Talk:Charlie Puth

Reverts

Having been reverted twice by User:RunnyAmiga without explanation of what concerns he had with the edits ("not so good" is not an explanation) – and having been baselessly accused of "false edit summaries" – I'm bringing the issue to the talk page. What concerns are there with the edits? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary I used was "some stuff is good, more stuff is not so good." You reverted that edit with an edit summary that was untrue on its face: "Unexplained revert." It most certainly was explained, and if you disagree, re-read the first sentence of this paragraph. You could've said that this explanation wasn't good enough, but if that was your conclusion, a talk page thread would have been the appropriate response. No matter what, a wholesale revert should not have been your reaction.

1. The biggest issue I had was that your move of the linkrot template caused it to overwhelm the "Puth redirects here" template. That text ought to appear right above the article itself because, since most readers don't edit, the redirect information is a lot more useful than the "help us fix link rot problems" issue.
2. The placement of the reference regarding Puth's full name isn't important. I saw no need to move it like you did but if you did that again, I wouldn't revert it.
3. You removed the dash markup — and replaced it with a textual en dash. I've never understood why people resist using the markup rather than the character because using the character rather than the HTML makes it unclear which character is used when the article is being edited. In fact, you switched from an em dash to an en dash. I honestly have no idea which is appropriate, and further, I don't think it's either. I'm going to readjust the prose so there's no dash at all. See WP:HTMD#Long_explanation.
4. I couldn't find anything in the Manual of Style that firmly establishes which version of the ordinal number, 7th or seventh, to use. MOS:ORDINAL was surprisingly unhelpful but maybe I missed something. And while MOS:NUMERAL seems to favor spelling it out, I still deferred to 7th because educators in the US use "7th grade" rather than "seventh grade" and this article is written in American English. I'll happily defer to you or anybody else who can find something established about how this should be written.
5. You increased the size of a photograph in a way that pushed around the text in the section next to it. I didn't understand why, and furthermore, I don't see why that photo is on here at all. Big or small, it's a bad image; while the article's subject is in it, the words behind him are the focal point and he's not.
6. I restored three commas and one period that you correctly removed, which was what I was talking about when I said that "some stuff is good." To me, these issues were vanishingly minor compared to the template move and the dash issue. I'll remove them all accordingly. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:RunnyAmiga: "[S]ome stuff is good, more stuff is not so good" is most certainly not an explanation as to what the problem was. It can be presumed that if it is reverted, it is believed to be 'not good'. (Were it anything other than 'not good', there would be no possible explanation for a reversion.) It says nothing about why it is not good. Looking at the meaning of the word explanation in its Wikipedia article, I cannot conceive of something being described as an explanation of a revert without making any reference to what the problem with the content is. Just because an edit summary was included, that doesn't make it an explanation.

"You could've said that this explanation wasn't good enough, but if that was your conclusion, a talk page thread would have been the appropriate response. No matter what, a wholesale revert should not have been your reaction." I would say the same to you. You have acknowledged that "some stuff is good" so I see no reason why it would not have been retained rather than being reverted wholesale. And my concern is not with the sufficiency of an explanation – as noted above, my concern is with the lack of any kind of explanation.

Regarding your six points:

1. Do forgive me if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but are you suggesting that I moved that linkrot notice above the hatnote? If so, that is not true. I literally did the opposite, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements.
2. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#References in infoboxes provides that references should not be in the infobox if the information is in the article.
3. Wikipedia:Manual of Style suggests that spaced em dashes are never appropriate in such a context. It should either be an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash. As there was no precedent in the article for either of those formats, I just picked one.
4. I don't see why Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words wouldn't apply equally to ordinals except as otherwise provided.
5. That too is untrue. I made the image smaller, not larger.
6. Thank you for correcting the error. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:RunnyAmiga. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The first ping didn't work; it's probably an issue on my end since I've been having ping problems for days.

As for the rest, I'm going to revert everything I did to your edit, then I'm going to look at Derek R Bullamore's edit to make sure I didn't remove anything good that he did. As I went back and forth between your edit and mine, I remember thinking, "Gee, I hope I don't mix up which diff is which" and it appears I did exactly that several times. I apologize for the confusion, for ascribing mistakes I (or whoever else) made to you, and for getting a little chippy with all this, especially since I bet we've both spent a lot more time on this than either of us would have liked. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks for correcting it. Cheers, 207.161.217.209 (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

eyebrow scar

Charlies scar on his eyebrow is caused when he was 2 years old he got attacked by a dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:ADD0:1690:24AE:704F:DBD9:E7A1 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Source? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

More than a year late but here you go: —NØ 15:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Girlfriend

UncleBubba, the change that you just reverted is sourced in the body of the article. It doesn't need a separate reference in the lede. I think the question is whether it's important enough to be mentioned in the lede - what do you think? Best, Wham2001 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wham2001, that's a good point. Whenever I patrol changes to BLP articles, I'm especially aware of their sensitivity, so I tend to be rather strict. Thanks for reaching out; I'll stop objecting to the change. Sorry! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Negative reviews"

Why is this: "Puth's debut studio album, Nine Track Mind, was released... to negative reviews from critics" included in the lead section of the article? This is based off of a Metacritic score using just seven reviews in total, only three of which are actually negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:201:3900:54F6:53F6:E27D:57F0 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Look at Nine_Track_Mind#Critical_reception. Most of the reviews are pretty negative, and none are generally positive. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/)} 14:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Puth is of German, Hungarian and Italian descent from his father side. And of Jewish Ashkenazi descent from his mother's. Illchy (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)