User talk:SNUGGUMS

SNUGGUMS is busy with various other websites as well as work and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This is SNUGGUMS's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2

My talk page. Leave me messages here. Post new threads at the bottom of the page. I can also be contacted through email.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It will be released tomorrow! [1][2] 143kittypurry (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing SNUGGUMS a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!--Snuggle 📫 🖤 01:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the wishes, Snugglebuns! We'll see what dessert scraps remain :P. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! Hi SNUGGUMS! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very grateful for that, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, and I definitely plan to! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a happy birthday, SNUGGUMS! Supplied by the Wikipedia Birthday Committee, have one free cake! Enjoy! Best wishes to you on your special day! AlphaCore talk 22:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highly appreciate that, AlphaCore :D! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your day, KatyCat! 🫶🎂 143kittypurry (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly did yesterday, 143kittypurry, and thanks a bunch! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance, whenever I reached out. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, MSincccc, and same wishes to you! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to bring attention to the issues I wrote about in the edits. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your changes, Candidyeoman55, is they were based on Kworb.net. It's not a trustworthy publication at all and should be avoided within articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 01:12, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very grateful for the post, Maxwell Smart123321, and same to you! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello SNUGGUMS, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Abishe, and I hope you have a grand time as well! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "But"; google "starting a sentence with but," if you don't believe me. But I agree with your removal of "But" before "according to Burlingame," because "But" was unnecessary there. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My English teachers would beg to differ on that, Maurice Magnus, and so does Pasco-Hernando State College. Even if it didn't create grammar issues, I wouldn't recommend starting a sentence with that word unless it's part of a quote or title. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Best wishes for you as well, Sjones23, and many thanks! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Britney Spears § Shall we remove the 2019-2021 personal life section?. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet sure how much I'll contribute to that thread. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update: As later events show, the main proponent of that discussion (BassiStone (talk · contribs)) has been indefinitely banned by the community for using AI/LLM on this article (especially the 2019-2021 section). So, it's already taken care of. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Shrugs shoulders) I suppose that renders the thread void. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Comic strips work group § Peanuts Good Topic/Featured Topic. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a nickname is no prominent as to justify its inclusion in the opening bold name, then the article title should reflect that. No need for you to reply, thanks. GiantSnowman 14:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder how you knew what each of the author's |first= and |last= name, in this edit. The reason that I continuously stated "indistinct" is the author's name is in three words, thus it's vauge to determine which one falls under |last= or |first=. Is there any standard of determining this? Thank you. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, Camilasdandelions; middle names belong within the first name parameter. On the other hand, a double last name (including hyphenated ones) would fully go into the last name field. I also made that edit to make the format of author displays more consistent. A good guide can be found here on formatting them as Wikipedia appears to use MLA Handbook style more than something like APA style. Whenever a section contains a list of print references that get used within the page (perhaps with specific citations to page numbers), you tend to see the authors listed alphabetically by last name, and that gets shown before first names or any middle names/initials. It seems best to instead the save "author" field for instances where it's an institution writing a piece or somebody who just goes by a singular name. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Then I'll put the author's middle name along with their first name in |first= parameter :). (Ps. I have been struggling at replying on the comments, I think the <div style="padding: 20px; width: 900px; background: :#f0f0ff; border: 5px solid #8888aa; text-align: justify; font-family: Times New Roman, sans-serif; font-size: 125%;"> causes an error in mobile Wikipedia) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and should have an easier time now that I removed the coding on this talk page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Breathe In. Breathe Out. § Chasing the Sun and All About You as the single. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some input on that thread. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies for the random message. I have a quick question about a song article, "Roommates" (Hilary Duff song). I noticed that "Roommates" (song) is currently a redirect to a Dixie D'Amelio song, and since the Hilary Duff song is the only "Roommates" song with an article, I was debating on requesting a move about this. However, I was uncertain if this would be considered an uncontroversial move and if a technical request would be preferable.

Apologies again for randomly asking you. Even though I have participated in requested moves before (and I have open a few as well), I just wanted to get some clarification about this, so that I can keep this in mind for the future. I hope that you are having a wonderful end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It probably wouldn't be controversial to list that at technical requests, Aoba47. There either way is no point in having the term redirect to a target unlikely to warrant a page in the foreseeable future when something with its own main space article already exists. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have a tendency to overthink things, so I wanted to get a second opinion about this. I appreciate your help, and I will make a technical request for this momentarily. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Someone has removed the double dagger indicating the winners in the tables for the Oscar ceremony lists. There was a discussion long time ago under Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/87th Academy Awards/archive1 that determined that the best way to indicate winners was through listing the winners first, bold, and--most importantly--having a double dagger. Screen readers can't detect bold text, and in some cases where the winners is the alphabetically first entry, it would look like just any other listing of nominees with no indication for the winners. I am trying to put it back, but I am afraid this might start an edit war if I go on furhter.

--Birdienest81talk 07:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried linking to that page yet, Birdienest81? If not, then I would recommend doing so before anything else. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]