right now – not sure when I'll get to it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I support this as well, just to be clear. And since it was proposed 5 months ago, plenty of time for other comments, and had no opposition then WP:SILENCE forms a consensus. Editors in the following section who are now disagreeing should have spoken up when the issue was first proposed. Consensus can, of course change, but people can't say this was just some random BOLD edit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Edit dispute over entries by LOVI33
As the one reverting the last three groups of edits made by LOVI33[1][2][3], I am clearly enforcing the ACCESSIBILITY guideline regarding improper uses of "rowspan" in the tables. The user has been warned several times about this on their talk page. (And note, the fact that other discography pages throughout Wikipedia may be using rowspan in a fashion similar to how LOVI33 and other editors have been putting in this article doesn't mean that it's the correct thing to do - those other articles are just as much in violation of ACCESSIBILITY for the reasons IJBall put above.) On the other hand, looking at LOVI33's most recent two attempts, they were attempting to add an upcoming promotional single, "Bad Time", to the list, which looks like an acceptable part of their edit, and I would have no problem retaining that bit. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Basically agree: most 'Discography tables' (as well as many 'Awards and nominations' tables, and some Filmography tables) blatantly violate WP:ACCESS by using 'rowspan' in the middle or on the right-hand side of these tables – that doesn't matter: doing that is flat out wrong, ignores WP:ACCESS, and thus violates Wikipedia's Non-discrimination policy. There is simply no excuse to do that, and even less excuse when a user like LOVI33 does so multiple times, and never bothers to ask for clarification on why they are being reverted – that's just pure Disruptive editing and not constructive. But outside of LOVI33's 'rowspan' violating edits, I think the rest of their edits have been net constructive here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Next time they do it (and they will), report to AIV – "Resumed disruptive editing immediately upon completion of block". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
IJBall, I've learned that several experienced editors in discographies (including Ss112; after talking to them privately) are not in favor of removing rowspan from discographies. Since it has been in the article for a long time, it should be considered the "stable/long-standing version" and your removal of it was reverted, thus per WP:BRD you should discuss and stop edit warring to reinstate your preferred version. As for WP:ACCESS, which is a guideline and not a policy, it doesn't specifically say that rowspan must be removed. It is your opinion that rowspan is disruptive to visually-impaired readers and not the opinion of the community. Therefore, I'd urge you to seek consensus (via RfC or at Village Pump) to see if rowspan should be removed or not from this article or all others. Flooded with them hundreds 06:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, that's WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nonsense – the feelings of a specific Wikiproject cannot overrule guidelines and policies on Wikipedia without a really good reason, and the WP:ILIKEIT use of 'rowspan' isn't one of them. Let's be clear here – WP:ACCESS is a guideline in support of a project policy: the non-discrimination policy. A WP cannot ignore the latter because they've been "doing certain things a long time" and "like the way it looks" (which is itself a totally subjective viewpoint, which is absolutely not universally shared). The fact is the music projects have been incredibly lazy on this score (and it's not just with Discographies) since probably Day One, and it's time to push back against it. As to your claim, WP:ACCESS specifically refers to WP:DTT which states: "...especially to somewhat offset the accessibility problems associated with nested tables and with rowspan and colspan,[5] if these are used despite the accessibility problems they pose." It's unfortunate that WP:DTT isn't more clear on the subject, but this sentence right there makes it clear that 'rowspan' is an ACCESS problem, and this should be avoided. Beyond this, I'm not saying anymore, but I will ping MPFitz1968 who has looked into this issue a lot more than I have, is more active on the WP:MUSIC end than I am, and has had several discussions on this issue that he may be able to specifically point to. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: I can let you look at a discussion I started earlier this year at Talk:List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2018#MOS:ACCESS, but I didn't get any farther than that. I did propose moving the Billboard issue dates away from the first column to make the table conform to ACCESSIBILITY, but the same WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments (aesthetic ones) came up and one suggested taking it to a bigger venue (like the entire record charts project). There's no doubt sometimes rearranging things in a table can get pretty sticky, and I remember bringing up on my talk page about a larger article containing many tables that are violating ACCESSIBILITY (that was for an article containing a list of TV programs released or airing this year). Sometimes, we can't take care of these ACCESSIBILITY problems in some articles (at least right away), but as you said, that's no excuse for continuing these violations in articles like this one. Unfortunately, a number of editors (not just LOVI33 and Flooded with them hundreds) are seemingly wanting the tables in a fashion similar to the rest of the discography tables and are not gonna stop without some more firm guideline about it. WP:DTT does mention the accessibility problem for "rowspan", but as you and Flooded with them hundreds pointed out, it doesn't outright forbid using it. If we continue reverting ad nauseam, someone will eventually call one of us out for edit warring (not necessarily violating WP:3RR), and keep in mind, this article was fully protected by an admin for one day so we could iron out why the disputes, particularly with LOVI33's edits. Still, I would agree on having this discussion taken to a larger venue (RfC) to clarify things further. I do recall seeing other editors following WP:ACCESSIBILITY by removing rowspans from tables at other articles (not sure whether it was discography tables or not), so certainly input from them or other editors at large can ensure that we are following the non-discrimination policy in spirit, even if the letter isn't clear. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Basically, there's been a relatively concerted effort to remove 'rowspan' violations from WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables (which is holding up pretty well), and some effort to remove them from 'Awards and nominations' tables (and I've definitely noticed that those 'Awards and nominations' that are WP:FL's – e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence – do not violate WP:ACCESS with inappropriate 'rowspan' use, so there's clearly an effort in the WP:FL process to remove WP:ACCESS violations from those sets of articles...). But the WP:WikiProject Music and its subgroups are definitely one of the most flagrant violators on this front (on flimsy WP:LOCALCONSENSUS grounds) – something like Brandy discography doesn't even bother to put the 'Year' column first, so it's flagrantly violating WP:ACCESS right off the bat.
This may require a WP:RfC in something like WP:VPP to require clearer language in both WP:ACCESS and WP:DTT (esp. example tables, "good" and "bad", in the latter) about the appropriate and inappropriate use of 'rowspan' in tables, but I'm not going to have time to do a big project like that until January. However, if somebody else tackles it, please drop me a note. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: RFC will likely be needed as editors, including one here, are continuing their disruptive behavior. Saying other articles do it is not a valid rationale to violate WP:ACCESS, per WP:OSE. Additionally, three different editors here are against violating WP:ACCESS, yet the opposing party is stubborn and does not think they have to follow proper discussion procedures. I suggest that editor starts communicating properly rather than declaring they are right and that being that. Add: And discuss the matter here, rather than at an admin's talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the use of 'rowspan' on the project is a festering problem that will likely need an RfC to settle, but I do not have the time to shepherd one right now. The WP:MUSIC membership are not the only WP that are completely clueless on the issue, and not the only articles that are misusing it. But I can't take this ball right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@IJBall: As I stated above, I support your original proposal and I oppose efforts to change that discussed consensus back to one that goes against WP:ACCESS. WP:ONUS is on those who didn't bother commenting when the issue was first raised and a consensus formed because of that to show why this should be revisited. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Please consider starting an RfC here or at VP to formally start the consensus-seeking process. Flooded with them hundreds 04:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, uh, how again did we suddenly decide that "consensus" is on your side, Flooded?... Read what Geraldo said again, there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus at all regarding this and the so-called WP:ACCESS violations but since rowspan has been in discography for a long time it is the "default" version and status quo. Flooded with them hundreds 04:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
That is 100% a WP:OSE argument. Other articles doing it wrong doesn't mean this article should also do it wrong, and consensus at other articles only applies to those articles. Each article requires its own consensus, which you do not have here. You might want to learn how things actually work. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There was a discussion, consensus was reached in that discussion to follow WP:ACCESS. That formed a local consensus for this article and article was changed to match what was agreed on in the discussion. What other articles do does not override that formed consensus for this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Geraldo Perez, WP:ACCESSdoes not explicitly say that rowspanmust be removed. It only encourages to make reading and editing articles easier for everyone but that's not relevant to rowspan at all, just look at the damage you have caused by removing it. It looks terribly messed up now thanks to the tag-teaming/canvassing going on. . Flooded with them hundreds 06:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Flooded with them hundreds: There are two issues now. A discussion was held, the participants, both overt and silent supported changing the article to support WP:ACCESS and edits (not bold as done after consensus met) were made to support that new consensus. Later edits and this discussion show a desire to change that consensus back to the way it was before, that is where the onus lies to gain a new consensus to do that. The second issue is what should that new consensus be. The people who wish to conform to ACCESS vs those who want a pretty table and think ACCESS is secondary to that goal. The images you left illustrate the issue fairly well. At this point we should leave the article ACCESS compliant and continue the discussion to see if we can form a WP:IAR local consensus on this article to ignore ACCESS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Geraldo Perez, silence is consensus until disagreement is voiced. Other than your small group of buddies here, no one has supported removing rowspan from the article, instead multiple editors including myself, LOVI33, Songsteel and Ss112 have indicated disapproval to it.
IJBall first removed rowspan from this article on June 20, 2018 and was reverted on June 22, 2018 by Gemsweater1. What IJBall should've done was initiate the discussion on the talk page per WP:BRD but instead, they proceeded to revert that editor eleven hours later, hence causing this long-term edit war in which numerous other editors have been reverted by him and his clique.
The original status of this page has been with rowspan since 2015. Therefore that is the "current consensus" and it should be reverted to that version. Other than the broken tables, removing rowspan creates an inconsistency against the norms of discography articles in Wikipedia. Flooded with them hundreds 08:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Finally commenting here (probably against better judgement because I'll have every part of what I write dissected), but Flooded with them hundreds is right. Being reverted (indirectly or not) two days later means "silence is consensus" does not apply. IJBall proposed something here, was encouraged by Jax 0677 to "be bold!", he got around to making the bold edit, and was reverted in a pretty short amount of time, but then ignored BRD by not going back to the talk page to actually get a consensus or encouraging Gemsweater1 to contribute there, but by continuing to revert anybody who changed it and then asking friends to back him up. I think you all will find that not many impartial editors are going to agree that is the right way to go about changing an article. Proposing something on the talk page and not having any objections immediately raised there (but where there have been objections raised through another reverting you on the actual article) doesn't mean you then have a pass to continue reverting to your preferred version, especially when the other editor probably hasn't even noticed the talk page discussion. It really does not matter what the core issue is—it's still essentially a content dispute. It is not an issue of what's morally "right", but whether it's about accessibility or not, a statement on a BLP that somebody feels is defamatory, whatever, there has always been and will always be editors citing guidelines or reverting because of what's "right", but what is really still preference and opinion that they may be able to back up with one tiny part of a guideline.
So, with that being said, the article should be restored to its original version (that, as Flooded has pointed out, has been in place since 2015—we restore the original version if there is no consensus to change, and there never has been. One line in a guideline that says using rowspans can cause issues for screen readers is not Wikipedia-wide consensus and I don't think you'll find many outside this sphere of influence will find it is). Until ACCESS is a policy and we need to follow it, then making one article your battleground for change when it's one instance of use of rowspans is not the right way to go about it or even to start going about it. I am not really going to continue debating here, just offering another voice, so y'all can pick apart what I have said, but no need to ping me. Thanks. Ss112 09:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope – WP:ACCESS is a guideline, which means it should generally be followed unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. What WP:DISCOGRAPHY believes are "pretty" tables is not a "compelling" reason to ignore a guideline in support of our non-discrimination policy. More from WP:ACCESS: "Data tables provide extra information and navigation methods that can be confusing when the content lacks logical row and column relationships." (emphasis mine) This is not something we made up. It's also shocking, frankly, that a WikiProject thinks its narrow aesthetic interests are somehow more important that our text-to-speech readership, and seems to have no interest in accommodating that segment of our readership. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree with IJBall. How this article was prior to June this year is irrelevant since it was doing things wrong. Editing an article so it complies with things does not require discussion. And the point on consensus is moot, anyway. There are four editors here who want this article to be accessibility-compliant, but you are too stubborn and biased to see that. I'm done with this article and will be removing it from my watchlist. Have fun continuing to discriminate against people. See where that gets you. Flooded, Ss112, you're just as bad as the people who discriminate against people of color and LGBT. When you're old and discriminated against for your age, let's see how you like it. Hopefully that happens. But you'll probably still be too stubborn. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
You can calm down with the ridiculous accusations of "discrimination" and comparing use of bloody rowspans to racism and homophobia. What an absolutely ridiculous comparison and overreaction. You need to get off your moral high ground. You're not going to achieve anything on Wikipedia by claiming everybody who doesn't agree with your point of view is essentially a racist or homophobe. If we're stubborn, you and IJBall are too because you're going this hard over a guideline when you were recruited to this article by a friend. Christ Almighty. Ss112 19:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I will calm down when I actually see evidence that that is not an issue. We now have five editors here who want this to be accessibility-compliant, so it's not just me as you claim. But neither you nor the other editor can see that, and both of you are just strongly reeking of WP:IDHT. If that's not clear consensus, then I don't know what is. Although that is moot since there already was consensus to make this article accessibility-compliant. It's not my fault you can't see that, either. If anyone here needs to get off their moral high ground, it's you, with your biased and inaccurate RFPP request. All that had to be done was to request protection because of this, not fill it with your biased BS nonsense. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
So much for removing the page from your watchlist, Amaury? Yes, and four of whom, including yourself, were recruited by your friends, and I presume Izno was notified off-wiki because he participated in a June 2018 discussion at WT:WPACCESS. There was never consensus to make the page "accessibility-compliant"; IJBall was reverted two days after doing making the edit and proposing it on the talk page—nobody besides you and your friends believes that constitutes a consensus. Making an RFPP request calling it like I saw it is not getting on a moral high ground; I'm sorry you still feel that way. All your responses are morality-spouting BS nonsense where you think you're such a great upstanding editor by "caring"/virtue signalling for the visually-impaired, but by all means, continue to reply here when you said you'd be taking the page off your watchlist. I'm sure you can come up with ever more ridiculous comparisons to make, where you presume everybody is a straight white male for the sake of said comparisons. So much for not getting WP:PERSONAL, but much like what WP:3RR says, you seem to not care. Ss112 20:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I said, and I quote: I'm done with this article and will be removing it from my watchlist. The keyword here being will. I didn't say am, nor did I say when, I only said will. As long as you keep spouting nonsense BS, I will not back down. But you can just shut up now. I'm done with you. Any further comments from your mouth will be sent to the dog pile. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, please. Semantics. If you're so "done with me", you should probably shut up now? But oh no, gotta get the last word in because you won't "back down", yeah? That seems pretty contradictory, much like the "nonsense BS" you imply you hate. Jesus, you must take Wikipedia very seriously to get this worked up over something a friend told you about. Also, none of this is coming from my "mouth"; we're typing words on an online encyclopedia here. I'm not sure if you're able to tell the difference between on- and offline... Ss112 20:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I was notified at WT:WPACCESS and/or WT:ACCESS by watching those pages. For someone who chastised me elsewhere for assuming bad faith (and doing so invalidly), that sure looks like assuming bad faith to me. --Izno (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: How would that be assuming bad faith of you? It would only follow that if you were notified you would probably comment on the issue. I didn't claim to have never assumed bad faith of others, especially if they'd demonstrated a willingness to have done things in what I see as bad faith already. Now let's let the pointless argument part of this dumpster fire of a discussion end already. Ss112 22:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, there is consensus – that's what WP:ACCESS is. It actually amuses me that WP:DISCOGSTYLE actually references WP:ACCESS, but seems not to understand the details. And I quoted the relevant section of WP:DTT (a WP:ACCESS offshoot) above, but you all seem not very interested in what it actually means. In any case, "rowspan has been in discography for a long time" is about the definition of a lousy excuse (it's the hallmark WP:OSE), and doesn't prove anything – there were practices that were used in this project a decade ago which are now deprecated, often for very good reasons. So the fact that WP:DISCOGRAPHY came up with something years ago doesn't mean that it's currently "good practice". Also, there is a right way to use 'rowspan', but there are also 'wrong' ways, if anyone is interested in finding out the specifics. Finally, "WP:MUSIC" doesn't "own" the articles within its purview – that's really not what WP's are supposed to do, and it is not assumed that all articles under a "WP" need to be "identical" and look exactly the same. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, if WP:MUSIC actually is interested in "fixing the issue", I'm pretty sure that columns in 'Discography' tables just need to be switched around in order to make them WP:ACCESS-compliant – a similar rearrangement can often make 'Awards and nominations' tables that use 'rowspan' ACCESS-complaint. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to reiterate - WP:ACCESS is a guideline for ways enwiki can implement the WMF foundation's non-discrimination policy with respect to accessibility. Bringing this article into compliance with WMF policy is required and was done and the article should never be reverted to be out of compliance. Other methods may be possible to keep article both pretty and accessible and it is worthwhile to explore alternatives that can achieve that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
On the note of global issues, there is a second accessibility issue with the tables: Table headers are not being used as the first cell in each row in several of the tables. This is also a global change which needs to be amended--the best amendment for which would be to move those table headings to the first column (and removing the rowspans in the dates columns). --Izno (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind putting rowspan on the album's final column for singles, but if the case is that there are a lot of non-album singles sprinkled in-between albums, then do not rowspan. Do you have examples of discographies that meet ACCESS standards? I'm looking at FL Train discography and they rowspan'ed the year and the album column. Celine Dion singles discography is also FL and they rowspan'ed the year in the first column and the album in the last column. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: Both of your example articles violate WP:ACCESS from my understanding, but of these two, Celine Dion singles discography is much "better" about it, only really violating WP:ACCESS in the 'Album' column. (This is what I was referring to earlier – this one might be made WP:ACCESS-compliant simply by switching the 'Album' column over to the left-side of that table.) Train discography OTOH, like Brandy discography and most other Discography tables, is an ACCESS nightmare, because it puts the 'rowspanning' 'Year' column second, instead of first.... And, IMO, both of these should be delisted as WP:FLs until the ACCESS issues are resolved. (Another example of why I'm suspicious of the FA/FL/GA process – because too many articles like these slip through...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
IJBall, are there any FL good ones to look at that meet ACCESS? I just picked those off the top of my head and that the Celine one shows up in WP:DISCOGRAPHY FL's. I wouldn't delist right away, but point out what are the good ones and then get them to meet the standards. But the FL ones I'm seeing so far ALL have rowspan'ed albums and years for their singles listings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
(←) That list has okay examples which are at least fairly accessible. Better still would be to make the interesting column of those tables the row headings (rather than the dates--I know we all like dates first) and subsequently marked up as such. For example:
On a purely "WP:ILIKEIT basis, I prefer the formatting of the first example table ("year-first") over the second example table ("title first"), and my understanding was always that you can still put 'scope="row"' element into the second cell in a row, and it's still "OK". (If I'm wrong on that, let me know!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It's about the <th> which is emitted after a <td> has been emitted. Th says "I am a table header" and one says "I am a table cell"... can you explain to a blind person why the header cell came after the table cell? :) (As for scopes, those only have meaning on header cells i.e th.) --Izno (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
That's nice and all to show how it works with Awards tables, but practically all the FL singles discographies use rowspan on Year and Album, indicating a more serious contention. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The point is that those rowspans should go away because they are disfavored for accessibility for multiple reasons (rowspans should be bigger on the left trending toward single rows on the right per general rowspan concerns--the main column of interest, which is I think in that context the awarded work should also be the heading, which is the furthest left).
Just because something is featured does not mean it cannot be further improved. :) --Izno (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The issue as I see it, as I've mentioned on my talk page, is that WP:ACCESS and WP:DTT are not clear enough on this point, and some editors and some wikiprojects are basically saying, "Well, WP:ACCESS doesn't explicitly say when not to use 'roswpan', so we'll use it wherever we like!!" IOW, right now, the problem is less that that WP:DISCOGRAPHY (and its FL's) isn't following WP:ACCESS – it's that WP:ACCESS and WP:DTT probably are not clear enough on this point. That's probably why a discussion at WT:WPACCESS about what to do about this is probably in order... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Once again, you don't understand the process, so I will explain it to you for the last time, before I ignore you completely: this was a WP:TALKFIRST situation – a discussion was held, and there was support for following this project's own guidelines, WP:ACCESS, at this article; I then reverted to what the discussion showed was the "consensus version" that was decided by this discussion (and, to be clear, I was not the only editor who did so); at any point, any of the editors whom I reverted could have chosen to post to the Talk page discussion to discuss the issue, as per WP:BRD – until you came along, none did; there is now a revived discussion of the issue: both editors who are watching this article, and those who presumably don't, have joined this discussion; outside of you and Ss112, there is rough consensus that, 1) WP:ACCESSshould be followed, and 2) in general, most Discography tables on this project do not follow WP:ACCESS. That's where we are. And, now, instead of constructively contributing to this discussion, and looking forward for a solution, you are "trying to get other editors in trouble" and looking backwards. Again, you obviously don't understand that process either – Admins do NOT "block" editors unless they think there is a risk of current or continuing disruption. (See: WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE). On my end, I'm pretty much done with this article, and am more interested in the current discussion about how to make WP:Discography tables in the project WP:ACCESS-compliant in general across the project. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
LOVI33 responds
Hey so I have changed the discography in this article to the fashion like Selena Gomez discography with merged cells and a little bio at the top, and I strongly agree that it should stay this way. I have talked with people like SabCarp and both of us agree that this is what should be done. Also why not? It dosen't take very long to revert it to this style and I think all discography articles should look like this. Plus it looks nicer and cleaner. Thanks for reading LOVI33 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations on finally joining the discussion. The problem is that your argument is the pinnacle of "because WP:ILIKEIT", WP:OSE, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. (P.S. Adding the "bio info" to the top is fine, though – that edit was actually an improvement.) What this discussion has fairly conclusively shown is that allWP:DISCOGRAPHYs, including Selena Gomez's, currently do not conform to WP:ACCESS. So by WP:edit warring – and let's be clear, edit warring is exactly what you've done here – to your preferred version, you have propagated the WP:ACCESS-violations from Gomez's page to this one. That's the opposite of constructive editing. You have also tried to add unsourced genres, etc. to Sabrina Carpenter itself. The best advice to you is that you need to slow down your editing, and actually discuss and collaborate on changes before you make them. Because if you continue on your current path, more blocks are likely to result. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay Thanks! LOVI33 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Colspan on "As featured artist"
Please do not colspan the music videos columns with the "As featured artist", that's a more egregious violation of MOS:ACCESS, even if Wikiproject Access disagrees with album and year rowspans that are showing on all FL's. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I wont do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOVI33 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Grinch
Hello All, Today Lindsey Stirling and Sabrina Carpenter released a new music video today for "You're A Mean One Mr.Grinch" but I am unsure if it was released as a single. I added it to the featured artist music videos but not to featured singles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOVI33 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The single was released last year so yes, the music video was released in 2018, the single in 2017. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Japanese Edition Discussion
Hey so AngusWOOF is making Why and Alien non-album singles on the discography table when they are on the Japanese edition of Singular: Act I. I think we should put them as apart of the album on the discography page at least. For example Ariana Grande discography, the song Focus is apart of the Japanese edition of Dangerous Woman but it still says on the discography table that it is apart of the album. I don't want to get into any edit wars so could a professional Wikipedia user help me out. Thanks LOVI33 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
They aren't part of the regular album as released in their primary country and worldwide editions, but only on the special Japanese editions. That's why I grouped them as non-album singles. The footnotes are fairly clear they are only on the special edition. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
AngusWOOF I can make the footnotes more clear but they are still apart of the album so they should be categorized as apart of Singular: Act I. My reference before still stands. LOVI33 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I still strongly disagree with this. It would only make sense if it were part of the original album in the country produced, which has 8 tracks, 25 mins. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking at Focus (song) and yes, it refers to the Japanese edition, so I am marking that on the discography as such. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Note that Taylor Swift's New Romantics song is on the Deluxe edition which is still worldwide and not specific to Japan, so that can stay as is. And the Jonas Blue is the same discography issue so I will fix that one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
AngusWOOF Hey thanks for compromising. I really appreciate it and I like the change you made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOVI33 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey guys. I added the word "Japanese Edition" after "Singular: Act I" to the respective songs. Hopefully, you guys are okay with this. If not, well you can always edit it out. Can I Log In (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
