User talk:Ss112/Archive 14

About "Face My Fears"

It wasn't difficult to find. I didn't find it on a fan site. I found it on Billboard in her chart history. I literally just waited till it appeared there, as I was checking if the EP charted on the Billboard 200 (only to find out it didn't, and the single charted instead). Joklol (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Joklol: This was over a week ago now...why are you only just now responding? Nobody said it was hard for you to find. It seemed like you added that before the chart history updated, and I know very well where to find Billboard chart peaks, considering I add most of them every week. Ss112 07:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Cause I don't really check notifications very often, and I figured I'd address it. I just kept refreshing every few minutes till it appeared. The issue might've been the fact Billboard had Utada under three different names. Joklol (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you again for the help with the "Kelly" article. I am trying to be better about receiving criticism, and I greatly appreciate your feedback. Although you obviously do not need me to tell you this, but you are an excellent editor with music-related articles. I always appreciate working with you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks! Your articles are quite well-written and referenced. And yeah, working on receiving criticism better is always a benefit to do! Ss112 03:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. I try my best with them. And it is just a good life skill to have in general. There is always a way to better one's self. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

I was trying to revert the vandalism on Body (Loud Luxury song), but I guess I clicked the wrong button? I don't know, this website has gotten way more confusing with its editing since the last time I was here. Anyway, the song is clearly has nothing to do with Jennifer Lopez and the "Waiting for Tonight" images were literally everywhere on the page. I was trying to revert to the last edit before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Think About Us"

A Little Mix fan has created the article for their latest single, which is fair enough. But they've created it as "Think About Us ( Little Mix song)" – the disambiguation isn't needed because there isn't another article with this name, but they've done it because the redirect is in the way of creating "Think About Us"... and I don't know how to change it either. Would you mind having a look please and sorting this out quickly? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that... it was late here in Colombia, and I couldn't spend more time trying to figure out the problem, but I knew you could do it straight away. I should have remembered to add the categories, though. Richard3120 (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Tom Walker - "Just You and I"

Hey, just wanted to get a discussion going about Tom Walker's "Just You and I". I get that the song has been re-released as a single, but not why that warrants having a completely separate row in his discography table? Plenty of artists re-release singles (e.g., Tom Grennan and "Found What I've Been Looking For") but these don't usually get treated separately in discography tables. A notably exception that springs to mind is Sam Smith's "Lay Me Down", but only because the re-release (released for Red Nose Day in the UK, featuring John Legend) charted/was certified separately.

A concern I have with separating re-released singles is what happens when the single receives a certification? "Just You and I" was at 177k in the UK the other week I believe, and is due to receive it's BPI silver certification this/next week most likely; so which entry in the discography table would be assigned this (if we decide to keep them separate)?

Look forward to hearing back from you - AlligatorSky (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@AlligatorSky: Does the original entry not say "acoustic version", as in the original release was a different version? I don't know how this would be different from Sam Smith's "Lay Me Down"—this is charting separately as the original did not. I think it then follows that the re-release would be the entry to have the certification next to it, because the original release did not chart. Ss112 10:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

My point was that the OCC most likely are combining the acoustic and re-released version together - the BPI must be if the track is already at ~177k in chart sales.

If releasing a new version of a song counts as a separate charting entry (which it doesn't, with exceptions of course), then why would we not list the acoustic release of "Leave a Light On"[1] here separately too? AlligatorSky (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@AlligatorSky: I can't really see many people buying the original acoustic version...? I think the sales of that would be minimal. It all depends on what they credit. As the original version is specifically denoted as being acoustic, if the BPI credits "Just You and I" without the acoustic marker, that really solves that—then it's the non-acoustic version of the song they've chosen to credit and per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, we can't read into something that's not there even if we think they've combined the sales. And perhaps because the acoustic version of "Leave a Light On" was a) contemporaneous with the original's 2017 release, and b) because it wasn't re-released/didn't chart separately a significant period of time later? I don't know if you know this, but I wasn't the editor who separated the versions. I just think it makes more sense to do that now. Ss112 12:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The single was re-released on 11 January 2019,[2] so I think we can assume that the majority of the ~177k sales come from the 'acoustic' version; though I still stand by my position that the two versions have been treated as one by chart companies - just a shame the single didn't chart before 2019 for me to be able to prove a point. In any case, I propose we wait until the single receives a certification from the BPI; as they always list the release date of the track that has been certified. Just looping @Tbone49: in here, who made the original separation between releases on Tom Walker's page. Any thoughts? AlligatorSky (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@AlligatorSky: Two things before I respond: When linking to websites, there is no need for a reference. Please just put an external link in brackets. It's a talk page; there's no need to go through citing material here. Also, it is entirely useless to ping someone on their own talk page. Now, you don't think the song could have sold 177,000 between now and February? Where is this figure even from? It's not cited on the article and you haven't linked to where you got that from here. I really don't think the BPI certifying it then means we should combine the two releases—it doesn't negate the fact the original is clearly an acoustic take and this not the same version. I really think this is getting beyond the scope of a concern dropped on a user's talk page and it should be at the article talk page. This doesn't just affect me—I reverted you, yes, but if you want it changed, you should have gone to the article talk page to begin with and proposed it there to ask what others think. Ss112 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sam Smith

I have new certifications with proof of links and photos for “The Thrill Of It All” HengeBoy (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Also I’m new to this, how do you make links? HengeBoy (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@HengeBoy: Make links to what? External websites? You can put the link between square brackets or in a citation template like Template:Cite web; just read WP:Citing sources. Ss112 04:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

never mind 10xPlatinum in China — Preceding unsigned comment added by HengeBoy (talk • contribs) 04:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@HengeBoy: Please don't remove other users' comments when responding. Also, great, but Weibo is a social network and not a reliable source for contentious claims about third parties. Please read WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Ss112 05:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what I’m doing lol I’m sorry... HengeBoy (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"Rainbow"

I just copy-pasted the chart section on the page for "Merry Go 'Round" in order to build the one for Kacey's new single article because I can't create those tables off the top of my head. Thanks for fixing/updating it. CloversMallRat (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Underscores

Per our discussion here, I have continued to use underscores when the link is taken from a URL with underscores. If the part fits, and it can be manufactured, then go with it. I do not have time to sift through the intimate details. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I'm well aware of the discussion we had Jax, hence why I said "still", but I still stand by the fact that it does not take significantly longer to type it out without underscores or even if you are copying it, to remove them as they don't need to be there. Especially if you're going to go "correct" someone else's link and insert it where it doesn't need to be. I'm also confused as to how you apparently don't have "time" but any time I do look at your contributions you have been online for hours doing things. Chances are that you do in fact have time but can't be bothered. Ss112 21:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Rap or Go to the League

Can you see the tracklist in the source cited on Rap or Go to the League? I don't see anything. StaticVapor message me! 02:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: I know by the point Maintaining restored it, the track list had been tweeted by Spotify, which 2 Chainz retweeted. But yeah, I did not see it at the Tidal source given, so I linked to the Pitchfork article written on it. Ss112 04:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, back when I removed it I did a Google search and found nothing. I knew it would be out sooner than later though. StaticVapor message me! 06:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Aly Ryan

See if you find any charting for Aly Ryans latest song. Appreciate it.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: Hey, just looked on the German charts website, the Hung Medien series of websites, can't find anything for her. I'd say really the only place she'd have had a chance of charting would be Germany and it doesn't look like she did. Ss112 08:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok that's fine. I asked you just to make sure I had not missed something. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Albums and {{duration}}

Thanks for this. I had no clue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Sex and Candy"

I know you love music - would you like to review the article for "Sex and Candy" for GA? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ariana Grande discography: Japan

Hello! I was hoping to gain some clarity on your edit on Ariana Grande discography, in which you undid somebody's revision of removing the Japan charting position and adding a different country. Japan is one of her weakest charting territories, do you mind explaining why we should keep it within the table, when there are other countries where she regularly charts higher and there is more information to report? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeeGD (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@GeeGD: I was reverting a sockpuppet's edits. However, from what I can see, Grande has still had quite a few entries on the Japanese charts and several certifications there. For a list like Grande's, I think there needs to be some kind of consensus on removing chart columns that have been in place for several years. Ss112 01:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@GeeGD: I have to agree with Ss112 here. Since there is disagreement about removing the charting column, it must be discussed on the article talk page so a consensus can be reached. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Benim

The song "Farlig" which placed 66 on Sverigetopplistan this week is performed by Ben Mitkus. But he acts as his alter ego, the rap artist Benim. I wasn't sure if that qualifies to ve added to his discography.BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sparrow

Hey Ss! I definitely see you around a lot, and respect your wisdom and advice on music-related articles. With that out the way, I wanted to ask for advice/clarification about something. For the song "Sparrow", I'm currently uncertain of whether the song is a release by Virgin EMI Records or Virgin Records, which seem to operate as different entities. iTunes and Amazon seem to list both in the details. I'm sure there is a right answer here, I'm just not knowledgeable about the nuances of music distribution... Thanks! TheKaphox T 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheKaphox: I believe Sandé probably signed to Virgin, but according to its article, it's still in the process of becoming Virgin EMI Records in the UK. Technically I think Virgin Records will still be a thing (elsewhere in the world, if not in the UK). Regardless, I don't think it matters too much as they are closely aligned/part of the same larger group—and bearing in mind the transition thing, both are technically correct. If you really want to be specific, you could list both. Ss112 16:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks Ss112 for the advice and notes you left on my talk page. It's really helpful. In most of the years doing album articles, I've never had as much advice as you have given out recently. Your work on a lot of articles has been quite impressive. Good to see a fellow Australian doing some good work! Also with the spacing that's coming up in the tracklists, are you using a Wikipedia program to find the bad spaces or do you just have good eyes for it?? --Mjs1991 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mjs1991: No, I noticed it when I clicked next to the duration of one of them after fixing the capitalisation of the titles, then noticed it was next to all of them, and on others you had made. Ss112 04:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Old Town Road

Regarding the chart template, that's why I added a separate citation and note. Not sure how to use the chart template to well. Nice4What (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Yes, but you only added a separate citation for the Country Songs chart. Ss112 14:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

White Wind (EP)

Hey, I've seen you were the person who redirected White Wind to the Mamamoo discography. I've decided to create a page for the EP, since it has become one of their more notable releases after accumulating 5 wins on music shows and topping the local Gaon Chart (as well as placing in French and American component charts). I'm struggling however with the tracklisting. I've researched the songwriters and translated their names, but somehow the template always breaks. I think particularly the second track poses a problem for the template (I've tested out copypasting the song info one by one into the template, the template always seems to break with Gogobebe somehow). I was wondering if you could help me fix this.

Best greetings! --92.211.8.0 (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@92.211.8.0: Have fixed it; there was just a missing square bracket. Ss112 15:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! --92.211.8.0 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

You've continued to state, and even in this edit summary that using {{hlist}} is preferred to save space, yet per the notes section of {{Infobox album}} it explicitly states: "For short horizontal lists of two or three items, comma separators are acceptable, but for longer lists the use of the class=hlist is preferred as it offers a benefit to users of screen readers (see Wikipedia:Accessibility for more information on Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). To use it, format the items as a normal bulleted list; don't use other list templates." Shouldn't we be adhering to this and to the request of Wikipedia:Accessibility, rather than "saving space," especially when hlist is implemented in use, especially when it says not to use other templates? livelikemusic talk! 22:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: I don't wish to argue about this issue. I've raised at either that talk page or another, that there are no accessibility problems with using hlists, otherwise we would never use them or they would be phased out all over Wikipedia, and also asked if the wording should be amended to say that we can still use hlists to list names across the page instead for pop albums with a significant number of producers, but there was no consensus and no real specific objections as far as I recall. If it was an issue, I assume users would have programmed bots to go and remove instances of other list templates from infoboxes if they could not be read for those who require accessibility tools to navigate the Internet. In all other respects I adhere to the template. Generally speaking, listing a few producers with bullet points is fine, but any more than say 10 is getting to be excessive. Ss112 22:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: I'm actually not arguing anything, Ss112, I was just genuinely asking a question since the template calls for use of Wikipedia:Accessibility, etc., which I am a firm believer in adhering to is all. Seems like, at the end of the day, it comes down to a personal preference. livelikemusic talk! 23:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Indeed. Also, while you're here, I just wanted to let you know that it seems earlier you were having a bit of back-and-forth with a sock of PeopleEater143 on Carly Rae Jepsen articles and might not have known. Their IP usually geolocates to the northeast of the US, and they're known for editing recent pop music articles. I think they frequent ATRL, so whatever is getting traction on there, they're usually found buzzing around on Wikipedia. Their characteristic snark, "um, what?" type of speak and rhetorical questions directed at users/sometimes nobody in particular is a dead giveaway. Ad Orientem has just rangeblocked them, but I'm sure they'll find a way to come back. If you spot them/suspect it's them from the characteristics, you can report them to Ad Orientem on his talk. (I've reported a few at ANV when AO hasn't been online with varied results; some admins are aware of them, others aren't.) Ss112 23:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: I had a feeling that anon-user on the Jepsen-related articles was some kind of sock-account, given their persistence and use of personal attacks via edit summary. Thank you for validating my beliefs, I just did not report, as I wasn't sure who the main user could've been, lol. Socks really need to spend their time constructively, instead of continuing to waste their own time. livelikemusic talk! 23:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:18d:680:8808:0:0:0:0/64

Hey, is there a way you can keep an eye out for this IP range? The edits coming from this range are all similar and they seem to specifically target music articles with unexplained removals and unsourced changes, including some articles you might have on your Watchlist (to be honest, I don't think I can keep up with their activity). Thanks in advance! Jalen D. Folf (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: Will do. Although, @Ad Orientem: Does this look like a blockable range? There's no other edits except to music articles, so they're definitely all the same person. All the edits are these disruptive, unexplained blankings and occasional additions of unsourced information to music articles since June last year. They look like they might have been warned a few times, including by ClueBot. Ss112 01:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. If this resumes after the block expires let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Year-end list and musical genres

Hello, I would like to ask your advice. I noticed that in some pages musical genres are sourced with year-end lists like "20 best pop albums of 2018" (Caution (Mariah Carey album)) or "20 best R&B albums of 2014" (Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse). Is it acceptable? or should I remove those genres? Blueberry72 (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Blueberry72: Those are acceptable sources, sure. In fact, in some ways, one could argue that year-end lists are better at summing up albums, as they have a few months' worth of perspective on it. Ss112 19:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: thank you Blueberry72 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Blackpink's discography

Is "Don't Know What To Do" a single? Mostly K-pop news said "The EP comes with a title track and a sub-title" and no "The EP comes with DOUBLE TITLE TRACKS". I think the song is just a promotional single. -202.67.44.27 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm Not Alone 2019

Hi Ss112, could you upload the cover art for the EP please? Theo Mandela (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Done. Ss112 07:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

PUBG Song

File:PUBG LOGO.png	PUBG Award
	Thanks for creating a legend song article, On My Way (Alan Walker song). PUBG players best wishes with you. Siddiqsazzad001 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Thanks! Ss112 14:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

BBC charts vs official charts

Hello, I saw your edit on Ruti Olajugbagbe and I looked on the BBC1 top 40, and it said "Racing Cars" was no. 19. Then I looked at the OfficialCharts top 100, and it said no. 49.

So, is OfficialCharts the correct one? I always thought that BBC & OC were derived from the same data, clearly not though? Where does each chart get its data from? Thanks – DarkGlow (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, it slipped my mind. Thanks for bringing that up, I had no idea BBC was now publishing what looks to be a different chart for both singles and albums...I don't know why they've decided to do this. But yes, the data compiled by the Official Charts Company on officialcharts.com is the official chart for the UK. BBC Radio 1 still broadcasts the official top 40, so I'm not sure what the deal with their website is. Ss112 04:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It's very confusing. A lot of people keep amending the 49 to 19, in good faith. – DarkGlow (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

JSYK: re-"personal preference"

In regards to this edit summary, it isn't a "personal preference," sir (or ma'am) — though, stating "my ref" is sign of WP:OWN. I am simply using the template for {{Cite web}} as included in the "Cite" parameter in the editing bar, which is aligned to how it is aligned. Not my intention to over-ride "your" precious edit. I was simply just trying to add an archive URL to protect the citation in the future. I don't know why you seem to have a personal issue with me, but it's very off-putting. Not trying to get into an argument, but the way you carry yourself through your editing is very much off-putting and makes it difficult to edit on Wikipedia. I respect you and your editing, however, you seem to have a particular issue with me, and I'd like to ask why? livelikemusic talk! 15:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: I literally just posted about this at your talk page. I have no idea where you've imagined this problem I apparently have with you from. I got annoyed because you changed the order of a citation when it didn't need to be changed; WP:CITEVAR says not to do this. You also ignored the "in use" tag just so you could...archive a reference? This is unecessary. It's literally an article that's just been published. WP:OWN because I said "my ref", as in, a reference I added? This is a huge overexaggeration. There is no ownership there. Don't throw out Wikipedia-isms at users due to literally one misinterpretation of a few words. None of this is what WP:OWN means. I have no idea what else or where else I've apparently had an issue with you. i have taken issue with several of your edits in the past, but that doesn't mean I have a personal issue with you. Don't imagine issues where they are not. But, however, I'm rather concerned that you're accusing me of having an issue with you, and yet, having just looked at your contributions, you're going to template editors' pages and quoting weeks old disagreements from me, and asking if it can be changed right after you've just ranted about me in three or so edit summaries. That reads like you're the one with the issue with me, not vice versa. Ss112 15:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

And your subsequent edit summary at your talk page, as if I had seen your talk page post to me and started a new discussion at your talk page, like I don't know how or where to respond, is very condescending. I had not seen it. Please don't start feuding with me, I have enough issues with users. I don't need another. You have assumed a lot of things here. Ss112 15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: The change was purely unintentional. I merely took the citation from the album page and put it into the single page; that's all I am guilty of doing. It feels of if edits I make are targeted by you and undone, and it has been done on multiple articles we've either cross-edited, or that you've come across and un-done. I did not notice the "in-use" tag, and did not recognize it. I thought it was the {{under construction}} tag, so in that, I do apologize. Surely, using "my ref, " in my eyes, could be seen as a poor use of word, as first-person ("my ref") could be seen as a personal reflection of one's intent with the article — more so, shouldn't things be referenced in general terms ("The ref that was there" or "my ref" or "the ref I added"). Again, maybe it's perception. I didn't exactly state you were involved in WP:OWN; I merely stated it bares a sign of it. There is a difference in that. My issue is that feeling of being personal attacked and seen as if my edits are "wrong," or in "poor execution" (so to speak) from your POV. Again, it is not my intent to argue, as I do feel the intentions are pure on both sides; as for my "recent contributions" (which I find a bit off-putting for you to just go and throw that out there), I merely reached out to an editor who re-build and re-constructed certain templates, and reached out based on previous discussions, as the templates themselves seem to be ghost-towned.

As for my talk page, I've made it abundantly clear on it that I do have some OCD tendencies, and conversations not being added in the same form/fashion is off-putting and completely puts me out of sorts. Never did I accuse you of not knowing how or where to respond. That last statement, to me, seems a bit of a poor use of words, so please don't nail me to the cross like that. Again, as I stated, I'm not trying to argue... just merely trying to get to the bottom of something I felt is going on. Again, could have been misconstrued, but felt as a personal go against me. That's all it is. livelikemusic talk! 16:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: I have never taken what you've done as been done in bad faith, just disagreed about some things that you've done. That's all. I have no issue with you, and I have not intentionally gone after you on multiple articles. I may have only taken issue with several of your edits on pages I originally started and watchlisted or had previously edited and watchlisted, nothing more. You are a good contributor; I know your edits are in good faith. That's not in doubt. I know you didn't say that I didn't know how to reply to a conversation correctly, I'm just saying it seemed that way from your edit summary. Again, there is no need to speak about me or what you think I think in edit summaries. I'd prefer you not do that. I'm glad you came to my talk page eventually instead. And again, I think you've assumed from what I said there. There is no shred of a threat; I just mean I've had enough feuds in the past few months with editors who have had a go at me for something or another and followed me around. It's draining, and nobody needs that. Ss112 16:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Let me start this by saying I'm sorry where the edit summaries are concerned; when we get emotionally involved and feel a bit personally touched, sometimes we have "foot in our mouths" moments, and that happened to be one of them, and instead of simply walking away or coming to you directly, I acted in poor manner, so I do apologize for that. I did remove the word "threat" and worded it much... nicer, and, more descriptive, as again, it's a "foot in the mouth" gut reaction, which is something I am often guilty of having. Trust and believe, I have enough shit to deal with in my real-life, that very last thing I'd want is a feud, haha. livelikemusic talk! 16:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Sorry, didn't notice you'd changed the message, I only saw that initial wording. I apologise if you feel that I've taken issue with you personally; it's never been that. I've always felt that you've acted in good faith and not edited out of spite or any retaliatory manner, so it's never been a personal issue with you for me. Anyway, glad it's sorted and that we're on the same page. Ss112 16:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Same, hence why I did bring it to your attention, in the hopes of not feeling the way I was, which I no longer am! :-) livelikemusic talk! 16:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

MDNA album cover

Hi, I have noticed that the cover art that is being used for MDNA album is the deluxe edition cover. However, at wikipedia arent we supposed to use standard edition covers. Do you think it will be right if I change it to the standard edition cover? Kind regards. Karan KARANSUTTA (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@KARANSUTTA: Haven't you asked this exact question before? I assume the deluxe edition cover is being used for a reason. Maybe look back through Talk:MDNA (album) and/or establish consensus at the talk page for the change. Ss112 00:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Madame X

Hi there, I’m on mobile, so I can’t really add it myself, but here’s a source for the deluxe box set bonus tracks for Madame X: https://cdon.se/musik/madonna/madame-x-deluxe-box-set-2cd-7-picture-disc-vinyl-music-cassette-47458511 — Status (talk · contribs) 18:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Status: Done! Ss112 18:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"Purpose in Pain" --> "Purpose for Pain"

Gah!, thanks for correcting my typo. Happy editing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: the edit

This edit. Just letting you know, it's just how the cite web thing built into Wiki made it, not my intention. :) --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

About the initial view count of the "Me!" video by Taylor Swift feat. Brendon Urie

In the ME! (Taylor Swift song) page, I commented that the music video (which premiered 2h ago) had an initial view count of 451,354 views. I watched the premiere and the peak number of views here is about 470,000 views, but it was only updated every 45s or so. It stayed at that number since the Youtube premiere ended. This edit soon got rejected.

I wonder, how can you get the number of unique viewers at the time the video premiered on Youtube? I am still waiting for the first 24-hour view count.

For a proof I got this number, here is the image: --MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@--MULLIGANACEOUS--: Thank you for the screenshots (which have now been deleted, hence I have removed the red links in your comment), but we would need a news source for that claim of initial views. We can't really source screenshots. Regardless, I don't think the amount of views before the video debuted is that significant. Swift's achieved a 24-hour record with the video now—that's more significant. Anyway, you might not be bothered about this anymore. Ss112 10:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I haven't been that of a Wikipedian editor (though I am the editor of the Candy Crush Wikias). My favorite genres nevertheless is metal, gangsta rap, and classical, though other non-mainstream genres and jazz are also in my collection. To be honest I am not a fan of any pop artist, though I do appreciate Taylor Swift's immense popularity and mainstream-ness which can be demonstrated by the number of people who watched her premiere.

SS112, what is your favorite genres of music and artists? Do you listen purchased music, stream music, or listen on the radio? How often do you track music charts such as the Billboards?--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Bananarama 'In Stereo' ARIA albums chart peak.

In Stereo is listed as debuting at #435 in this thread on australian-charts.com - https://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=58736 . bulion = Gavin Ryan, who authored the books containing ARIA chart peaks between 1988 and 2010.Nqr9 (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Your email

Hi, thanks for your email. I was out all day at meta:Meetup/Oxford/71 yesterday so I've only just read it and it will take time to digest, so I'm not sure I can do much until this evening. You may want to ask another admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Gaon Album Chart

I wonder if you can add Twice Fancy You to it since they sold over 250,000 in just 3 three days. Thank You Malachi Bourbon (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Malachi Bourbon: The official Gaon chart is published in a couple of days. Anything before that is basically just estimates. If you have a reliable source for the sales, then you can add it to the article. Ss112 07:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Question for iTunes and Amazon

I know iTunes and Amazon are unreliable sources but are these sources are okay to use for release dates instead of promoting these websites for sales? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: There are plenty of users who don't agree with using them at all, but per WP:RS (specifically WP:AFFILIATE) they are okay to be used (although it does say news sources are preferred). Has a user told you they should not be used? It looks like you've been removing these from articles that you edit frequently, and I do see you do this a lot after another editor has an opinion and tells you something... Ss112 01:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Another editor koavf has been removing iTunes, Amazon and Tidal in some articles lately. For example, these edits here [3] [4]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And in most of those cases, the reason why is that Tidal was being used for liner notes--just cite the liner notes. There's no reason to arbitrarily choose your favorite online store to provide free advertising. I have left some links to Tidal where I thought it was appropriate but almost all of them weren't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

To sneak in again: there was a recent discussion about this with WikiProject Albums and on WT:RS as I recall. I can find diffs if that's helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Koavf, per WP:AFFILIATE (which is a section of WP:RS), e-commerce sites are still considered acceptable as sources to cite basic album information like release dates (news sources are preferred, but it does not say "cannot be used at all"). You don't need to systematically remove these sources on every article you come across because they also sell a product. They also supply basic information and that's all I've ever seen editors use them for. Nobody links to these sites on Wikipedia to try to help sell the album. Nobody's choosing their "favorite store". It's not some kind of cardinal sin to cite a store for basic information. Also, some albums don't have physical versions with liner notes. Ss112 01:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless there has been a broad consensus to never use e-commerce sites...then it's just users with differing opinions. Ss112 01:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No one said anything about liner notes being physical. You can cite an e-book just like can cite a dead trees book. If Tidal is being used for album credits or track listings (which don't need to be sourced at all), then just cite the liner notes directly and someone who gets the digital album from whatever retailer will have access to that information. It can be verified easily at many sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Great, but this is sounding like your preference—noted, but they're still allowed. Some albums also don't have "e-books" or even digital liner notes available from their respective artists' stores (admittedly not many, but they're out there). Some have just supplied the credits to retailers directly without offering downloads with liner notes themselves. I'm saying there are always points of difference and sometimes even more complete listings at e-commerce sites. Ss112 02:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Then we should have a link to something like AMG which has editorial oversight over its submissions. I'm inclined to say that Discogs or MusicBrainz would be better than a direct link to Tidal, really. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have restore the sources back in the articles. Also in WP:ALBUMAVOID there a note for Amazon that says Retailers in general often have placeholder info or release dates prior to release, so according to the guidelines it's okay to use retailers for release dates. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Discogs is a user-generated website and I don't know how that would be preferable to Tidal at all (it's also listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID). Discogs also always has a link in its sidebar to purchase the album from sellers using the website as well. As does AllMusic, which has an option to stream the album from Amazon Music. So they're basically on the same level as stores directly selling the album. Sites like Spotify and Tidal have the credits supplied to them by record labels. That's about as reliable as one can get. There's no real need for additional oversight, but in the event that there is an error, they have fixed their credits. As for AllMusic's credits, they're always arbitrarily separated and categorised into silly configurations like "Guitar (Electric), Guitar (Acoustic)". Ss112 02:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That being said, there is a disconnect between what WP:ALBUMAVOID and WP:RS (under WP:AFFILIATE) say. ALBUMAVOID says such sites should be "avoided" and that such information can be found at AllMusic, but AllMusic rarely lists albums that have just been announced as well as much information about them in advance of their release at all. Then RS says they're fine to use for basic info. So really, I'm sticking by the broader guideline. If it was a huge no-no, there'd be a lot more noise even for using the sites for basic info than there currently is (besides, there are plenty of quality FAs out there with iTunes as a citation—not that these are perfect by any means, of course). Nobody's here to help sell artists' albums. Ss112 02:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know these things: this is why I brought them up as a kind of nuclear option. The fact that you think no one is here to do promotion is... hard to understand, as it's definitely not true. Where did you get this information about how Spotify and Tidal get liner notes? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: I didn't say nobody is on Wikipedia to promote things. Of course they are, and I have seen plenty of that. I said I have never seen a user use links to iTunes or Amazon and the like to try to promote an artist in article space. And in the same way Spotify and Tidal they have songs on their platforms? Where else do you think they get credits from if not supplied to them? Ss112 04:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You're asking me to guess where they get information? Databases? Songwriting credit firms? Directly from artists? I don't know--that's why I asked you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. Of course they get the information from the labels, who supply them with the songs. Ss112 05:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Apologies for jumping in here uninvited, but Koavf, I definitely wouldn't use AllMusic as a source for credits... as Ss112 has pointed out above, they sometimes create their own divisions of musical credits where none exist in the liner notes. In addition, the writing credits aren't always accurate... In the track listing section they often only credit the main songwriter, or none at all, and if you go to the "Credits" section, it simply lists everyone with a writing credit on the album individually as "Composer", with no indication as to who wrote which song (this includes samples). Richard3120 (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

True and liner notes aren't always accurate as well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Japanese sales

Good evening, I'm currently working on the references on the Blackpink discography and I was wondering, because Japanese sales for Blackpink in Your Area, Blackpink and for "Ddu-Du Ddu-Du" are sourced directly through Oricon, but also through TheQoo and through that seems to be TheQoo screenshots. TheQoo seems to be a forum, for Korean fans of Japanese pop culture and therefore fails WP:GOODREFS. You definitely know more about this than I do and TheQoo is used in literally every discography of Korean artist. So is the source even acceptable?--Lirim | Talk 20:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about Fake Love (BTS song)

I've noticed that there has been added a certification entry (Platinum) for streaming (South Korea), and units/sales written 100 million. But, even though this kind of certification does exist (for streaming), i don't think that this entry in this format is valid, as Korea does not have SPS, so can it really be considered sales/units? i can't think of a solution/possible format change for this? I'd really appreciate your input, thank you! Kleool (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If Children and The Louder I Call, The Faster It Runs

Hi Ss112, could you upload the cover art for these albums please? All their other album articles have cover art. Theo Mandela (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Done. Ss112 00:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Really appreciated, thanks. Theo Mandela (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No Lo Trates

Hi, I noticed your edit summary on Daddy Yankee's discography about the song "No Lo Trates". I suppose it was directed to me. I want to clarify that I didn't move "No Lo Trates" to the As featured artist sub-section because of its underperformance (for Daddy Yankee's standards). I did it because the single was released under Pitbull's record label Mr. 305, it is going to be included on his album Libertad 547 and its music video premiered on his YouTube channel. I see it as a Pitbull song and that's why I searched music websites that credited Natti Natasha and Daddy Yankee as guest artists. I think that the trend of giving various artists the same lead credit on a song is misleading to some discographies in Wikipedia because some years ago the same singles would have been a "featuring". I suppose record labels do that for marketing, but I can't do anything if every music magazine credits them as lead acts, and it's fine. Brankestein (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Brankestein: I didn't know if you had done it or not; it could have been an IP editor for all I know, as that has been a reason why editors have moved singles around in the past (including demoting underperforming singles to "promotional singles"). Whatever the reason for the credit or the way the music market is at the moment, the reality is, even if it was spearheaded by Pitbull, all three artists receive equal credit as lead artists. Ss112 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Zuu

Hi Ss112, could you upload the cover art for the upcoming Denzel Curry album please? Theo Mandela (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Done. Ss112 00:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Madison Beer

Hey! I just noticed that "All Day and Night", a song Madison Beer is featured on, is pretty high in the UK charts. Would you be able to add it to her discography chart section? I'd do it myself but I honestly have no idea where to start, and you're the best musical chart editor on here, by far. – DarkGlow (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: It's already in the chart table, below "Hurts Like Hell". Ss112 14:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't word that very well; apologies. I meant the actual chart placement, if that makes sense? – DarkGlow (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Done. As there was already the recommended maximum of 10 charts, I changed the Swedish Heatseeker chart to the UK Singles Chart. Ss112 14:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Music Barnstar
		Mainly for your work on James Arthur and NF (rapper), my two favourite artists (they're amazing, man), but also in general – I've seen you more than once! Thanks! —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (Talk – Contribs) 21:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: He, just realised you reverted my first ever edit. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 22:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, guess I could give some feedback: for the next time, just refer to MOS:MINORWORKS ;-) —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 22:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Biscuit-in-Chief: Thank you! And I don't remember making that edit... Sorry if that came across as unnecessarily blunt and/or harsh. It's good you stuck around though. Ss112 01:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

File Mover Rights

Hello Ss112. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Ad Orientem (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

EditorE

108.17.18.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Are they back again? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: The kinds of articles they're editing and their attitude, I would definitely say so. Ss112 20:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi! I would like to ask you to give me access to a Wikipedia page, called "Pink discography" Thank you! LB2001 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@LB2001: Hi. Thanks for the barnstar, but you don't need to award a user one if you just want to ask something. I can't "give you access" to a Wikipedia page that is protected. You will probably need to make an edit request on Talk:Pink discography (see WP:Edit requests), or you can tell me what you want done here and I can make the edit for you. Ss112 17:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I see you ended up editing the page with no issues anyway. Ss112 17:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Today Was a Good Day

Hi – I see an IP has created two articles for the new Lucy Spraggan album... one under the correct title of Today Was a Good Day, and the other under Today was a good day. They probably realised that the first version had the incorrect title format, but didn't realise they could just move the latter title to the former. What would you normally do in this case, leave the second title as a redirect, or delete it, seeing as it's identical apart from the letter case, and therefore wouldn't show up as anything different in a search? Richard3120 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It looks like a reasonable search term. I'd leave it as a redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: thanks, that was my preference as well. Richard3120 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I redirected the lower-case article to the correctly capitalised one (and tagged with Template:R from other capitalisation), as the content was moved by the IP editor themselves so there's no real problems with attribution. Ss112 23:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks – it was just a minor thing that needed to be tided up, I just wasn't sure how to do it. Richard3120 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Bad Bunny songs

Hi – there's a couple of articles that need tidying up, if you get a chance... I'd do it myself, but I'm heading off for the bank holiday weekend where I am, so I can't get round to it now until Tuesday. 200 MPH (Bad Bunny & Diplo song) just needs to be merged or redirected to 200 MPH (song), I haven't checked fully to see if they're identical, but I think they are. The other one is more complicated – Solo de Mí (Bad Bunny song) has to be redirected to Solo de Mi, but the title of the latter needs changing (it should have the accent on the "í"), and also its talk page is currently showing "Talk:X 100pre", so that needs fixing as well. The IP account who made these articles is now blocked. Richard3120 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Solo de Mí (Bad Bunny song) predated Solo de Mi, so I redirected the latter to the former and moved the former to Solo de Mí. As for 200 MPH, there didn't appear to be enough coverage on either, so both have been redirected. There's a lot of sockpuppetry and suspicious behaviour around these Bad Bunny song redirects and articles. A sockmaster by the name of DB Dilan Brechero has had a go trying to make them a number of times. Ss112 00:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor

Can you revert this edit for me, this editor have a history of edit warring with other editors. They are harassing me too [5]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: It appears they've been given a final warning now, so  Done. Ss112 01:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I reported the edits to Bbb23. They have been warned but the editor reverted the warning and if you look at my talk page, the editor is harassing me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: They've been blocked now. See Special:Contributions/ColorTheoryRGB. Ss112 01:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for the help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Happiness Begins

Thanks for the correction on the album, definitely makes more sense and thanks for advice on my talk page. Got it. VladBlad (talk) 1:22 6, June 2019 (UTC)

The Billboard link does not include PJ Harvey, Mike Ness or any of the supposed co-writers and producers anywhere in it. I'm looking at the metadata and I don't see some of these names, like Jerry Harrison or Juliana Hatfield there either. Do you have a direct link that includes them? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doc Strange: Even though i just opened a section about this at your talk page and you should have replied there, you'll notice I already removed the collaborators not mentioned in the Billboard source before your message. Those were added by others, not me. You also removed all the credits, not just select names that weren't sourced. That's what I took issue with. I didn't add any of the credits beyond "Sucker" and "Cool", because those had been released as singles at the time I added the credits. Ss112 04:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like your instincts in removing most of the credits turned out to be right, as most were fabricated. I admit, I was starting to think they were a bit fanciful after seeing Fatboy Slim and Butch Vig amongst them. Ss112 05:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah no worries, I erred on the side of caution and removed all of them until we got a source for the credits of every song (like the Apple metadata link), because so many of the credits were ridiculous and that quote was bogus. (I also blanked and forgot pings were something you could do, and that's why I posted here). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

5 Seconds of Summer#Musical style, influences and band status

Hi Ss112, could you add a section about the influences for the upcoming fourth album as well as the track "Easier" please? here they say "there is a darker tone to this record intentionally" and "a growing attention to industrial rhythm within the band." They cite "dark, synth-heavy" groups of the eighties and nineties like Depeche Mode, Tears for Fears and, more specifically, Nine Inch Nails' "Closer" as inspiration, as well as recent music from Gesaffelstein, HEALTH, St. Vincent, Disclosure and Bob Moses. Theo Mandela (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Done, but can I ask why you didn't just add? You basically typed it out right there above. Ss112 07:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I usually end up quoting the source too closely, I think you're better at paraphrasing, but I'll have a go next time. Thanks Theo Mandela (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

In My Bed

Last night I added "In My Bed" as a single on Sabrina's discography, however, from looking at her recent tweets, I'd say it's a promotional single; as you receive it when you preorder the album. Before I added it, I thought to ask you; what do you think? – DarkGlow (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Yeah, I mean, a song that you receive automatically when you pre-order an album is usually a promo because it's the incentive to pre-order so it's intended to promote the album solely and not necessarily have a release on its own. Although many promos do go on to be full singles and get music video and radio treatment... Ss112 08:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

She Is Miley Cyrus

Just a quick question... theoretically this should be marked as "future-class" on the Albums WikiProject, but it's currently rated as "start-class". However, I'm not certain whether it's worthwhile changing it to future-class until it's actually released... I don't know whether there is some convention that says once an album has been rated, it shouldn't be changed back to future-class? Any thoughts? Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I don't believe there is a guideline relating to it. Some editors prefer future, some prefer rating it whatever they feel it is at the time, even if it hasn't been released. Ss112 15:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it's probably not worth messing around with it. By the way, as you probably look out for song articles more than anyone else, you may want to cast an eye over the Indian and Pakistani song articles created by the editors Manupriy Ahluwalia and Dramanrama... at present most of them appear to be borderline notability at best, but I don't know if there are better sources in other languages. Richard3120 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Me!

On 8 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Me!, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that spelling is fun, according to Taylor Swift? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Me!. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Me!), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A special thanks

I would like to thank u for all the Edits u made in recent years... I'm really impressed. Wikipedia is lucky to have u😉. MotherofSnakes (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The billboard is buggy.

So there seems to be a glitch on the billboard website when I check the charts. It says that all of the songs peak positions are either 1, 2, or 3. Is this happening for you too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoolKabuto (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@KoolKabuto: Yes, it's happening for everybody. People are talking about it on different sites. Ss112 15:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Kim Petras

I don't want to edit the Clarity article while you have the construction template up, but do you mind adding Template:Kim Petras to the article? Also, do you mind if I add this (and possibly your other LGBT-related article contributions) to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2019/Results, which showcases new and improved LGBT content during June? Of course, you're welcome to update the list on your own, if you'd like. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Believe it or not, I was actually going to make that template earlier! I thought there were too few articles to link to, though, as another template I created recently, Template:Bhad Bhabie, is "in the process of being deleted" after one or two were redirected and taken off it, and it was nominated and consensus was to delete. So I was a bit hesitant... I didn't know about the tour article though, that's one more I suppose. And sure, you can add them to the list. Ss112 18:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ss112, Thanks! Sometimes great minds think alike. :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

J. Cole discography

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please self-revert your edits at J. Cole discography. "The London" was originally added to the article as a featured single. A talk page discussion for consensus was already started before your reverts. I suggest participating in the discussion to avoid edit warring. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: We should not have inconsistent credits on different articles. They should be uniform until consensus is achieved wherever. You literally are already discussing the issue across two different articles, and I already participated at one. Don't act like you think I didn't. Consensus can be achieved at one of those talk pages to affect the credit across the three artists' discographies and the song article. Ss112 04:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Also, stop bothering me with pings. I already asked you not to ping me. You are just being obnoxious at this point. (I am pinging you to inform you, not to annoy you, as you have not asked not to be.) Ss112 04:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll stop using the pings. I've redirected all other talk page discussions to the one at Talk:The London (song)#Credits now. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright, want to note that edit on J. Cole discography took place before you created the article, so wouldn't that make it the credits that stood first? Shouldn't we keep it that way (with featured artists) before reaching a consensus? Genuine question. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: It's already in dispute—it doesn't matter what happened first everywhere at this point because you are discussing it, but as I said, we should not have different articles using different credits just because one editor made an edit at a different article saying something different a few minutes before another. The only thing I said applied to being "first" was for The London article, which I told you I knew because I was the one who did. Ss112 04:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so at "The London" article you reverted it to what the credits were initially listed on that article (co-billed). Yet, an editor had earlier listed it differently on another article (featured artist). So, since it's at dispute, and your reasoning for reverting edits on "The London" was based on what's earliest, shouldn't the three articles have Cole and Scott listed as features since that was what was edited first? Then change that based on a consensus reached? It just seems to me that it's unfair you reverted the edits of Fejkxk 64.229.172.71, and myself just because you happened to put up the credits you initially saw on the article for the song.

So at least it should be listed with features for the discography page since that's what it was before you disputed that, and we wait for consensus. Otherwise, all pages should have the features listed as we wait to reach consensus. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: I didn't directly undo Fejkxk or anybody else when I made that edit, I was making the articles consistent after I created the song article. You are getting bogged down in specificities and trying out to pull out some trump card on me like "this editor made this edit at this article before you so their decision should apply to every other article". What aren't you getting when I say you are already disputing the equal credit billing and you even added inline tags to each of the articles. Get over it—you will get a consensus either way. Stop bothering me with this and just go on about seeking consensus. I don't want another two paragraphs here. Ss112 04:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brazilian certification

Hi, Ss112 please see this discussion on your edit: Talk:Lauren_Jauregui_discography. Lapadite (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Leaving one last comment here. Obviously it's cool if you delete it.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your work on Radiohead articles - your work on fixing up chart stuff in particular is essential, and the kind of thing I'm very bad at (I'm more of a prose editor). I would hate to think I've chased you off helping improve these articles in the future. Please know I say this with sincerity, no snark intended. Take care. Popcornduff (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for setting me straight

FYI I did check the link, but I must have missed the chart position. Shuipzv3 (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

why

why don't you use album covers on articles that way? Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Leavepuckgackle1998: Because that single cover only has a rationale for use on one article. Fair use is claimed on Wikipedia when the artwork is used in an article about the release, not as mere decoration on the artist's article. Ss112 04:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Story of Me

Hello! I hate to bug editors about projects that they have no interest in, but you’re the person that knows how to do this. A few months ago, I created the Story of Me article, but I’m unsure how to upload the album cover art for it. You’re, by far, the best musical related editor on here that I’ve come across, and I know you’d be able to do it. If you can, could you help me out? It’d be much appreciated! – DarkGlow (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: It's no trouble. Thanks for the compliment. As for the upload,  Done Ss112 23:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Would I be cheeky to ask if you could do High Heeled Shoes too? – DarkGlow (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow:  Done Ss112 23:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I just noticed the removal of the UK Download Chart; does that mean it should be removed from her discography? Also, "Far Cry From Love" is listed as a single but it's a B-side that charted.. not too sure what to do about that – DarkGlow (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: As long as the artist hasn't charted on enough international charts when/if the discography (section or article) has 10 columns and a component chart isn't taking up the place of a country where the artist has also charted that could be in its place instead, it's fine to leave a component chart on discographies. Some might be hardline about that, but most users don't worry. Personally I don't add them myself, though. I've moved "Far Cry from Love" to a separate other charted songs subsection. Ss112 00:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

French Charts

Hey, I was just checking some of Little Mix’s old pages and I noticed that the French chart entries that have been added are a download chart rather than the main combined chart, is that chart still ok to add to pages now or should France only be added if the song charted on the main chart? I hope that makes sense.

Thanks Lmarmy (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lmarmy: If the songs you're referring to only charted on the download chart, then it's fine to include on the songs' articles, and as a note in the column on Little Mix's discography (but should not be used as a substitute for lack of a position on the main French chart in the French column on their discography). Ss112 19:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clearing that up as I didn’t want to add a chart that shouldn’t be there. I also believe that you’re the editor who usually updates the French charts so I didn’t want to tread on your toes.

Thanks again! Lmarmy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please don't take this as a personal dig - I certainly appreciate all of your work on wikipedia. But maybe you could do some more self-reflection when it comes to the tone of some of your posts and edit summaries. I'm not just referring to your recent message on my talk page, where you assumed I would feel a certain way (which was wrong - I don't even really care for any of PJ Harvey's music post-2000), but I've noticed a general tone of hostility in posts you've left on others' talk pages that I've seen - even when they're clearly in the wrong. It is not necessary. As the opening line of your talk page reads: "Please be civil, and don't leave condescending messages." I think we could all do more of that.Nqr9 (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nqr9: You've said this before. I know. You certainly would not be monitoring everything I say to everybody; that would be unreasonable. I personally know when what I'm saying could be interpreted as condescending (even though that's not the intention), but I believe there is plenty I say to established and newer editors that is not condescending and could not be taken that way whatsoever. Perhaps you've just seen the times when I'm annoyed (which happens to the best of us) or something has gotten heated. Noted. Also, as I have told you before, you are not the first to raise that the introduction to my talk page says "please be civil". That's primarily for people coming to my talk page and was intended to warn people I told not to post here to not further do so. It is not necessarily intended for everyday editors. If you or others don't wish for people to have a potential tone of condescension in what they say to you, you can have an introductory note or "warning" like I do. I'm not saying I never or don't try to practice what I preach, which would be a double standard or hypocrisy, but when something may be "condescending" it's not unnecessarily lapsing into straight-up incivility. My message to you was not just about PJ Harvey—it was far broader. I have seen the "issue" on more than one discography (I actually noticed it at another discography before Harvey's). I'm not really interested in saying anything more about this, because this raising of "look at how you conduct yourself" presumes I don't already police (some of) what I say, and immediately sets whomever it is sent to on the defensive. Thanks. Ss112 00:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's your prerogative. But you have actually stated false information in the edit summaries removing these peaks, claiming e.g. on two separate occasions a peak of 334 "would be single-digital sales", and "(c)hart peaks as low as 887 would be literally single-digit sales." That's a discrepancy of over 500 places there for one/single digit sales. It's that kind of unnecessary, and in this instance false, information in your edit summaries that comes across as inflammatory and hostile.Nqr9 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nqr9: That's not "false information", that's a reasonable assumption. Did I say I was an authority on the matter? Are you? No. Neither of us are. Do you know how many sales a peak of 334 or 887 would equate to? Because I could guess, based on the information Gavin Ryan and co. at australian-charts.com have posted and how low sales get past 50, let alone 100, even back in the 2000s. Wow, maybe 334 in that given week was 12 sales and 884 was one. Big whoop.

Also, you could have posted this at your own talk page. I don't enjoy "conversations" or a string of messages being sent in succession being split between two talk pages, no matter what is being brought up. I think you posted this here to let people who follow my talk page know you're calling my tone or messages to people in general into question. As I just pointed out, you are not the first to do so. I'm not perfect; I don't act like I am nor act like I never make mistakes, nor do I act like my behaviour is exemplary. I'm not a role model, nor am I here to set an example to anybody of what to act like or how to conduct themselves on Wikipedia. Nobody is above being called out here, but I don't think posting here when you already were replying on your talk page was necessary. I'd appreciate it you keeping it in one place in future.

Please be straight up in future: you don't like what I said to you. Don't act like the spokesperson of the people when your primary issue is with how I made you feel with my apparently "hostile" and "inflammatory" edit summaries. That was my reaction to seeing the edits of somebody who repeatedly adds ridiculously low, irrelevant peaks to basically every music article they come across. I still stand behind what I said. Nothing was particularly uncivil, it was a reaction and justification all in one. Ss112 00:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.