User talk:Ss112/Archive 10

Archives

Billboard

I've just realised that today is Independence Day. — Calvin999 09:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999 Indeed, however, Gary (Trust) asserted that charts would update today regardless. I guess not... Ss 112 09:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they will later. — Calvin999 09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After it appeared they didn't refresh at the usual time, I was thinking that it would be either public holiday lagging (so later today) or delayed until tomorrow. Ss 112 09:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Needle Drop

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding The Needle Drop should be count as an reliable source or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard reference

Thank you for your edits. I wanted to point out though that the reference you're using on multiple pages today for the Billboard charts is missing the letter "t" in the "first=" portion of the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendu1984 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sendu1984 Thanks, but I already realised by the time you'd posted this. Ss 112 22:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes

There was a precedent to remove succession boxes, I believe. A lot of older and smaller-genre songs still have them. But Despacito doesn't have one; instead, it has a "see also" for the list of charts it's topped. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Yankee discography

Thanks for your recent edits. Seeing that "Certifications for countries not in those sections/not on the page should not be included", should Canadian sales figures for Barrio Fino and Mexican certifications in "As featured artist" be removed? Brankestein (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brankestein Some editors might not bother as there are Mexican and Canadian charts on the page, but they probably should be, yes. Ss 112 16:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got email

See your inbox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By artist

Hello Ss112, should Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee be added to List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s#By artist table since they've had more than 10 weeks at number one milestone? If so, how would you phrase it in the table please? I'm not sure if it's a feature on the original for Yankee or if it's his song too on the Remix? Should it be like how Wizkid and Kyla share the "Number ones" and "Weeks at number-one" tables?--Theo Mandela (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Mandela Yeah, that makes sense. I've just added it. Ss 112 21:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, on the number one table itself, it says that the record labels are provided by the OCC, but the chart (here [1]) gives different labels for "Shape of You", "Symphony", "I'm the One", "Despacito" and "Wild Thoughts" in 2017, than the Wikipedia list. Should the label names be changed?--Theo Mandela (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Mandela Theo, you've mentioned this to me and several other editors before. I and other editors who have updated the list have clearly taken the labels from the Wikipedia articles for the songs/artists, not what the OCC decides to list in the limited space given for the label. I do not think they should be changed because I don't think it matters very much at all. Also, there is absolutely no need to link to my user page on my own talk page. Ss 112 22:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the table for record label has a reference that says "The record labels are those given by the OCC", that might have to be removed if it's not true. "I'm the One" says Black Butter is it's label, but Wikipedia says it's We the Best, Epic, while "Wild Thoughts" has a "/" separating two labels rather than every other having ",".--Theo Mandela (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Mandela In this instance, Black Butter appears to be the UK distributor of the artist's music; they evidently license it from We the Best/Epic. Also, the issue you point out is not just 2017-exclusive; as far back as 2014, I see Ed Sheeran's label being put as Atlantic whereas the OCC has it as Asylum, so the note at the top of the column has been a little misleading for years. Frankly, if we were to put what the OCC lists, for "Despacito", it would be overkill. The OCC has four listed; Def Jam, RBMG, Republic, UMLE. We don't need to note four labels that have licensed one song. Honestly, I don't even think labels are entirely necessary on the page at all. On a similar note, though, Theo, I'm genuinely curious as to why you seem to ask a lot of editors about adding things like this (namely genres) to pages when you can just be WP:BOLD and add them yourself. From what I can see, you commonly dispute genres added to pages and you end up editing those pages after the editors you've asked about the genres add them anyway, so why not just cut out the middleman? Ss 112 00:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X (Chris Brown album)

An editor add all of this to the article, is it's necessary to add extra quotes like that or that's a copyright violation? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts It's not a copyright violation, as it's just a quote. It's really up to personal preference as to whether the quotes have a use or not. I do think you changing them from the cquote template to quote looks better though. Ss 112 18:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was just wondering. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna ask you one more thing, I reverted this edit, and the editor restore it back with a source like this. Is that source is reliable enough? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts That's a Wordpress blog (says so at the bottom of the page) and shouldn't be used as a source. Blogs are not a reliable source per WP:RS. Ss 112 19:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that editor have a history of adding unreliable sources anyway, so I will remove it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

It's 2017. What makes you think including 40% of the actual numbers for projects is a good representation of how its performing? The top performing album is 2x platinum. No one is sitting there like "oh it makes sense that this has sold 700,000 copies". Hence why you include a note stating album equivalent. No one cares if it states "sales", it's not 2012 anymore, streams count as sales and wikipedia shouldn't need some board deciding not to be 5 years behind the times. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlaccCrab It wasn't my decision to add a sales column. It was there already. It's just that streaming isn't sales. Perhaps Wikipedia should start adding album-equivalent unit columns on discographies. But because that could set a precedent, I think it would be best to bring it up at a music WikiProject (most probably the Discographies WikiProject). Ss 112 20:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it up there. I didn't months ago because there's like 4 pages named Wikiproject Discographies and it's confusing. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Body Like a Back Road"

You forgot to update the US Adult Contemporary (Billboard) of Sam Hunt's "Body Like a Back Road", up to number 20 this week, thank you. 24.41.228.188 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24.41.228.188 I didn't forget. I rarely update the Adult Contemporary chart peaks. Ss 112 15:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I updated the US Adult Top 40 (Billboard) "Body Like a Back Road" peak on Sam Hunt discography myself, up to number seven this week, I noticed that you update this chart on the single page but you don't update this on his discography, so, I do it myself, thank you. (24.41.228.188 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

24.41.228.188 I don't check every page to make sure there's something I didn't update. Also, why are you saying "thank you" at the end of every message? Ss 112 15:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good manners (24.41.228.188 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

...That's nice, but there's no real need for it because what you're saying doesn't correlate with giving thanks. Ss 112 15:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hunt is the best artist of the whole planet, I just want to make sure that his discography is up to date. (24.41.228.188 (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Zelda

I saw that you created a Zelda page so it led me to suggesting; if your a fan would you consider getting a UserBox? Dinah In Wonderland 23:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinah Kirkland I already have a userbox on my page relating to Zelda, I believe? Ss 112 23:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh terribly sorry, I didn't see it for I use

Z

This user plays Zelda games.

So it was a bit hard to spot. Dinah In Wonderland 23:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I was wondering: is there a place where I can put my Userboxes (that I've Created) out for other people to use? Dinah In Wonderland 00:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinah Kirkland There's a guide at WP:USERBOX. Ss 112 00:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie bello Dinah In Wonderland 00:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stylisation

Hi, I could be bold and edit, but I don't know if it's a good idea or not. Do you think the side image of Luis Fonsi on List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s should be in a multimage with Daddy Yankee? Like on List of number-one singles of 2017 (Australia)?
And, how should I rephrase the "Despacito" image caption, so it sounds proper but doesn't say "had a (number)-week run at the top of the UK Singles Chart" phrased exactly the same as the last two images? Thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Mandela I don't think it's necessary to do a double image. I don't really like the double image on the Australian list as it forces the wikitable to be squashed a bit. While the remix is the popular version, Luis Fonsi is still the primary artist; it was only on the remix that Daddy Yankee was upgraded to equal credit with Fonsi, so I don't think his image is required or anything. As for the caption, I'm not sure what you could change it to. Ss 112 22:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I only want to change the caption wording so it isn't repetitive.--Theo Mandela (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Know What Love Is

Can you keep an eye of the page to persistent long-term abuse? 115.164.84.153 (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

115.164.84.153 I've requested page protection, which is best in cases like this. Binksternet also appears to be doing a good job keeping up with the Hanoi vandal. Ss 112 04:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Del Rey singles

I've seen a few sources stating that "Summer Bummer" is a single and "Groupie Love" is a promotional single. However this source shows that "Groupie Love" impacted Italian radio on July 28 as a single, and this source shows that "Summer Bummer" impacted UK radio on July 28 as a single. I know that artists will release two different songs to two different formats on the same day as each other, but this has me a bit confused. What's your opinion? FanofMusic ^{(Talk to Me!)} 20:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FanofMusic That's fine. It's just that at the time I did that, nobody had come forth with a source about "Summer Bummer" being a full single, and I was mostly self-reverting after looking at Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album) and seeing that there was a source for "Groupie Love" being a radio single and "Summer Bummer" a promo, so it's all good now. Ss 112 05:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)s]] for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk

Hey! I noticed your message. — TheMagnificentist 12:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheMagnificentist Yes? I asked you a question, and you reverted my edits. Ss 112 12:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I first created the page at Freedom Child then saw you redirected the same page to the discography. I ignored it, assuming it's a bug as I've seen many of these on WP. — TheMagnificentist 12:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume bad faith. — TheMagnificentist 12:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheMagnificentist Except I think there's something you've deliberately done here. Typing with a normal keyboard, Freedom Child is a redirect. The page you created, F‍reedom Child, shows up with a red underline on my browser, indicating you have done something to the characters used to type it. It's a different page. I'd be assuming good faith if you hadn't pulled similar moves in the past. Looks like your page will have to be moved over the top of my redirect, which is probably what you wanted. Ss 112 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I object to moving. The page title seems alright, there's no issue here. Just because it displeases you doesn't mean it should be moved. Besides, I created the content. — TheMagnificentist 12:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheMagnificentist "Besides, I created the content." Thanks, I'm well aware who's done what here. What you've typed to create the article, "F‍", is different from "F". Actually edit this page and press backspace next to the first F in that last sentence. There's an invisible character next to it and it takes two backspaces to erase the actual F. It's not because it "displeases" me; it's incorrect and a weird character error. I don't know if you've done it deliberately, but honestly, I wouldn't be surprised. In future, please type characters with a normal keyboard in the search box to the left, and don't copypaste the title from somewhere else to make it. I've informed an administrator of the error. I'll let them handle it. Ss 112 12:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I didn't notice the F was like that. Maybe you could ping the admin here to let them know! — TheMagnificentist 12:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article using the bad ASCII character to the original and correct page name. TheMagnificentist Please try to avoid doing things like this. If a redirect already exists for an article title, you should just edit it. No one is going to debate that you didn't create the article, and mucking with contribution histories or trying to use odd non-standard characters isn't helpful. I'd go so far as to say its disruptive, especially in this case as it hurts readers trying to do searches and causes all standard wikilinks to be redirects. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've since found a few other pages created by them where a few random ASCII characters slipped into the URL, so I'm starting to think it wasn't deliberate. Primefac (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myself (Nav Song)

Can you move the Myself (Nav Song) to Myself (Nav song) please. (24.41.228.188 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Joshua Sales

Last, year, a user made a page called Joshua Sales, that page looks unsourced, go check it out if you have time. (24.41.228.188 (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Questionable edits

An editor made these edits like this just recently, are these edits are disruptive? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts I wouldn't call it disruptive, they just changed the formatting and inserted extra parameters because they edited with Visual Edit. As you pointed out in your edit summary though, it wasn't really necessary and was fine before. Ss 112 11:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I ask you this because you have an issue with another editor who keeps changing lists for no good reasons. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highsnobiety

Is this website is an reliable source or not? Because there is this editor who been adding this website to articles, such as Luv Is Rage 2. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts I'm not sure about this one. The article (which was only created earlier this month) and website state that it's a blog, but it appears to have a team of people working for it, and it's appeared in print... maybe open a discussion on WP:RSN? Ss 112 23:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I start a discussion on this website. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stromae discography

Sorry, but in France, a record (disk) of diamond corresponds to 500,000 copies. I thought that the reference was not necessary, because there is already a reference for the certification 4xdiamond. Land and travel 18:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Do not mean to bugging you for this, but can you look at this report I made just recently, only if you want to, of course. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Harris discography#Music videos

Hi User:Ss112, how should I add the second music video for "Feels" ([2]) on Calvin Harris discography please? And I don't know if it has the same director as the first. --Theo Mandela (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headline Planet

Regarding your edit here, correct me if I'm wrong as I might be thinking of something really subpar like "Hits Daily Double", but isn't Headline Planet a questionable-at-best publication that falls below Wikipedia referencing standards? Pretty sure it's better to cite a billboard staff member's tweet or something for temporary US chart updates, and I know Gary Trust sometimes responds to chart inquiries before the site updates its charts. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS I've never found a problem with Headline Planet and I don't know why others have or where anyone made up their minds about it officially. I've searched WP:RSN and I've found no entries for it, and it's not on WP:BADCHARTS or WP:ALBUMAVOID. Sure, there are probably better sources just because there isn't a lot about Headline Planet's standing as a source, but I don't consider that it's akin to Hits Daily Double, because it doesn't report sales without specifying its sources. Headline Planet got it from Billboard's Facebook countdown, and they also republish information Gary Trust mentions on his Twitter. If there were a tweet about it, I would have cited that, and Gary Trust doesn't respond to tweets all day (perhaps for only an hour or so window after the live top 10 countdown is held). IPs and registered editors had both changed the page and Demi Lovato discography numerous times, so even if it were subpar, I'll take that temporarily over having to revert them again. Ss 112 02:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd make sure. It's definitely better than them pulling things out of nowhere or having people (including IPs) insert random numbers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS For a while earlier, I thought IPs had been making it up, so I was treating it like it was vandalism. I later realised it had been said earlier in the countdown and I had missed it. Ss 112 03:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If more IPs just took the time to cite such changes, then we'd have less to worry about. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaon

I rollbacked your edits so it did not require explanation lol. So sorry for the incident. — Simon (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ You can rollback with a summary. You copy the link for the rollback into the address bar and append "&summary=" then add what you want to type. Ss 112 08:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Used photo

hey you used to help me with the used page and you seem to still be active on those pages. i want to add anew band photo with the 4 current memebers. since you know how wiki works well, could you make this the new photo on the band page http://www.altpress.com/images/uploads/news/TheUsed_717.jpg thanks. Rollinin (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinin I'm not really sure what the licensing on that image would be. It seems like a promotional shot. With bands, we usually try to go for live pictures that an uploader has taken themselves or that is fair use as it's their own work. Also, I see you created Over and Over Again (The Used single), but we need more coverage for an individual article than what was there, so I've redirected it (per WP:NSONGS). It should also be at Over and Over Again (The Used song), as we don't disambiguate articles with "single", but "song". Ss 112 04:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question

An editor added content with sources in this edit, but I don't think these sources are reliable enough for Wikipedia. What do you think of it? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts Buzzfeed and Genius are not reliable sources for critical discussion of an album, so you were right to remove them, I think. Ss 112 14:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too, I have left a message on their talk page explaining why I reverted the edit. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Break (Lady A album)

It's one thing to need a source to call it "country pop" or "country rock" or "bro-country" or something, but the greater umbrella of just "country music" is just a given. It's an album by a country music act that opened at #1 on the country genre charts. I've been here a long time and I've never seen something like that even disputed. I'd understand if it was a sub-genre because then people like to slap their own personal labels on things, but calling Heart Break a country music record seems unquestionable to me. CloversMallRat (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still get notifications for responses on someone else's talk page? I was under the impression that this is how discussions were supposed to go on talk pages so the other person would see them...

Anyway, for Lady A to chart on the country genre charts, that means BB made a judgment call and allowed them to because their music fit the genre. So it feels like that's good enough to at least just call it 'country music.' CloversMallRat (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Don't Talk Anymore (Charlie Puth song)

Can you keep an eye when who involved genre changes or did not make the final consensus. 115.164.186.230 (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promo singles Lana Del Rey

Sorry, I've been deceived by this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotional_recording#Promo_single So, has the conception of promo single changed? Ikcir (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikcir Yes, I think the definition of a promotional single has changed, which is why the section has been tagged as being outdated. Nowadays when editors (not myself, I'm referring to those who do) speak of promotional singles, they usually refer to a song that is made available to download or on a streaming service before an album is released in order to promote the upcoming release. Many link to WP:SINGLE?, even though that is an essay and not policy. That section on that article appears to refer to the practice of giving promo CD-Rs to radio stations as if it were the 1990s or earlier. Ss 112 13:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table formatting

Hi Ss112, with table formatting, how would you add the second music video for "Feels" ([3]) on Calvin Harris discography#Music videos please? And I don't know if it has the same director as the first.--Theo Mandela (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Dark Place (Mastodon album) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cold Dark Place (Mastodon album). Since you had some involvement with the Cold Dark Place (Mastodon album) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hear Me Now (Alok song)

Hi Ss112, how are you? I understand your intention, so here in Brazil the official certification system is very slow. So much so that Warner Music songs have not been released in APBD for years! I have the same idea in mind as you, and I even accepted it because I did not imagine that the record companies gave certificates to artists in a disorderly way. I thought they had priority on that kind of information.--pablodiego15 ^{(msg • contrib)} 10:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Dumb & Broke

Hello Ss112. What happened on Young Dumb & Broke is that I was editing the page at the same time as you did, and forgot to remove the edit summary that said I added the peak. Plus, I wasn't aware that it was you who added the peak for the Scottish charts until after I had saved the page with the edits that I had made. Also, I apologize for changing the date for the source as I completely spaced out on the idea that someone, like you, could be in a different time zone that is already the following day. Just thought that I would tell you this just to clear things up. RedSox39 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Like Praying

Great job. You beat me to the punch. I see a ton of press coming out so created some basic info. There are lots of references out there but no sense with overloading them in the article so I just chose a few that came up. Feel free to add anything else you feel is worthy of encyclopedic mention. --Crustification (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

demi lovato discography

I only remove additional sources after the ones in the header have been updated. The page with her US chart history has now been updated and therefore I've removed the additional source. ArturSik (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArturSik If you check, the "as featured artist" on Demi Lovato discography does not invoke Demi Lovato's chart history at all, so without those sources underneath the peaks, they are not supported, so that's why I reverted you. Also, you don't need to immediately remove extra sources upon a chart's archive updating, especially if the song is ascending the chart week upon week. It will just be added again next week, so the "add source, remove source" back-and-forth is pointless. Ss 112 16:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

true. I'll take that on board. ArturSik (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Swish Swish

Hiya, sorry I wasn't very clear when I made that edit, I should probably make it a little more obvious by what I mean next time! Thanks

Holy Mountain (Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds song)

I was confused with the edits you made to Holy Mountain (song), which I found perverse, especially as the song now has 2 entries in categories ie NGFB. Never mind, with the tech move, which was the correct procedure to begin with, all will end well --Richhoncho (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho I don't get how it was "perverse"—it still wasn't unnecessary disambiguation. It was the correct amount of disambiguation as no other article exists with that song title. Another editor created an unnecessarily disambiguated namespace, and then another editor created an article on top of that. Ss 112 13:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it did, HM (Noel etc) is an existing article which you have asked to be moved to HM (song) - which is the other namespace. At the present time, both HMs are in the categories - which would be wrong, but to be sorted out by your request. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I did drop by to thank you for your RM nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid discography

Hi Ss112! How are you? So... First of all, thanks for your advices and I apologize to cause so many problems for you about certifications and sources. As you maybe have been notice, I just started edit Wiki recently so I have a lot to learn yet. Like in this case, I don't feel so secure to create new pages on wiki with my knowledge about edits, so I'd like to have your help and ask if you could create a main page for Khalid discography. Khalid's main page on Wiki is getting a lot of informations about his discography when actually it could've been in a alternative page, don't you think? Well, I hope you think about it, because I personally guess it's a good idea to have a main page for his discography. So, by the way, thank you so much for everything. Certificationsaccess (talk) 7:30 p.m., 15 October 2017 (UTC).

A barnstar for you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your tireless work in thwarting disruptive editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hi there! I just wanted to say a big "thank you" for your edits on Wikipedia; I'm especially thankful that you keep an eye on multiple record charts and update them on Wiki articles (e.g. "Ruleta"). Have a great day; Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One More Light (song)

Can you check unreliable sources or not? 183.171.183.157 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Dawson

You tagged Devin Dawson for notability. Just letting you know that I expanded the article with sources and an assertation to notability (#22 song on a major chart). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Millionaire (Chris Stapleton song)

A doubt. The song was originally recorded by its songwriter Kevin Welch 15 years ago for his album, but wasn't released as a single nor charted anywhere. Stapleton will prob push it as a single because is doing well. Should the article be called "Millionaire (Chris Stapleton song)"? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstonepicker Hm, I'm not sure about this one. I think some users would argue that it's originally Kevin Welch's song, but perhaps we should still title it after who more famously recorded it. Ss 112 07:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:2A02:C7F:BE0E:F000:F9D1:B942:DCEF:634D

I've removed this report from AIV, not because I think you're wrong about the sockpuppetry, but because it isn't so glaringly obvious to a non-involved admin that I could act on it without doing substantial research into edit histories (which isn't what AIV is for). I suggest you ping Ad Orientem, since he appears to have been the last admin to warn that user about editing while logged out, he may be able to quickly recognize them. Or file the SPI after all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like the same IP range normally associated with Hadji87. That doesn't mean it's not. But I would need some specific evidence to proceed with a block. Alternatively I'd just open an SPI and request a check user. If it turns out to be them then a long term block is coming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you open an SPI ping me so I can keep an eye on it. If this is Hadji then I am going to be really ticked after the warning I left last time around. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, Ad Orientem Thanks for looking into it, anyway. I was quite sure this IP was editing one of the UK chart pages Hadji frequented under other IPs, but perhaps not. I'll look further into it and may file an SPI. I'm not sure it'll go ahead though, due to the whole non-disclosure of which IPs are connected to what accounts. Ss 112 19:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. But still if it looks like Hadji just file the SPI and see where it goes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Uzi Vert discography

Is Luv Is Rage 2 certified Gold by the RIAA, because an editor add this source to the article, but the problem is the format says single, not album. Is this a mistake by the RIAA or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts I'd say it's obviously a mistake by the RIAA to call it a single. It's fine on the discography as we can just link to Lil Uzi Vert's RIAA search results page, but on the album page with a certifications box perhaps we'd need to still write single but then could have a commented-out message specifying that it's not a mistake and is merely there to be in line with what the RIAA has mistakenly classified it as. Ss 112 11:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my edits at Zara Larsson discography. I didn't know that there was a 10 column limit and I'll be sure to count next time! Thanks again, Jith12 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email notice

Please take a look at your inbox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Album Released on December 22

The Beatuiful and the dammed is an album that will be released on December 22 that is ture. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something Just like This

Can you keep an eye? That user saying "It's unsourced because there's no source provided saying the genre is electropop, the genre is actually future bass like roses buts there's no source for that either so no genre then." 115.164.58.52 (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re closing breaks

There's a few tags that can be used unclosed but muck with edit colouration if they aren't closed, and br is one of them. Anyway, the main purpose of the edit was as an almost dummy edit to include the full comment since I must have accidentally hit enter while typing. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, would you mind applying for New page reviewer privs, since you're well-placed to determine if the articles that have been created from your redirects would meet notability and sourcing requirements. Thanks ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revival tracklist

I'm not sure why the tracklist was deleted. It has the same level of validity as the rest of the page. Neither the album nor lead single has been confirmed, but both have sufficient evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.207.192 (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

72.78.207.192 That wasn't the order of the tracks, and they weren't directly cited in that section. We need reliable sources on the page confirming each track exists and is to be included on the album, hence my removal of them as that is not present. All the sources I see on Google are speculating "Walk on Water" is a single. While it is very possibly true, I don't see actual confirmation. Ss 112 15:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

It looks like somebody is playing games. Let me know if you want this lifted at some point in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation format

With regards to your question here, "cite journal" is the closest thing I know of to a magazine citation, thus magazines like Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, or Rolling Stone should use magazine citations or whatever comes closest to that even if they have their own websites. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS But we're not citing the print edition or even an article that we know for sure will appear as it is accessed on their website in its next print edition. Also, what about Template:Cite magazine? Ss 112 22:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had known sooner about "cite magazine", then I would've said to use that. The reason I wouldn't use "cite web" is because the publication is known as a magazine and started as such, and it seemed appropriate to follow a similar logic to using "cite news" for newspapers as that's what they're known to be and started as that (with or without websites). As an added bonus, the "cite magazine" even features uses for online magazine articles, so that should be fine regardless of whether it appears in the printed edition. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious editing

An editor made this edit in the X (Chris Brown album) article. I think it's Giubbotto non ortodosso using another account. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts It appears so. I've reported them. Ss 112 23:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I wanna ask you about this edit, is this correct English for album articles? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts It just sounds like that was user was being very particular. It's correct both ways. Ss 112 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just wanna hear your opinion on it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live in No Shoes Nation

No english version? Today I started ru:Live in No Shoes Nation. --Lasius (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish charts

Hi, I was thinking about what you said on Daddy Yankee discography. I would remove the Spanish peak for "Boom Boom" if spanishcharts.com isn't Spain's official chart, but maybe other songs like "La Despedida" could remain there since there aren't records on PROMUSICAE's website about charts before 2010. Brankestein (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brankestein Well, I'm not entirely opposed to the use of spanishcharts.com, as it's still supported by its own Template:Single chart entry, so Wikipedia supports its use and there have been no discussions about removing it. It's a substitute. It's just that the PROMUSICAE official site is preferred. Ss 112 17:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hadji87

Hi Ss112. I don't monitor the pages that he likes to edit, so if you happen to see him block evading (his block is now up to 3 months) let me know. I think he has exhausted the patience of more than a few admins, including me. I am a micro-inch from blocking him until one minute past noon on the day after the Second Coming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the above. It appears that another admin reached the end of their patience before me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Me Up (Remy Ma song)

Hi, thank’s for correcting the mistakes I made while writing about when the music video premiered and was released, I though it’d be alright since we usually write it like that here in the UK. Would you mind teaching me how to create a section under an already created Wikipedia page since I’m new here and younger? Thank you. Martinj1996 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martinj1996 "Dropped" is a common expression for "released" in the US too, so the term isn't UK-specific as far as I'm aware. If you mean how to create a section, just see WP:SECTION. It's a how-to guide. Ss 112 21:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French charts

Hi Ss112, a quick question as I'm sure you know the answer to this... is there any difference between the SNEP charts on their website and the ones published on Hung Medien's lescharts.com website? Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 SNEP began publishing an overall singles chart combining streaming and downloads on their website earlier this year, which they dubbed the "megafusion" chart. Before this, while they had an overall albums chart on their website, they had only separate downloads and streaming charts for songs. lescharts.com is typically seen as the archive for SNEP's peaks. Some users have claimed the singles chart hosted on lescharts.com is simply the downloads chart from SNEP's website, however, while very similar, the peaks hosted on lescharts.com are sometimes several places lower, so what lescharts.com is combining with this downloads data I am still unsure of. The albums chart on lescharts.com, as far as I understand it, combines compilations of previously released music into its data, so quite often the albums that debut in the lower regions of SNEP's albums chart are pushed out when compilations are added to the combined chart on lescharts.com.

So there are some marked differences—depending on the circumstances, I see nothing wrong with using the "downloads" chart on SNEP as this was the default for years, and is the closest peak we will get to when SNEP archives them. Some users get quite up in arms about this, claiming it's misleading because streaming data makes a difference to peaks. In those cases, I would probably use the megafusion chart simply to appease whoever is claiming an artist's chart appearance in France is being inflated by using "limited" data (because, as I'm sure you know, consumers typically download newer songs quicker than the songs catch on in large numbers on streaming services). However, this is not my personal preference. The SNEP sources I add about the place are only intended to be temporary and serve as a holdover until lescharts.com updates. Until consensus decides lescharts.com is not to be used or no longer accurate, then this method is preferable to me, as, if we were to take SNEP's megafusion chart as the only acceptable option, the amount of sourcing required to document these peaks every week would quickly become cumbersome for artists popular in the country. Sorry about the long explanation! Ss 112 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - like everything to do with combined physical/download/streaming charts these days, it's bloody confusing! The reason I asked is because someone has put the M83 song "Wait" up for deletion (it's on its third AfD) and really the only thing keeping it alive is a no. 154 peak on lescharts, which as the nominator notes doesn't really amount to very much of a reason to keep. But they weren't sure where the chart position had come from (it's unsourced) and how reliable and official it was. I knew that lescharts.com credit SNEP on their website so I thought they must be based on the SNEP charts, but couldn't tell where the differences came from. Richard3120 (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 I see a user has stated on the nomination page that per SNEP's article, the singles chart has 150 places—this is no longer accurate and hasn't been for years—as long as I've been looking at them, lescharts.com and SNEP's website have both used 200 places for all singles and albums charts. I think I've even seen "Wait" hovering around the lower regions of one of the charts (or perhaps it was "Outro"). Ss 112 16:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the assertion that SNEP charts only go as far as 150 places was what triggered my query in the first place, because as you say, it's been a top 200 for years, well before the streaming component came in and any "megafusion" (what a terrible name) chart was created. Richard3120 (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of edits

Hey there! Your constant reverting of my edits has come to my attention following the incident on New Rules. The chart position update was correct and the reference corresponded, on the version of the website which loaded on my device at least. You hardly expect me to pull a chart position out of my head. The immediate deletion/reverting of edits based on personal editing styles or interpretation of a reference is not a constructive form of encyclopedic writing. Just bringing this your attention to avoid future occurences.
Cheers,

F1lover22 talk 19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F1lover22 "Constant reverting" of your edits? I've reverted maybe two or three of your edits on several articles over the past few weeks in total. This has got nothing to do with a grudge or whatever it is you're trying to say that this is. I have nothing against you. It didn't matter to me which particular editor was updating the Billboard peak on "New Rules"—an IP had done it just before, and as the reference had not updated at that time either, I also reverted them. I refreshed the site multiple times; it still said 21. This is why I also linked to the URL in my edit summary. As far as I'm aware, Billboard does not update at different times for different people. I was aware of the number 19 peak as it had been discussed in Billboard's video countdown and then repeated around on various chart Twitter accounts and so on, but if it's not properly verifiable, as it was not to me when I reverted you, we should wait. I reverted you for no other reason than it was not supported by the reference. What happened on other articles was stylistic and per our content guidelines, which I linked you to at the time. In this instance, the information needed to be verifiable, so what I did was in line with encyclopedic editing. It has nothing to do with "personal editing styles or interpretation of a reference". The reference simply did not state the information, which is an accepted reason to revert somebody. Ss 112 21:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dapaah

Hi Ss112, can you turn the "Singles" section on Michael Dapaah article into a table please? Thanks, Theo (edits) 13:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Mandela Added the table. I was planning to do something on that page for a while anyway. Ss 112 15:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weezer's worldwide sales

All of the worldwide sales are sourced as stated in the last line of the lead of their discography page. Why did you delete all their sales off the page yet simply leave your edit explanation as "added note"....? BlaccCrab (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlaccCrab Please link to the edit you're referring to next time; I don't recall every single edit I've made. This appears to be because adding the note was the main gist of what I did; I don't think removing unsourced data always requires an explanation. Other users should know unsourced information can be challenged and removed with little or no notice per one of Wikipedia's core policies (WP:Verifiability). In fact, I'd argue it's routine to do so. Most users upon scanning that section would see unsourced data, as I did. I doubt most would think to read the opening paragraphs and see that they're sourced to a website in the last line but without inline citations next to the actual figures. Besides, this website (StatisticBrain) cites no actual sources for their worldwide figures. You can re-add the figures if you like, but I'd really think a reliable website worth its while would disclose how it compiled such data. Ss 112 15:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics Brain cites Nielsen and Geffen records as their sources. That's why it's in the lead. BlaccCrab (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlaccCrab I saw that on the article, however, I don't think the actual website says it took those figures from Nielsen and Geffen. At least, it doesn't on the linked page here. Could be WP:OR. Ss 112 16:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added that source years ago, maybe the layout of where their about section has changed. BlaccCrab (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlaccCrab The "statistic sources & references" box at the end of the page states their source is their own "research institute", and their about page is a general statement of their purpose. But you're right, the Wayback Machine has the page archived from as far back as 2013, and it at least says RIAA and Geffen here. Ss 112 16:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project Baby 2

The mixtape's title was updated to Project Baby 2: All Grown Up on every music platform, except Apple Music/iTunes (It might be updated when the deluxe comes out). Some of the platforms are listed below.

Deezer
Amazon Music
Microsoft Store
Google Play Music
Tidal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maintaining (talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining Then perhaps WP:COMMONTITLE applies here, as while Project Baby 2 would still be a redirect to the "new" title, the efficacy of retitling one's own work that's been out for months is questionable. Wikipedia does not have to directly follow suit with an artist's whims. It's like deciding months later something was not a single despite saying at the time it was. Not that I think this project in any way bears the significance to general culture as the film, but it's the reason why we don't have Star Wars at its retroactive title Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Ss 112 06:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sempiternal (album)

Hey, wondered if you can help. Allmusic review [4], "a soaring set of aggro-alt-rock anthems" (consisting of alt-rock songs) but it doesn't mean an explicit genre for the album as a whole. 115.164.73.81 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Échame la Culpa

Hi Sean. You've updated "Échame la Culpa" with charts posted on Hung Medien but the links don't work. Do you know how to fix them? Is it because of the "É" in the title? Max24 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max24 Looks like the parameter said "title" instead of song. Ss 112 18:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop albums sales

Hi! Sorry to bother you. I was looking for sales of Mundial by Daddy Yankee and I found that various forums centered on hip hop albums sales state that the record sold 57,842 copies in 2010. Can this be reliable enough to be a source for Daddy Yankee discography? The links are the following: [5], and [6]. There is also a web page called ukmix.org/forums but it seems that it is on Wikipedia's blacklist and I couldn't add it here. Again, sorry to bother you with this. Brankestein (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brankestein Unfortunately, forums are not reliable sources because posts on them are written by users with no credentials. WP:SPS. Ss 112 19:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

allkpop

My thing with that website is that it mirrors every chart update. For example BTS x Steve Aoki's 'MIC Drop Remix' is #1 on iTunes Worldwide Song chart!. the "WW iTunes chart" is a made up chart by the website kworb.net. allkpop gives an iTunes update per article, it shouldn't allow Kpop songs articles to have those iTunes charts positions featured. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstonepicker It's not that particular source that I'm concerned about keeping, because there are articles from other sources available talking about the records it broke and its achievements (at least, there is one from Billboard I'm aware of). While I do agree that reporting on an average album's iTunes stats is irrelevant (even if say, we were to talk about Taylor's Reputation charting in a number of countries at number one or thought we needed to talk about iTunes achievements for every album), for a non-English language album to achieve such a feat on the largest digital retailer when the market is heavily geared to English-speaking artists and their successes, it's a significant thing to note. Ss 112 13:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music Album Page Creation Tips

Hey there! We've crossed paths before a while back, if you can remember.

Seeing that you're experienced in Wikipedia edits and page creations (I've remembered seeing you write on your profile that you've created a few music album pages), I would like to enquire for some general tips about how to create a brand new music album page, which would be helpful for a beginner editor like me. Perhaps something like, what is important to create a quality album page, and what type of content and references would I need?

Thanks for reading!

ANode (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANode Hey, you can check out WP:NALBUMS for the basic requirements for notability, and then follow MOS:ALBUM if you're keen on writing an article for an album. Ss 112 10:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112 Cheers, thanks for the share! ANode (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]